msc@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Murray Campbell) (04/25/85)
I would like to get opinions from people (especially those that
would make abortion illegal) on the following hypothetical
situation. Apologies if it has been discussed before.
Suppose a woman and a man, unable to conceive by natural means,
decide to attempt to have a test tube baby (i.e. fertilization
in a test tube, followed by implantation in the woman). They
find a doctor, and the fertilization is successful. At this
point, the woman has second thoughts, and refuses to allow the
fertilized egg to be implanted in her body. The doctor has not
prepared for this eventuality, and does not have the necessary
facilities to sustain the egg for more than a short while. Which
of the following positions would you take?
(1) The baby's overriding right to life dictates that it be implanted
in the woman, by force if necessary.
(2) Every attempt must be made to sustain the newly created life, as
in the case of a premature baby. If it dies, however, there is
no fault on anyone's part.
(3) The fertilized egg is simply discarded, as in an abortion.
(4) Others?
Murray Campbell (msc@cmu-cs-k)pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/29/85)
From Murray Cambell: >I would like to get opinions from people (especially those that >would make abortion illegal) on the following hypothetical >situation. Apologies if it has been discussed before. > >Suppose a woman and a man, unable to conceive by natural means, >decide to attempt to have a test tube baby (i.e. fertilization >in a test tube, followed by implantation in the woman). They >find a doctor, and the fertilization is successful. At this >point, the woman has second thoughts, and refuses to allow the >fertilized egg to be implanted in her body. The doctor has not >prepared for this eventuality, and does not have the necessary >facilities to sustain the egg for more than a short while. Which >of the following positions would you take? > >(1) The baby's overriding right to life dictates that it be implanted > in the woman, by force if necessary. >(2) Every attempt must be made to sustain the newly created life, as > in the case of a premature baby. If it dies, however, there is > no fault on anyone's part. >(3) The fertilized egg is simply discarded, as in an abortion. >(4) Others? None of the above. This event would truly be tragic from the pro-life point of view but the problem I have with discussing hypothetical situations like this is that it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. This one seems designed (as do most others I have seen) to place pro-lifers between a hypothetical "rock and a hard place" as if doing so would uncover serious flaws in the pro-life philosophy. If the hypothetical design proves insufficient for the task, it is often modified to the proponents advantage during the course of argument. (This usually makes the possibility of such a situation actually happening even more remote than it was originally.) For example, I were to say, "Implant it in another woman who wants it". The situation would be modified to say "what if there isn't one?" or the "short while" would be defined to be too short for this. Choices 1 - 3 are loaded against the pro-life view. (Note the words "overriding right" and "by force" in no. 1. No. 2. consigns pro-lifers to futility since the means do not exist to keep the embryo alive outside the womb. Also, it is a direct contradiction of the hypothetical setup since it is specified there that the doctor can only keep it alive for a "short while". No. 3 is obvious.) That leaves the ones for whom the situation was "especially" designed (i.e. those who want abortion to be illegal) with "Other". For my answer, I would reject that hypothetical situation. It's obviously loaded. It stipulates a doctor who necessarily does not have the foresight to handle the woman's second thoughts. The very idea of the couple having second thoughts seems rather absurd at this point. Couples that actually reach this point in their desire to have a child want it BADLY and have wanted it badly for a long time. (Let's not even talk about how many "abortions" we can actually expect to happen this way. I suppose that if we can't take this case into account, we must justify all abortions?) I suppose if the couple left the doctor with this dilemma they shouldn't be allowed to try this procedure again. Any couple who would go through all this and then have "second thoughts" at the crucial moment is playing irresponsibly with human life. It might not be possible to prevent one occurrence of this, it is possible to prevent it from becoming a habit. (We have a similar dilemma in child abuse (i.e. through parental negligence) cases: The first instance of abuse can't be prevented. Steps can be taken to prevent the second one if the first is detected.) I'm sure that pro-choice folks can propose especially designed (with an equal or greater unlikelihood of actual occurrence) hypothetical situations in attempts to "refute" pro-life ideals in the same way that anarchists can do the same to "refute" the idea of government. That certainly doesn't mean that anarchy is to be preferred over government, however. If the pro-life philosophy doesn't cover all the bases (even imaginary or utterly remote ones) to everyone's whimsical satisfaction, some pro-choice advocates feel they've gained a victory. Come on pro-choice folks, do you really think situations like this are what justifies the status quo of abortion on demand in this country? Do you think traffic and safety laws ought to be wiped of the books if they fail to save a life in such hypothetical situations with a tiny probability of actually happening? I may have unfairly picked on the particular person who posted this item. I don't mean this to be against him personally, I'm just using this as an illustration of a general problem I see with the way hypothetical situations are used here. Murray, if you are not trying to use it in the way I think, then I apologize to you (I think you should give us an explanation of why your situation is "loaded" the way it is, however). The problem is that similar situations have been used this way in the past. This is the first one I have bothered responding to and, for the reasons I give above, it will probably be the last. I'm not impressed when pro-choice folks have to resort to such things to defend their position. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
msc@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Murray Campbell) (05/01/85)
>> From me >> I would like to get opinions from people (especially those that >> would make abortion illegal) on the following hypothetical >> situation. Apologies if it has been discussed before. >> >> Suppose a woman and a man, unable to conceive by natural means, >> decide to attempt to have a test tube baby (i.e. fertilization >> in a test tube, followed by implantation in the woman). They >> find a doctor, and the fertilization is successful. At this >> point, the woman has second thoughts, and refuses to allow the >> fertilized egg to be implanted in her body. The doctor has not >> prepared for this eventuality, and does not have the necessary >> facilities to sustain the egg for more than a short while. Which >> of the following positions would you take? >> >> (1) The baby's overriding right to life dictates that it be implanted >> in the woman, by force if necessary. >> (2) Every attempt must be made to sustain the newly created life, as >> in the case of a premature baby. If it dies, however, there is >> no fault on anyone's part. >> (3) The fertilized egg is simply discarded, as in an abortion. >> (4) Others? > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > None of the above. > This event would truly be tragic from the pro-life point of view but the > problem I have with discussing hypothetical situations like this is that > it doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. The purpose of the above (rather contrived) situation is to examine the consequences of allowing full human rights to a single cell. Such questions will become more and more relevant as medical technology advances the borders of fertilization ouside the body. > Choices 1 - 3 are loaded against the pro-life view. (Note the words > "overriding right" Just borrowing words from a pro-lifer (I can't remember who) in this group. There is no need to read any more into it. > and "by force" in no. 1. No. 2. consigns pro-lifers > to futility since the means do not exist to keep the embryo alive outside > the womb. Also, it is a direct contradiction of the hypothetical setup > since it is specified there that the doctor can only keep it alive for > a "short while". No. 3 is obvious.) > There is no contradiction. The choice is between sustaining the life (if only for a short while), and not bothering to even try. I personally would choose 2. The woman may change her mind again, another women may be found in time, or the zygote may survive long enough to be frozen. I see the original situation as similar to a baby is born prematurely, far too early to survive. Options 2 and 3 exist here, as above. Is this situation "loaded" against pro-lifers? Paul, I can understand your argument for not dealing with the situation I described, but I nonetheless wish to examine these sorts of questions. I believe women who intend to undergo in vitro (sp?) fertilization are typically given fertility drugs, causing the production of multiple ova. If more than one egg is fertilized (by accident or design), the unused zygote(s) could be frozen, for later implantation. Would you find such a course acceptable? Suppose (oh oh, here I go again) that medical technology advances to the point where it was possible to remove an embryo (without damage) from a woman at a stage where it could be safely preserved by freezing. Would you find this acceptable? Murray Campbell (msc@cmu-cs-k)