jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/03/84)
I would like to explore some problems associated with frozen embryos.
These problems can be extended to include other embryos and fetuses
that do not have the support of a woman's womb.
As you recall, the mother and father of the Australian embryos
died in a plane crash. The original intention was to implant
the embryos, at some later time, in their mother's womb. The death
of the mother raised the following question: What should be done
with the orphaned embryos?
There could be other instances where we may encounter similar
situations. Say, for some medical reason a woman cannot continue
her pregnancy, as she spontaneously aborts the fetus or the embryo.
Since technology allows us now to transplant embryos in a surrogate
mothers, we are faced with the question: What should we do with
the embryos?
For the sake of the discussion, I will assume a pro-life stance.
I shall make the following assumptions:
1. There is no willing surrogate mother for the embryo implant.
2. We don't have an artificial womb to support the life of the
embryo.
3. We know that woman X is the only available and suitable
candidate for an embryo transplant.
4. Unfortunately, X is a heartless person, who refuses to offer
her body for the transplant.
The simple question is: Should we force her to accept the embryo in her
body? If she does not, the embryo dies. Can that woman's inconvenience
- carrying the fetus for nine month in her body - supersede the
fetus's right to life? Is the inconvenience of one individual more
important than another individual's right to life?
Some may say that X is not responsible for the existence of the embryo,
since other individuals (natural parents) are responsible for its
conception. Why then should X carry the moral burden of our society,
and be the provider of a womb for that embryo? Yet, on the other hand,
we cannot blame the embryo for its existence. It had no say in this matter.
Why should it die, when we know it can grow to a full human baby in
X's body.
My questions to pro-lifers are:
a. Does the embryo have the right to life?
b. Is woman X's inconvenience more important than the embryo's life?
c. Should woman X be forced by society to carry the fetus in her
body against her will?
This sounds like an hypothetical case. The Australian embryos
and improving technology suggest that this case may not be so
hypothetical after all.
--
Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jhojohnston@spp1.UUCP (12/04/84)
> > I would like to explore some problems associated with frozen embryos. > These problems can be extended to include other embryos and fetuses > that do not have the support of a woman's womb. > > As you recall, the mother and father of the Australian embryos > died in a plane crash. The original intention was to implant > the embryos, at some later time, in their mother's womb. The death > of the mother raised the following question: What should be done > with the orphaned embryos? > > There could be other instances where we may encounter similar > situations. Say, for some medical reason a woman cannot continue > her pregnancy, as she spontaneously aborts the fetus or the embryo. > > Since technology allows us now to transplant embryos in a surrogate > mothers, we are faced with the question: What should we do with > the embryos? > > For the sake of the discussion, I will assume a pro-life stance. > I shall make the following assumptions: > > 1. There is no willing surrogate mother for the embryo implant. > > 2. We don't have an artificial womb to support the life of the > embryo. > > 3. We know that woman X is the only available and suitable > candidate for an embryo transplant. > > 4. Unfortunately, X is a heartless person, who refuses to offer > her body for the transplant. > > The simple question is: Should we force her to accept the embryo in her > body? If she does not, the embryo dies. Can that woman's inconvenience > - carrying the fetus for nine month in her body - supersede the > fetus's right to life? Is the inconvenience of one individual more > important than another individual's right to life? > > Some may say that X is not responsible for the existence of the embryo, > since other individuals (natural parents) are responsible for its > conception. Why then should X carry the moral burden of our society, > and be the provider of a womb for that embryo? Yet, on the other hand, > we cannot blame the embryo for its existence. It had no say in this matter. > Why should it die, when we know it can grow to a full human baby in > X's body. > > My questions to pro-lifers are: > > a. Does the embryo have the right to life? > b. Is woman X's inconvenience more important than the embryo's life? > c. Should woman X be forced by society to carry the fetus in her > body against her will? > > This sounds like an hypothetical case. The Australian embryos > and improving technology suggest that this case may not be so > hypothetical after all. > -- > > Yosi Hoshen > Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois > (312)-979-7321 > Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho The analogy fails. If nothing is done, then the two cases have different results. A positive, overt act must be performed to abort a fetus, but a positive act would not be necessary for the orphaned embryo to die. A better analogy might be the case of someone being murdered with the possibility of another stopping it. It would be nice if they did and in fact there are "good samaritan" laws, but its a highly debatable point as to whether the reluctant observer is morally responsible for the life. Mike Johnston
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/10/84)
In a recent article, I posed some questions to pro-lifers. As
yet I received only one "pro-life" response. And that
response did not address the questions.
I presented the following scenario: we have a frozen embryo which
needs an immediate implant in a woman's womb, otherwise
it will die. (The case of the Australian embryos suggests that my
scenario is not a science fiction possibility).
For the sake of the discussion, I assumed a pro-life stance.
I made the following assumptions:
1. There is no willing surrogate mother for the embryo implant.
2. We don't have an artificial womb to support the life of the
embryo.
3. We know that woman X is the only available and suitable
candidate for an embryo transplant.
4. Unfortunately, X is a heartless person, who refuses to offer
her body for the transplant.
I asked the pro-lifers the following questions:
a. Does the embryo have the right to life?
b. Is woman X's inconvenience more important than the embryo's life?
c. Should woman X be forced by society to carry the fetus in her
body against her will?
Mike Johnston replied: =}
}The analogy fails. If nothing is done, then the two cases have different
}results. A positive, overt act must be performed to abort a fetus, but a
}positive act would not be necessary for the orphaned embryo to die. A
}better analogy might be the case of someone being murdered with the
}possibility of another stopping it. It would be nice if they did and in
}fact there are "good samaritan" laws, but its a highly debatable point as
}to whether the reluctant observer is morally responsible for the life.
If you notice, I did not present an analogy. I presented a scenario and
questions.
The difference between pregnancy introduced by sexual intercourse
and an embryo transplant is only in the method the embryo is placed in the
womb. Both methods require outside intervention (except possibly for the
rather rare event of an immaculate conception) yet lead to the same
result. Compared to the pregnancy and birth, both methods of placing the
embryo in the womb can only be viewed as a minor inconvenience.
I am rather surprised that you so casually approach the issue of
the preservation of life. I had thought that the "pro-life"
philosophy maintains that life is sacred and should be
preserved. Remember, we are talking about inconvenience to a woman
versus the certain death of the embryo. You seem to draw a line on the
extent to which we should go to preserve life. If you start drawing
a line, why shouldn't that line be drawn at a different point in the
human life cycle (e.g. birth)?
--
Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jhojohnston@spp1.UUCP (12/12/84)
> In a recent article, I posed some questions to pro-lifers. As > yet I received only one "pro-life" response. And that > response did not address the questions. > > I presented the following scenario: we have a frozen embryo which > needs an immediate implant in a woman's womb, otherwise > it will die. (The case of the Australian embryos suggests that my > scenario is not a science fiction possibility). > > For the sake of the discussion, I assumed a pro-life stance. > I made the following assumptions: > > 1. There is no willing surrogate mother for the embryo implant. > > 2. We don't have an artificial womb to support the life of the > embryo. > > 3. We know that woman X is the only available and suitable > candidate for an embryo transplant. > > 4. Unfortunately, X is a heartless person, who refuses to offer > her body for the transplant. > > I asked the pro-lifers the following questions: > > a. Does the embryo have the right to life? > b. Is woman X's inconvenience more important than the embryo's life? > c. Should woman X be forced by society to carry the fetus in her > body against her will? > > > Mike Johnston replied: =} > > }The analogy fails. If nothing is done, then the two cases have different > }results. A positive, overt act must be performed to abort a fetus, but a > }positive act would not be necessary for the orphaned embryo to die. A > }better analogy might be the case of someone being murdered with the > }possibility of another stopping it. It would be nice if they did and in > }fact there are "good samaritan" laws, but its a highly debatable point as > }to whether the reluctant observer is morally responsible for the life. > > If you notice, I did not present an analogy. I presented a scenario and > questions. > An analogy is defined as a resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. What you presented was both a scenario and an analogy, the analogy, I assumed to be between your scenario and abortion since that was the net group it was posted in. The difference I found was that, in the case of abortion, one and only one person holds the thread between life and death. In your scenario, the ones keeping the freezer are included and (Is it ever possible that only one woman on the entire planet would qualify for a recipient) there could be other qualified recipients. A bigger difference was already stated. It is dependent on the individual case, whether an act of omission makes a person responsible for someone's death. But a positive act, with the intent to cease a life, is different. Let me state another analogy. If ten people were stuck on a railroad track with a diesel barrelling down on them, and try as I might, I could only get five off before the train hit them, would I be responsible for the deaths of the others. Before you claim, I'm not keeping with your analogy, let's expand it to include ten frozen embryos, only one qualified woman X on the planet, and the impossibility of being implanted with all (make it a 100) to be sure. Is the only qualified woman responsible for the embryos that couldn't be implanted. > I am rather surprised that you so casually approach the issue of > the preservation of life. I had thought that the "pro-life" > philosophy maintains that life is sacred and should be > preserved. Remember, we are talking about inconvenience to a woman > versus the certain death of the embryo. You seem to draw a line on the > extent to which we should go to preserve life. If you start drawing > a line, why shouldn't that line be drawn at a different point in the > human life cycle (e.g. birth)? > -- > > Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho I will grant that every step possible should be taken to preserve a life and I hope people everywhere attempt to do so. Its unfortunate when steps like this are not taken, yet it doesn't compare to steps whose result (regardless of the intent) is to end a life. Points like this are interesting as are incest and rape (and don't get me wrong, a life is involved in each case). But in terms, of sheer numbers they don't compare to the numbers of abortions performed under different situations. Mike Johnston
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (12/17/84)
In recent article, I presented the following scenario concerning a frozen embryo: A frozen embryo who needs an immediate transplant in a woman's womb in order to survive. A woman, Ms. X, is the only woman that is available for the embryo transplant. However, Ms. X refuses to allow the transplant. The question is: Should Ms. X be forced to accept the transplant? Mike Johnston answered: A bigger difference was already stated. It is dependent on the individual case, whether an act of omission makes a person responsible for someone's death. But a positive act, with the intent to cease a life, is different. Clearly, Mike does not think that in this case Ms. X should not be coerced to carry the embryo in her womb against her will, although her refusal means the embryo will die. It is apparent that Mike is drawing a line on the extent to which we should go to preserve life. However, other people, who have different moral standards, have alternate demarkation lines. Pro-lifers claim that their standards are the correct ones, whereas other standards are the wrong ones. I feel that every person, including the pro-lifers, is entitled to his/her world view. But what I object to, is the pro-lifers attempts to coerce others to adhere to the "pro-lifer" moral code. Mike continues: Points like this [frozen embryos - I guess] are interesting as are incest and rape (and don't get me wrong, a life is involved in each case). But in terms, of sheer numbers they don't compare to the numbers of abortions performed under different situations. I agree that forcing implantation of frozen embryos is similar to rape. I also maintain that coercing woman to carry their unwanted fetus in their womb is also equivalent to rape. In this case the rapist would be our society. Now, lets talk about rape. Rape appears to be an area in which pro-lifers seem to have difficulties. For example, Thomas Newton writes }: }The case of pregnancies resulting from rape is really nasty since the fetus }who is "trespassing" is innocent and not responsible for its actions. In }this case, the woman should not be forced to actively support the fetus, but }every attempt should be made to perform a "live" abortion. If the fetus dies, }the rapist should be faced with a manslaughter charge (he caused its death in }much the same way that careless drivers cause the deaths of other people). If }it lives, the rapist should be forced to pay for the cost of its upbringing. Some pro-lifers "permit" abortion in the case of rape, since the woman "is not at fault", and therefore should not be "punished". Pro-lifers claim that rape is not a very significant factor in pregnancies, forgetting that many cases of rape are not reported. Sometimes husbands force their wives to have sexual intercourse. In this case, the woman is not at fault (unless you assume that married woman does not have the right to deny her husband's sexual pleasures). The problem is how to distinguishes between a voluntary sex act and a forced sex act in cases involving abortion? Should an abortion be permitted only if the rapist is convicted of his crime? Should we have a Thought Police, or an Inquisition? Or should an abortion be permitted if a woman has two black eyes, and disallowed if a woman has only one black eye? It is quite clear that in many cases it would be next to impossible to determine the level of consent (or force) in a sex act. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho