View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-04-2008, 01:04 AM
sunnyside sunnyside is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,515
usa
sunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to beholdsunnyside is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 11,109
Default Should we fund technological solutions?

Part of the abortion debate is when a fetus is viable. I don't think it would be too hard to pass legislation requiring viable fetuses to be delivered instead of aborted.

So should people who believe abortion is murder be looking to methods of preserving life earlier and earlier. In principle it should be possible to make artificial wombs so that there never has to be another abortion and women can still have their right to chose. For example at week 10 the baby still shouldn't be inconveniencing the mother much but it's got a developed umbilical cord. In principle you should be able to hook it up to a source of nutrients and then suspend it in fluid while bathing it in the appropriate chemicals at the appropriate times.

This could come from the government channeling research funds. But could possibly better be served by a private enterprise. Would pro lifers be willing to give? What about some pro-choicers? Presumably there are some who value a fetus less than eight months of discomfort but possibly enough more than a wart to merit a donation.

Would people have a problem with the research required? (Which would probably involve trying different methods out on fetus that are aborted until they get it worked out. Bear in mind at least this way the kid would have a chance of being the lucky one that it works right for the first time for.).

Last edited by sunnyside; 03-04-2008 at 01:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest