I just asked this to the big guy, but then I noticed I should have asked it here first:
My question concerns abortion, and why we allow the current state of affairs to persist. In the past I used to think the issues were fairly black and white, either pro-choice or pro-life… But once I sat down and thought about it for more than a few minutes, I figured there was actually a fairly simple solution…
Our cryogenic technology seems to be good enough now that we could take aborted embryos and fetuses and freeze them, in the hope that they will be resurrected some day in the future when technology progresses up to the point of implanting them back into women (most likely into the wombs of the anti-abortion activists?). It seems like the ideal solution to me; no more baby deaths, and no more debate on the issue, but still allowing women the “choice” to do what they will with their own bodies. So my question is… Why hasn’t there been any exploration in this arena? Is the technology really not yet there? Are the political reasons why it’s not being done? Is it too expensive to build a freezebortion center? Or is it as simple as no-one has thought of it yet?
QtM I think the OP is refering to the belief that in the future a carefully frozen body (adult or fetus) could be succesfully restored to a healthy living state. I doubt those against abortion would consider the freezing of an embryo any less ‘killing’ them than any other method of termination, since there is scant evidence that a frozen embryo could be restored to a living state.
If a reluctant mother wanted to give her fetus away to someone else, there’s a much simpler and technologically feasible way to do it. It’s called “adoption.”
However, I would imagine that there are cases where there would be too much risk to the mother’s health for adoption to be advisable. But that’s really beside the point. If you want to debate the morality of abortion vs. adoption, there’s an active thread in Great Debates.
Oh sure, sounds good, but pragmatically that’s not going to solve the debate. Finding a way to bring a fetus back to life after freezing, however, would do it. Especially if the initial procedure wasn’t bloody and painful, and if the ressurection success was as high, or at least close to as hight, as normal birth successes.
Well, that’s certianly true, so it does take a fundamental trust in technology that sometime within the next 50-500 years we’ll be able to do it. And even if it turns out it just is never going to be possible, it’s not any worse than what we’ve got now, right?
But we have has success bringing back single cells to life (frozen sperm, etc), so it’s not too much of a leap to think it may be possible with bigger things at some point.
why don’t they just skip the freezing part if they had a waiting list of “serrogat (sp?) adoption mothers”? i don’t know if an embryo would survive this, but i know they’ve taken fetuses out of their mothers in the third trimester to do emergency surgeries and then put them back in the mother (i’m assuming by C-section, of course). i knew a girl who almost had to do this because her baby (fetus) had a severe case of hydrocephalus that needed to be treated immediately. i forget why they didn’t do it tho.
Yeah, there always is. But that wasn’t really my point; I just didn’t see the incentive for the mother to freeze the baby instead of just going ahead and aborting it, assuming she would have aborted anyway.
And if she wouldn’t have aborted anyway, I don’t see the incentive not to carry to term and go through adoption.
In other words, I don’t see what the mother gets out of it either way – abortion or adoption accomlish the same thing, and are easier.
Oh, but I think there may be mothers who don’t really WANT to abort babies, but feel they have no choice. Maybe they would like to have one later, or else they don’t want to kill the baby, but they also can’t deal with having the baby. This, from my point of view, is the middle of the road where (assuming it were possible, which now I think it may not be) they could both have thier freedom and also keep the baby alive.
Assuming it worked, it would also pretty much end the abortion debate forever at that point, meaning one of life’s nasty horrible questions is finally answered, and everyone is happy. How often does that happen?
Of course, it seems maybe it’s moot now since it seems the main reason why we don’t attempt it is technological.
Now to throw in a spanner, in a very early pregnancy, it would be possible to extract the DNA of the foetus, and keep that for use as an implant into anothe zygote when required. But getting rid of the rest of the foetus. But the clouded issue between foetus and clone of a foetus is too murky for me to penitrate.
Beardless, did i read that right? you’re saying people should abort a baby and then “duplicate” it? what would be the point in that?
it wouldn’t save the baby’s life.
the baby might have the same genetical makeup, but i don’t believe it would have the same soul… or personality for those of you who aren’t into all the “soul” stuff. in my opinion, clones are not the same person/animal that was cloned; they’re only it’s twin. think about it.
i think people already make enough of their own kids’ DNAs naturally if you know what i mean. if you’re gonna kill a baby or whatever you want to call it because they’re unwanted, then why re-create it? i guess it’s kinda similar to the idea of if an animal shelter “put a dog to sleep” because of lack of funds to take care of it, and then cloned it. what would be the point in that?
You take the zygote when it is just a single cell and extract the genetic information. Later, you implant the genetic information into an egg which has been voided of all genetic material.
Is there ultimately any difference between the original and cloned zygote? Both contain the exact same genetic material. Not a copy of the genetic material, but the exact same DNA molecules.
A zygote has no personality, because it has no brain. It’s simply a cell that will eventually develop into a person.
This is why I base my position on abortion as being acceptable any time before brain activity is present.
What about my example of the transference of DNA from a single celled zygote? Could that even be considered a clone?
Maybe you’re not ready to have a baby right now, but you will be in a few more years, and you don’t want to deprive the zygote that you just created from being born. So you basically put the incubation “on hold”.
Joe Random, my last post was pretty much based on the idea that the soul exists from conception. so, you couldn’t may the soul stick around until the embryo is implanted back in someone. that still sounds like death to me.