"Legally, embryos are considered property and embryo donation is a transfer of ownership. Pro-life groups that oppose the destruction of embryos, however, sometimes use the term "embryo adoption" to place emphasis on their view that embryos should be seen as pre-born children rather than as potential children. They sometimes refer to frozen embryos and children resulting from their use as "snowflake children". Use of these terms is controversial, as this view is neither universally nor legally accepted."
I'm all for minimizing abortion, for using technology to solve the problems of ineffable social stupidity; but for the love of fuck, can we at least use some sense when it comes to the terminology? Sheeeesh.
Yeah. That is about what I am finding. So it becomes fascinating that it is a million times easier for me to donate a kidney than for a woman to transfer her unwanted pregnancy. I suppose this goes a long way toward supporting the argument that abortion remains, at least in the first trimester, a medical procedure involving a woman and something that cannot be considered an individual.
Meanwhile, I don't understand how so many Catholics and fundies can knowingly toss unused embryos that are an expected product of in-vitro fertility 'treatments' they don't have a problem with - but consider an abortion 'murder' and stem cell research unethical.
I think any group that considers an embryo a "preborn child", (no idea what the fuck that phrase is supposed to mean to a rational individual), considering stem cell research unethical isn't a stretch.
If abortions are going to continue, and they are, it would stand to reason that medical science is allowed to further knowledge and enhance human quality of life potential. Falls under that umbrella of pragmatics and basic sense, I would think.
The speculation is that - since many infertile couples seem more prepared to adopt a child if it comes to them as a newborn - and other women can't survive a pregnancy - and yet others don't want or can't afford a child but, nevertheless there is a toll on many women who made the very difficult choice to abort - if a safe procedure could be devised to successfully transplant a fetus - a real solution would exist where one currently does not.
You see, banning abortion - even if you believe it is murder (and it is far more of a grey area than many will admit) - does not prevent abortion. It makes it less safe. Contraception reduces abortions. Improved medical techniques that make full-term pregnancies safer prevents abortion. Education about not drinking and smoking during pregnancy, genetic tests, and many other ways of predicting or preventing birth defects reduce abortions.
But as a speculative question about a possible new procedure, there is also the ethical questions inherent. And people like myself speculate in forums like this to support the healthy discussion about what's next, and how should we approach it, and what problems can we foresee.
well, it's quite a technical, bio-surgical process you speak of etc..
then the whole moral-ethi-spirit-holy ghastly real situation made of time and space buuuughhht; ah 3 Harps later...
Oh, vaticant, what, abort the myths?
basically, screw the monarchies incl. the myth-based youth dividing and distracting crap
I'm for atheist/free minded/heavy music/sports/life/fear not type of thought.
not to mention appreciative of hurricanes and their community building power(s)...
stand and fight mother nature too, it's fun