When does a human foetus have a right to life?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Geeze, Ivor, the way you've been bringing that up over the last year, someone could think you, dunno, got pregnant or something. You could have just gotten it aborted early and saved yourself the soul-searching, you know?

 

[Thunder]

There are thousands of frozen embryos in storage all over the world. If we grant a fetus rights, should we also grant it the right not to be imprisoned? Shouldn't we be implanting these embryos back into the mother so they can be free?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Personally I think the boundary is purely arbitrary.

I lean towards birth, on the principle that as long as it's within the mother's body, it's the mother's absolute right to be in charge of what happens.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Never. Life is a privilege, not a "right." (There are no such things as "rights.")

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Geeze, Ivor, the way you've been bringing that up over the last year, someone could think you, dunno, got pregnant or something. You could have just gotten it aborted early and saved yourself the soul-searching, you know?

I didn't bump the thread - my previous post was on 17th Sept. 2010 - you should direct your comment towards the person who did.

 

[KingMerv00]

My point wasn't just a joke btw. Sure it's absurd, but that's the point. No one is REALLY arguing for fetal rights. They are arguing for a shallow solution that makes themselves feel better.

 

[Soapy Sam]

"Better" in what way?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My point wasn't just a joke btw. Sure it's absurd, but that's the point. No one is REALLY arguing for fetal rights. They are arguing for a shallow solution that makes themselves feel better.

That's rather condescending.

 

[KingMerv00]

"Better" in what way?

In their eyes, they feel like they are saving children.

That's rather condescending.

Sorry. That wasn't my intention but I could see how it could be insulting.

I think the solution is "shallow" but not because people are stupid or lesser than me. I think it is "shallow" in that the consequences of certain positions are not explored enough.

If embryos have a right to life, then they have a right to life even if they are in a freezer. If we can force a woman to carry an embryo while it is in her womb, does it not logically follow that we should force her to carry all of her frozen embryos to term (assuming volunteers could not be found)?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Sorry. That wasn't my intention but I could see how it could be insulting.

I think the solution is "shallow" but not because people are stupid or lesser than me. I think it is "shallow" in that the consequences of certain positions are not explored enough.

If embryos have a right to life, then they have a right to life even if they are in a freezer. If we can force a woman to carry an embryo while it is in her womb, does it not logically follow that we should force her to carry all of her frozen embryos to term (assuming volunteers could not be found)?

As it is unlikely that a frozen embryo will develop into a functioning human being outside a womb in the foreseeable future, what does the above question have to do with the OP?

The original question was asking for opinions on what should happen to the limit on abortion as advances in medical technology improves the chances of survival of younger and younger featuses outside the womb.

 

[KingMerv00]

As it is unlikely that a frozen embryo will develop into a functioning human being outside a womb in the foreseeable future, what does the above question have to do with the OP?

It is not precisely on point with the OP but it is in the ballpark. I would really like to understand why that arbitrary line is drawn. Why THIS "potential life" and not THAT "potential life"?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It is not precisely on point with the OP but it is in the ballpark. I would really like to understand why that arbitrary line is drawn. Why THIS "potential life" and not THAT "potential life"?

I'm trying to stop this thread from going the way of all the other threads on abortion for as long as possible (though I'm not holding out too much hope).

I'm mostly interested in how the current law may change based on medical technology and the reasoning for the limit being where it is.

To answer your previous question: The law (at the moment) in the UK says 'no' because frozen embryos cannot develop outside the womb into functioning human beings.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm trying to stop this thread from going the way of all the other threads on abortion for as long as possible (though I'm not holding out too much hope).

I'm mostly interested in how the current law may change based on medical technology and the reasoning for the limit being where it is.

Fair enough. I hope the law changes away from viability to a more objective determination that relies on brain development.

To answer your previous question: The law (at the moment) in the UK says 'no' because frozen embryos cannot develop outside the womb into functioning human beings.

My response to this is "So?"

Sorry, I'm a petulant little bastard and must have the last word.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

My response to this is "So?"

Sorry, I'm a petulant little bastard and must have the last word.

Well I suppose it's similar to the reasoning behind why physicians are not considered to have killed people who they have not accepted as patients and subsequently die.

 

[ThunderChunky]

To answer your previous question: The law (at the moment) in the UK says 'no' because frozen embryos cannot develop outside the womb into functioning human beings.

Technology could allow embryos to develop outside the womb, just like they could reduce the age for viability of a fetus.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Technology could allow embryos to develop outside the womb, just like they could reduce the age for viability of a fetus.

Yes. If it does, should the time limit on abortion (for non-medical reasons) be reduced?

 

[KingMerv00]

Well I suppose it's similar to the reasoning behind why physicians are not considered to have killed people who they have not accepted as patients and subsequently die.

Just to clarify your analogy, are you referring to emergency situations such as when a doctor is off duty and comes across a car accident?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Just to clarify your analogy, are you referring to emergency situations such as when a doctor is off duty and comes across a car accident?

No. More like a physician who refuses to treat patients who can't afford his or her fee.

 

[KingMerv00]

No. More like a physician who refuses to treat patients who can't afford his or her fee.

Well in that case, the doctor is not liable because he has not taken on a legal duty. In the case of embryos, the duty is presumably established a conception. Failure to implant a frozen embryo will ultimately lead to its death. Thus, a mother created a being with a right to life and can let it die for any reason or no reason at all.

What if a woman carries an embryo in her womb, removes it, and has it frozen? Can we leave the embryo in the fridge to die? I assume not.

On the other hand, you are arguing that an embryo that has never touched a womb is never granted rights for some reason. Why?

 

[KingMerv00]

With your permission, I'd like to use a slightly over the top analogy to illustrate my confusion:

Woman has an egg fertilized in the old fashioned way. It sits in her womb. This is embryo A. The same woman on the same day has an egg fertilized artificially outside the womb. It is frozen. This is embryo B.

Time passes, and the woman decides she can't raise a child at the moment so she has the embryo removed and stored in the fridge next to embryo B. (This is the future obviously.) More time passes and she decides she is ready so she wants to implant embryo A back into her womb.

Whoops! There is a mix up and embryo B is implanted. The woman doesn't know and she carries the baby to term. Later, we find out that embryo A is still in the fridge. Does she have a moral obligation to implant embryo A into her womb and carry it to term? If not, why not?

I'd argue you'd have to say "yes" if you want to be logically consistent. I find that outcome disturbing because we are forcing a fully-grown, self-aware human to submit to a cluster of cells which has less cognitive ability than a house fly.