Faux will science trump politics in abortion debate

[DanCa]

Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
By Wendy Mcelroy
FOXNEWS.COM


Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the
London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given
an earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which
predicted them for 2008. Discussion of ectogenesis ? growing an embryo outside the mother's womb ? may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning and genetic modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened last January. And only last week, British scientists received an official go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers with no male genetic contribution.For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold back scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered
repeatedly since Galileo's day.)

New reproductive technologies may also redefine the politics
surrounding reproduction, including the issue of abortion. I welcome
the prospect. It is difficult to believe that science could do a
worse job with the issue than courts and fanatic rhetoric. At the
very least, science may offer new methods of ending a pregnancy
without destroying an embryo or fetus.This possibility becomes more likely in the presence of two factors.First, viability is being established at ever-earlier stages of pregnancy.Recently, doctors have been successful in administering perflubron ? a liquid that replaces the amniotic fluid ? to babies as young as 23-
weeks-old, with a 70 percent survival rate.Second, ectogenesis seems to be experiencing breakthroughs.In 2002, a team at Cornell University used cells from a human uterus
to grow an artificial womb. When a fertilized human egg was
introduced, it implanted itself in the uterus wall as in a natural
pregnancy. After six days of gestation, the experiment was halted
due solely to legal constraints.

Meanwhile, half-a-world away, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara of Juntendo
University in Japan has been removing fetuses from goats and keeping
them alive for weeks in clear plastic tanks of amniotic fluid with
machine-driven 'umbilical cords'.Frida Simonstein, of Ben Gurion University in Israel, stated at a recent conference on ethics and emerging medical technologies, "Society now expects better outcomes for premature babies. Society also demands improvement in IVF effectiveness. Yet society should be equally aware that these demands require research that leads to the development of an artificial womb."
She concluded, "We must start discussing this topic now while we
have still enough time to decide what we may want, and why."
Abortion activists, both pro-choice and pro-life, should heed
Simonstein's warning. Science has sped past the current state of
debate, and those stuck behind in the rut of discussing Roe v. Wade
may find themselves obsolete. Whether or not ectogenesis is ever
able to sustain a nine-month human pregnancy, one thing is clear:
key issues like viability are being redefined by science. The
abortion debate must move into the 21st century, where it may be
possible for many pro-choice and pro-life advocates to find common
ground.

Science will not make the abortion debate go away. The conflict is
too deep and involves such fundamental questions of ethics and
rights as, "What is a human life?" "Can two 'human beings' ? a fetus
and the pregnant woman ? claim control over the same body?"
and "When does an individual with rights come into existence?" These
questions are beyond the scope of science.Nevertheless, technology can impact the debate in at least two ways. First, it can explore ways to end a pregnancy without destroying the fetus, which may then be sustained; if such procedures became accessible and inexpensive (or financed by adoptive 'parents'), then abortion rates would likely decline?and sharply.Second, it may offer "an out" for activists on both sides who sincerely wish to resolve the debate and not merely scream at each other at ever increasing shrillness.Many pro-choice women, like me, have been deeply disturbed by ultrasound scan photos that show fetuses, at earlier than once thought periods of gestation, sucking their thumbs, appearing to smile and otherwise resembling a full-term baby. Many of us would welcome alternate procedures and forms of ectogenesis as long as they remained choices. And as long as both parental rights and parental responsibilities could be relinquished.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[WildClarySage]

1. There are some interesting points but overall the argument is flawed

McElroy argues that women won't want abortion if an alternative is offered, but that doesn't necessarily follow. Some women have reasons to not wish their genes to reproduce. Others fear a confrontation with an 'adopted' child later in life. And some women will still choose to abort for other reasons. The author also assumes that technology available is technology made affordable, and that is also not the case.

This raises more questions than it answers.

Will non-white fetuses face the same adoptive challenges that non-white children in foster care face? Will families want to adopt embryos that may well have been conceived under the influence of drugs/alcohol/malnutrition? Do the resources globally exist to bring every conception into birth? Will these technologies make survivable embryos with certain genetic or developmental deformities that might be better left to perish naturally?

[DanCa]

4. I agree and did you think that the author is biased against choice?

I got the feeling even though she claims that she is pro choice.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. If antiabortion hypocrites really cared, they'd be adopting every child

There are many anti-abortion people who have adopted children, but the vast majority of them are hypocritical and haven't adopted. Of course, no child should be adopted unless wanted, but family values don't often extend to adopting children of another color in Republican families.

No Child Left Behind except in New Orleans. Not only.

It is not "pro-life". Reject Republican framing. We are all pro-life. Many Republicans are anti-abortion. Many Democrats are pro-choice.

[ComerPerro]

3. Exactly what I was thinking. So, lets say they have this "other option"

What happens to the child once he is born and is now an infant? That's usually about the time when the right wing stops giving a shit at all.

Who is going to adopt these children?