Kruse Kronicle

Scrambled Eggs: Aborting a fetus because it’s not yours

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Slate: Scrambled Eggs: Aborting a fetus because it's not yours (HT: Scot McKnight)

Would you abort a fetus just because it wasn't yours?

The question sounds crazy. How could it not be yours? If it's in your body, you must be the mom, right?

Wrong. Through in vitro fertilization, you can get pregnant with somebody else's fetus. Thousands of surrogates already have. You can also carry an unrelated child using donor eggs and sperm. But these are things you'd have to sign up for. The scary scenario is the one you never expect: going through IVF and discovering, weeks into your pregnancy, that your doctor put the wrong embryo in your womb.

If you think this can't happen, I have bad news: It just did. A public hospital did it to a woman in Japan. Now she's suing the local government for more than $200,000, claiming mental anguish. …

Fascinating article. Welcome to our brave new world.

Comments

6 responses to “Scrambled Eggs: Aborting a fetus because it’s not yours”

  1. vanskaamper Avatar
    vanskaamper

    Does putting an embryo in the wrong womb change what it is? I think someone owes this woman some compensation (maybe a lot of compensation)…but I also think it would be wrong to kill the human being growing inside her.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I’m inclined to share your position but the fact that such a thing can happen is the tip of the iceberg of bio-ethical questions to come.

    Reply
  3. vanskaamper Avatar
    vanskaamper

    Oh yes…we’re now in the Brave New World…and unfortunately, the job title of “bio-ethicist” is now held by some of the world’s most radical philosophers.

    Reply
  4. phil_style Avatar
    phil_style

    vanskaamper,
    You’re right, and many of those who might hold to that long held scientific notion the “precautionary principle” are labelled luddites!
    Funnily enough, whilst the ‘precautionary principle’ is held up as the ultimate guide in environmental science, our fellow scientists in the bio-medicines seems to want to forget the principle even exists.

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Great point about the precautionary principle. I hadn’t thought of it quite that light.

    Reply
  6. vanskaamper Avatar
    vanskaamper

    To illustrate Phil’s point in a pretty direct and ironic way, check this out:
    http://tinyurl.com/c63eob

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading