In 2018, the first fetal transplant was accomplished.
This opens up a new avenue for resolving the abortion debate.
Because if you can transplant a fetus from a pro-choice person to a pro-life person, then both sides win: there is no abortion, the original mother doesn't have to carry the child, and the pro-life mother gets to save a life.
Spread this far and wide and ask the pro-life contingent what they think about this. Because if they support this, this could be a viable actionable course of action to resolve the abortion debate.
If. 
(EDIT: so it's wasn't a fetus but the entire uterus that was transplanted. I think however the general point stands)
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Umm, can you link or copy that article? I have never heard of such a thing.
The Cleveland Clinic only recently delivered a baby by cesarean from a transplanted uterus only from a decreased individual that was later implanted, NOT an already-pregnant uterus from a living donor.
Even if said procedure was possible, you're suggestion is that a reasonable compromise to banning abortion is that women may undergo a major surgery and have a hysterectomy instead of an abortion provided they continue to carry the fetus until they find a willing recipient, who's a match, to also undergo a major surgery for a hysterectomy AND an organ transplant AND THEN ANOTHER hysterectomy several months later all at the cost of MILLIONS of dollars to be paid by a party to be named later I guess...
ChestRockfield
Level 8
May 5, 2022
0
@TheMiddleWay So you're saying that in the future if we can explant a fetus at any time from fertilization on and keep it viable until the correct recipient is ready (similar to being a ward of the state until adopted), with no additional cost, burden, or health risk than whatever that currently level of abortion would pose that then and not a minute earlier it would be fair to make abortion illegal? That's a deal I'd be willing to take.
It doesn't sound much different from adopting a puppy from someone who no longer wants it.
'I bought this puppy (I got pregnant), but I don't want it any more. Do you want it?'
'Yeah! I always wanted a puppy (baby). Are you sure I can have it?'
'Of course, go ahead! It's much better than having to put it down because no one wants it.'
TV ad: Puppies (babies) are not just for Christmas; they are a lifetime commitment.
Ryo1
Level 8
May 5, 2022
0
Except giving someone a puppy doesn't require:
- a major surgery to have a hysterectomy
- a willing person that's a match
- a willing person that will have two hysterectomies and a transplant surgery
- millions and millions of dollars in medical procedures, meds, follow up appointments
- and an inability to ever get another dog
Ryo1:
@ChestRockfield Public perceptions on ethics (and health risks and implications as well as financial matters, as you point out) in the practice of IVF and surrogacy are already mixed, and we are adding yet another kind of artificial treatment like fetus/uterus transplant, like that is gonna solve anything. Crazy, huh?
@Ryo1 Very. In my opinion, this is magical thinking. By the time this would be possible the world is going to be a hellscape.
perhaps...unless the woman does not want to give up her uterus yet. maybe future motherhood is on her mind.
hankster
Level 9
May 5, 2022
0
@TheMiddleWay sure...if a woman is willing to let it go. the uterus i mean.
@TheMiddleWay thats all cool. wondering now about $ and dangers etc. Certainly got potentials tho.
@TheMiddleWay could be virgin births all over.
They would find some handy excuse to get around that. Probably something to do with “responsibility”. It’s not really about life. I think it’s mostly about tribal identity. Once the tribe takes up a cause ( even if it was made up by politicians to get votes ) then that’s what constitutes their tribal identity, and humans ( all types of humans ) are content to cause all manner of chaos, suffering, and death ( even their own ) in order to be faithful to their tribe. Individuals vary of course, but versions of that exist in all political tribes.
skado
Level 9
May 5, 2022
2
@Matias Why is it hard for Dems to believe that cons are really in god's pocket? Lincoln himself was big on god and the racists who fled to gop, in 1968, were also very big on god. I accept that they honestly believe they are protecting a soul. The power that belief grants them has been over 50% and they've fostered it (as I would have done because that's what one does for the job). If correct, then the solution is to go after god and put Thou in a well deserved grave.
The reason one tribe is “pro-life” is because it was a way for them to gain leverage against racial integration.
Tribalism is how they keep it going. Neither the originating impulse nor the continuing momentum have anything to do with reason or morality, or the preservation of innocent life, or any chain of life philosophy.
It was, from the beginning, a calculated plot to peel voters away from the Democrats.
@Matias
I don’t know that they “always have been”. I’m open to learning about that if you have some documentation to share, but U.S. conservatives have not always been. The most conservative and the most evangelical Christians were all fine with abortion until the Schaeffers started making propaganda films to gin up support for the Republican party. I don’t know what the rest of the world thought about it, say in 1950. If you have info, I’d be happy to learn.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.