Abortion - Extended Cryo-preservation and Embryo Transfer - Guiding questions
The purpose of this exercise is to have people think differently about abortion than how the arguments have been framed. I never felt comfortable with either argument because I did not trust the motives of individuals who espoused them. This is precisely the reason I created two separate pro-life arguments with respect to embryo transfer. If you are pro-life because you believe life begins at conception then you have no reason to be against this process, as the preservation of life is maintained. If you are against the process, you are against it for a reason other than simply the notion of 'abortion is murder' or 'preserving life.'
The pro-choice argument I also find to be relatively hollow. Reducing an abortion to something abstract denies the physical nature of what is happening. A fetus is being removed from its host (a woman), moreover that fetus is being discarded. Following the argument that abortion is a women's rights issue, clearly individuals who are pro-choice would be supportive of the procedure. However, new issues arise with this procedure. For example, what if the biological father prefers the woman to undergo embryo transfer and has a willing host for that embryo? In the future, we may plan additional narratives along these lines. In the meantime, here are some questions to consider within the framework and characters.
Questions for Pro-life Adherents
- Consider the inspiration for the creation of extended cryo-preservation and embryo transfer, what do you feel would be the correct choice in the situation that Dr. Kayama's sister was in were the procedure available at the time? These would be her choices:
- Forego the abortion and do not undertake chemotherapy until after the child is born. This would risk two lives (the unborn child and the mother) as the mother could die of the cancer while pregnant.
- Have the abortion and undertake chemotherapy immediately. In this situation the mother is greatly increasing her chances of survival, but at a great sacrifice.
- Undergo extended cryo-preservation and commence chemotherapy treatment. This is no different than choice b, with the exception that it preserve the life of the unborn child.
- Forego the abortion and undertake chemotherapy. This puts the mother at slightly greater risk, and places the unborn child's life in danger, along with increasing significantly the risk of significant birth defect.
Given these choices, the pro-life adherent would only consider a,c, and d. However, the choice which would be most logical in terms of preserving lives is choice c. If you are pro-life would you support that? If so, would you support the legalization of the procedure? In all cases?
I have proposed this scenario to friends who are pro-life and the answers really run the gamut. Some do support it and have even expressed hope that one day this may solve a lot of debate around abortion. There is another group, however that would be against it. Their reasons often yield arguments against a 'sexually permissive culture' or 'burden of responsibility'. All of these could be good arguments, but then they must be honest as to why they are against abortion, as it is not simply on behalf of the unborn child, there are other reasons as well.
- What do you think of the physician who performed the embryo transfer rather than the abortion on Jo and her unborn child? Was it moral? Did he have any obligation to tell Jo, especially if that would make it less likely that he would be able to continue with secretly performing these procedures?
Pro-Choice Adherents
- What would you think of Jo if she did not opt to donate her bone marrow? What kind of person would you think her to be? In this case, she possesses the power with her own body to preserve the life of a young girl. It will require some physical sacrifice on her part, and certainly does not compare to nine months of pregnancy, but consider how flippant arguments are about the fetus with respect to abortion decisions. Why do we not apply the same gravity in Jo's choice to have an abortion versus her choice to donate her bone marrow?
- Consider the ethics of the doctor that performed the procedure without telling Jo. Would you consider it to be unethical, and if so why? Jo lived nine years thinking she had an abortion, she was comfortable with her choice and were it not for the special circumstances she never would have known of Christina's existence. Within the context of the narrative that is the case for many women, why is removing the fetus and preserving it different (and potentially wrong) versus removing the fetus and destroying it? With the existence of the procedure who has the ultimate say in terms of what happens to that fetus when a woman decides she cannot or will not carry it to fruition.
Questions for both
- Should the procedure be legal?
- If the procedure exists, should abortion be illegal and replaced by extended cryo-preservation and embryo transfer?
- What rights, if any, do other biological relatives especially fathers have in this context?