NationStates Jolt Archive

There's probably something wrong with my idea, but I couldn't figure it out. My plan to solve the abortion issue is as follows:

Find a way so that an aborted human-in-progress could be implanted in a woman who would otherwise not be able to get pregnant. The original mother does not have to deal with child birth or raising a kid, and the new mother gets a child that she would not have normally had. It's win-win.

What I'm looking for is some constructive critisism of my idea here.

That's a good idea, although there might be more women wanting abortions than women wanting another woman's child planted in them.

I'm sure the scientists and doctors could find a way to do it.

There's probably something wrong with my idea, but I couldn't figure it out. My plan to solve the abortion issue is as follows:

Find a way so that an aborted human-in-progress could be implanted in a woman who would otherwise not be able to get pregnant. The original mother does not have to deal with child birth or raising a kid, and the new mother gets a child that she would not have normally had. It's win-win.

What I'm looking for is some constructive critisism of my idea here.

Seems a good solution to me. It's like putting the child up for adoption(early), only the woman doesn't have to suffer a pregnancy she doesn't want and suffer through the pain/medical complications associated with childbirth.

Only problems I can see are: it would involve complicated medical operations, and you have to find enough women willing to get the fetus in her uterus. You can't refuse to get the fetus out of a woman's body just because she's got to wait for someone else to get it in.

This might be possible in the future, but it would take a bunch of research. As it is now, the ways abortions are performed, it wouldn't be possible, the fetus would be dead and thus not able to be implanted into the other woman's womb.

There's the whole issue of the embellical (sp?) cord and how it would be reattached properly, with a different mother? Also, there's the problem that the host mother's body may see the fetus implanted in her womb as a foreign substance and cause it to be destroyed by the immune system...

It's a good idea, just not plausible with our current technology.

Seems a good solution to me. It's like putting the child up for adoption(early), only the woman doesn't have to suffer a pregnancy she doesn't want and suffer through the pain/medical complications associated with childbirth.

Only problems I can see are: it would involve complicated medical operations, and you have to find enough women willing to get the fetus in her uterus. You can't refuse to get the fetus out of a woman's body just because she's got to wait for someone else to get it in.

The problem is that there would be just as many medical complications associated with any plan like this as there would be with a C-section birth (in other words, a lot of possible complications). You can't really force a woman to go through a dangerous surgery (and all surgeries are dangerous), even if there is someone else willing to carry on the pregnancy.

It's a good idea in principle, but unfortunately would never work in practice.

Know what we need? Secret Liberal Ninja Baby Assasins. Giving women's their choice since 2004.

Know what we need? Secret Liberal Ninja Baby Assasins. Giving women's their choice since 2004.

Ninjas armed with hangers.

Sorry dude, medically impossible. You'd have to somehow get the first woman's uterous ready, make sure the child did not die on the way from one mother to the other (their skin is thinner than paper until about 7 months), somehow attach the umbilicle cord to a place on the womans body which is totally not ready for it.

If it were possible, I'd love it. Unfortunately, it's not.

My solution has always been:

A.) Avoid having the baby in the first place. Condoms are everywhere, the pill can be gotten without permission and there is plenty of incentive not to have sex before marriage (AIDS, STDs, HIV, the whole idea of pregnancy, emotionally getting destroyed if you break up, etc.)

B.) In cases of rape, carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. I've done a WHOLE lot of thinking on this, and from actual personal experience, I can tell you that an abortion will do nothing to heal the pain and suffering of a mother. Their body is the crime scene, and until they learn to live with the knowledge that they have been so violated, nothing they do will be able to get rid of that emotional pain.

C.) In life of parent/child or just life of child cases where you can choose whether the parent lives or not basically, I have not made a decision. At this point I would say it's up to the mother, but I haven't thought about it hard enough to make this my final call.

Telegram me if you have alternate opinions on this. I tend not to follow up on my own post responces on forums.

-R. S. of UC

This might be possible in the future, but it would take a bunch of research. As it is now, the ways abortions are performed, it wouldn't be possible, the fetus would be dead and thus not able to be implanted into the other woman's womb.

There's the whole issue of the embellical (sp?) cord and how it would be reattached properly, with a different mother? Also, there's the problem that the host mother's body may see the fetus implanted in her womb as a foreign substance and cause it to be destroyed by the immune system...

It's a good idea, just not plausible with our current technology.

The umbilical cord will not be a problem, as this connects the baby to the placenta, which in turn exchanges nutrients with the mother. Antibodies cannot cross the placenta, so the babies are not rejected by the mother’s body. My sister for example, is a different blood type from my mother, and this obviously possible. The baby IS a foreign substance in the mother, even its natural mother, but nature has already though of that and the placenta protects the baby (and the mother for that matter). Transplanting a placenta however, I don't believe is possible with current technology.

A nice idea though. Horribly complicated in practice, but a very nice idea.

What about babies who have AIDS? Is it ethical to make a new mother infected?(trust me blood will touch)
If she wants to abort a AIDS baby then can she?

I'm waiting for a conservative to come inform us that this is immoral.

This might be possible in the future, but it would take a bunch of research. As it is now, the ways abortions are performed, it wouldn't be possible, the fetus would be dead and thus not able to be implanted into the other woman's womb.

There's the whole issue of the embellical (sp?) cord and how it would be reattached properly, with a different mother? Also, there's the problem that the host mother's body may see the fetus implanted in her womb as a foreign substance and cause it to be destroyed by the immune system...

It's a good idea, just not plausible with our current technology.

Ditto

*shrug* a solution that cant work in the forseeable future isnt much of a solution. but its something to work towards

im sure the number of abortions could be reduced this way. most women in early term pregnancy are not getting an abortion because they hate the baby so they may be willing to donate the fetus to an infertile couple.

as someone already pointed out, there are way more abortions than there are people wanting/needing to carry someone else's baby to term. so it would reduce the number of abortions by..... a few thousand a year i would guess, once it gets going and the backlog of childless couples are cleared out

there are the abortions cause by medical necessity. these would still occur

there are the women who dont know (or admit to themselves and others) until it would be too late for a transplant to work. they would still have an abortion.

there are those who would be against the procedure for various reason but still get the abortion.

better to convince people to use birthcontrol every time they have sex. it would have a much greater effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

better to convince people to use birthcontrol every time they have sex. it would have a much greater effect on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Incidentally, I read a couple years ago that statistics have confirmed this.

Actually what is going to make it harder to choose abortion are the new ultrasound systems(are they ultrasound?).

They give a 3D image of the fetus. It's going to make it harder in that you now see a humanitistic representation.

Right to lifers may scream people simply choose it as it was nothing but I can tell you it's one of the hardest choices you can ever make.

I say you sell it to govt. scientists to raise in a test tube and let them use them as super soldiers.

oh heres your ninja fetus assasin --->

http://bunnysnoog.cyborgcow.net/henry22.gif

Get your own at Fetusmart today! Hooray fetus!

There's probably something wrong with my idea, but I couldn't figure it out. My plan to solve the abortion issue is as follows:

Find a way so that an aborted human-in-progress could be implanted in a woman who would otherwise not be able to get pregnant. The original mother does not have to deal with child birth or raising a kid, and the new mother gets a child that she would not have normally had. It's win-win.

What I'm looking for is some constructive critisism of my idea here.

There would be more abortions than transplants. I don't have the figures but i'm sure the level of women who can't have babies is minusclue compared to the amount of abortions over a period of time. Sooner or later you'd run out of recipients

The umbilical cord will not be a problem, as this connects the baby to the placenta, which in turn exchanges nutrients with the mother. Antibodies cannot cross the placenta, so the babies are not rejected by the mother’s body. My sister for example, is a different blood type from my mother, and this obviously possible. The baby IS a foreign substance in the mother, even its natural mother, but nature has already though of that and the placenta protects the baby (and the mother for that matter). Transplanting a placenta however, I don't believe is possible with current technology.

A nice idea though. Horribly complicated in practice, but a very nice idea.

Actually, blood incompatibilities can be a *huge* problem, leading to sickness in the mother or death of the fetus. Even if the mother and fetus share the same blood type but have different genetic code for certain proteins, problems can arise. Often, these problems don't happen until after birth, but they often hapen in utero.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the psychological consequences of this. What do you do when this kid or his friends point out that he looks nothing like anyone in his family, yet there are pictures of his birth? Plus, if (s)he's the product of a rape, what will (s)he think? I mean, it may seem alright as a plan, but I think there are just too many problems that aren't easily fixed.

Actually, blood incompatibilities can be a *huge* problem, leading to sickness in the mother or death of the fetus. Even if the mother and fetus share the same blood type but have different genetic code for certain proteins, problems can arise. Often, these problems don't happen until after birth, but they often hapen in utero.

good point

not sure on the technology or cost. but taking the original idea of removing the fetus, why not then grow it to maturity. is that possble?

Take the foetus, grow it in a lab and when it reaches 14, use it to pilot Evas.