bioethics of fetal experimentation in conjunction with abortion

In other words, you're saying it's clearly wrong, but that's no reason to necessarily make it illegal.

 

We DID address it.

Not our problem that YOU based your OP on a glaring FALLACY.

 

I'll leave that for other readers here to determine for themselves.

Oh? And what fallacy would that be?

 

if someone cloned Hitler and impregnated 1000 women without their knowledge with his clones, should the women be allowed to abort would be : absolutely yes

if those 1000 fetus's were grown in an artificial womb, then what? who's choice would
it be then

what if someone cloned 1000 Bin Laden's, would the religious right demand they be born?

 

"Is human experimentation in embryonic stages wrong? If so, why is that the case? Is it because the fetus is a person and has rights not to be experimented on with crazy genetic manipulation?'

another question is, if that experimentation led to a cure for cancer, and your baby was dying and this drug could save them, would you refuse it, would it be ethical to use it, would it be ethical to not use it and let your baby die?

we actually are being faced with a similar question with the drugs Trump took to cure Coronavirus as fetal cells were used in the development of the drug

 

The type of ethical issue I am describing in this thread would be more like if a woman intentionally cloned Hitler and started gestating the fetus in her uterus.

She has set up a situation where, even though she can then make a justified choice to abort or give life, what her choice was overall is still not justified.
If she aborts, she is to blame. If she chooses life, she is to blame.

 

Well, I was intending to discuss something more along the lines of the scenario in the opening post, but if you want to bring up a different hypothetical, I can quickly address it.
It's still frustrating though because not one of you so far has been willing to really take on the hypothetical in the opening post.

Well, addressing your hypothetical you are now bringing up, I think the question would go back to the issue, a classical ethical/philosophical issue, of whether the means justify the ends.
Can you kill innocent life to save the lives of others?
And how about when you don't even have any certainty?
Like, for example, the sacrifice could save the lives of 10 other people, or it might not end up saving anyone. And in that particular instance, you would have killed without it having any real benefit. Still okay because "it was worth it"?

 

your opening post is all over the place, so hard to tell what you're really asking

in my example the experimentation was already done, the cure already exists

so would it be ethical to refuse it and let the baby die rather then use the drug to save a babies life

 

I didn't say anything about illegality. You asked about ethics, not legality so you can't just inject that in to other peoples responses. If you want to know people's opinions of what the legislative (and/or regulatory) approach, to a specific scenario or a general concept, you need to actually ask that question, not ask different questions and then presume other answers.

 

Your responses about ethics seemed to be intentionally worded to tip-toe around the legality issue.
That's the only reason I brought it up.
(Or at least that's how I read your answers, maybe I was wrong)

 

It was about tearing apart the different components of the ethical dilemma, and asking if each one was wrong, and trying to get people to be able to point out where exactly the wrong part was.

Was it wrong to start the pregnancy?

Having already started the pregnancy, was it then wrong to choose life?

Is it wrong to start something if, by starting it, it then creates a situation where you can be justified in doing something else that carries a bad with it?
(i.e. "Now that I have monster growing, it is justifiable to abort it" )

 

why don't you give us some examples of answers to each of your questions

 

Do you mean my opinion?

Or do you mean general possible answers, so you have some idea what an answer would like to such a question.

 

I didn't tip-toe around anything. Ethics and legality are two separate questions (albeit with some interaction) and you specifically asked about ethics. If you want to ask questions about legality, just ask them. Don't "tip-toe around the legality issue".

 

Your answers, as if the questions were asked of you

 

Okay then.

I think messing up a fetus is wrong (even in the situation where the fetus may not have rights to live yet) because it sets up a situation where the woman could later choose life.

Since I believe choosing life cannot be a "wrong" choice in such a situation, then obviously I would have to assign the wrong part to the very beginning.

The thing is, I am just concerned my analysis of this ethical situation may not be an entirely logical one. Like it needs to be quantifiable in numbers, to demonstrate an equivalent concept analogous to what is going on here.

That's all for now, maybe I will expand on that answer later.

 

I think that is the issue, it's not simple

while I feel preforming experiments on live fetus's is wrong, what about experimental drugs that would possibly help a fetus that was going to die - can we try them on that baby?

I do not have any problems using the cells of an aborted fetus for experimentation though, it may save lives and the alternative is considering it medical waste and incinerating it

anything can be taken to the extreme

for example, I support a women's right to have an abortion, but if one just repeatedly tried to get pregnant because she enjoyed the attention of getting abortions over and over, that would be wrong.... both legal, both technically the same thing, but one is wrong

 

Do you mean experimental drugs that could help the fetus survive, but they could also mess up the fetus so that if it did live, it might be permanently messed up?

 

correct, experimental drugs that have been used on animals, but never tried on a human, someone has to be first

 

I think you may be right, I cannot see anything logically ethically wrong with it, but it still seems pretty distasteful, and that does not mean it does not seem horrendous.

I think though one could question a fetus being killed, if the purpose of the killing was to harvest it.

 

oh I agree, same as using human cadavers for medical students to learn from - we understand the benefit, but it does have that distasteful feeling to it

 

Yes, but human cadavers consented while they were still alive to their bodies later being used.

Which I suppose begs the ethical question, do you still have a "right" to your body after you're dead.
(Imagine for example someone raped your dead corpse. Who exactly is the victim?)

 

how about parents that give up their childrens bodies, is it distasteful that another child gets a dead child's liver that helps them live

getting dead body parts from anouther sounds distasteful.... but it's also life saving to many

some parents are happy that their child's death can help others - some parents could not stand the thought of even a autopsy

 

And a likewise question, strangely along those lines, is do human beings have "rights" over their bodies before the point those bodies have developed into human beings?
In some ways, that's sort of like the opposite end of the spectrum from asking if a person has the right to their body after death.

And if the future is unclear, then potentiality comes into play.
Because at that point, we can't be entirely sure whether the developing fetus is going to be terminated or is going to live on.

So we have to assume the possibility that it will live, and thus accord certain bodily rights to it. (Not necessarily the right to life, but other rights not to have its body messed up)

 

It seems kind of bizarre to me that parents get the choice. That sort of implies ownership. As if the parents own the bodies of their offspring, or something. Or at least own them after they're dead.