How close are we to being able to transplant fetuses? I ask because

[GreenPartyVoter]

I think maybe that's a partial solution to the abortion issue. Get the anti-choice RW women to sign up as baby factories. Of course, they should be required to raise the children as well. Have to be pro-child, not pro-birth-only-just-to-make-the-woman-pay-for-having-(read: enjoying)-sex.

Just sayin'.

[valerief]

1. They're too busy adopting the unwanted children being born n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Some of them are. I know two couples who have adopted about

8 kids between them. But the truth is that there are still far more kids out htere that need adopting, and that they are pushing to make the number even greater.

[valerief]

15. Well, good for your friends. They're generous people.

But the ones who bark the most anti-choice rhetoric and forget the kids once they're born are the hypocrites we all know and hate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yep.

[DanCa]

3. Hmm what if we devoloped a transporter like in star trek.

You know what if we just beam the baby into an incubator? Shh I shouldn't give the freepers any more reason to fear science.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Hey, if it's good enough for the Borg...

[DanCa]

8. LOL I love ya you big nut

See my real answer below. How have you been GPV ?:hug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Busy *g* You?

[DanCa]

18. Copecitic

There's a yahoo stem cell group that you may like. It deals with this kind of question but I lost the link when I changed computers earlier this year. I am sure you can find it by searching yahoo health groups and stem cell researcg.

[ContraBass Black]

6. Actually, that's how Keiko O'Brien's son got inside Major Kira.

:D

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. True 'nuff

[DanCa]

13. Didn't they do that on Voyager too?

I believed they beammed a baby out just seconds before the woman give birth.

[Cleita]

5. An interesting proposition, but not a good long range solution.

Think about it. The RW women wouldn't really be good mothers when forced to do it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. True. But if they only volunteer to be walking incubators for 6 months

how many children will we have desperately in need of families then?

I guess my proposal is a bit like the idea of a universal draft like Rep. Rangel suggested. Of course, just like the draft we all know the RWers and highly privileged will just find ways to get out of it.

[DanCa]

7. The Freepers would never go for it

Right now in our stem cell bills we have to put into writting that embryos can't be transplanted into another woman. Which is a waste of energy because we just dont have the technology to do the procedure that your talking about. Let us forget about the fact that the cells that we need aren't vialable and we'll never "evolve" into a adult.
Grr I hate the pro birthers. I just can't stand em.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Well embryo transplants could be a common reality, but the thing is

by the time a women realizes she's pregnant I think it would be too late. But don't quote me on that.

[havocmom]

12. Back in the 80s I read articles about implanting either fetuses or embryo

of apes into male apes for gestation. Seemed to work OK. Of course, natural birth methods outta the question. But with the fetus attached to blood rich organs such as spleen or liver, the articles said gestation went along just fine.

So we would not be limited to just the pro-forced-pregnancy RW women. We could make the men who are adamant against choice carry and deliver too :evilgrin:

on edit: fix an omission

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. I can't remember which Sci-fi great it was, but rich people were able to

have their babies gestated in cows so that the women could preserve their girlish figures. :eyes:

[DanCa]

19. Soylent Green? Was that it? (nt)

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. I don't think so. At least, I don't recall reading that one.

[havocmom]

26. Yeah, I recall something about that but not the title.

TV show, Picket Fences, did a spoof of it where somebody in town was having it done. It was Christmas time and somebody in town stole one of the figures from the manger scene and replaced it with a big plastic cow.

Gads, that was a great TV show.

[valerief]

21. I have a Discover magazine circa 1985 somewhere that had an

article about implanting embryos onto men's colons. Delivery would be like a Caesarean. What a hoot!

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I cannot see my husband doing that.

[valerief]

27. No one in their right mind would do it. Too much of a chance of

the colon rupturing. Splash. Mess. Death. No, we're going to have to implant uteri in men first.

[badgerpup]

29. Read Sherri Tepper's "The Fresco"

Not sure whether it's sci-fi or fantasy, but there is male pregnancy involved...Planet is visited and assisted by aliens from other planets with different cultures. Questionnaires are passed out as to what's REALLY important to people and a lot of the men are of course very very pro-life.
Well, turns out that male humans are PERFECT incubators for one of the races larva/embryo/rugrats/young...and they have to chew their way out. The guys do survive, but it hurts like hell, and they can't use drugs, because it would endanger the larva. :evilgrin:
But the only guys chosen to incubate were the pro-lifers...one of which was a certain RW talk radio host...
:spray: :rofl:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

22. There are already discarded embryos waiting for "adoption"

repukes aren't stepping up though

[DanCa]

23. It must suck to be a kid growing up in a orphanage today.

I was mad as hell when Chimpy said that a fetus has more rights than a disabled person. Can you imagine a poor kid is thinking right now because the anti choicers think that adopting in embryo is more important than adopting him? What ever the hell religion that these people practice it aint Christianity though. That much is certain.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Snowflake babies. I've heard of them. Who knows? We may need them

to repopulate the Earth or colonize Mars or wherever we end up after we destroy all life as we know it.

[valerief]

28. Sanctorum adopted one and showed his young child. At least,

that's how the story goes. Gross.

[calmblueocean]

30. Not transplanting fetuses, but embryos. That's what will change things.

I've been spending time on and off researching this issue, and there's no doubt, the technology is here. Embryo collection, storage, and reimplantation already happen in the livestock industry every day. Those techniques can be adapted to human pregnancy and even improved upon with additional research. Women could have their embryo collected and stored, then have it reimplanted later in life when they're ready to have a baby. Or they could donate it to someone else. While the window of collection time would be short, most abortions -- about 90% -- are performed within the first 12 weeks, when the embryo weighs less than an ounce.

I believe the reason this hasn't been pursued politically is economic. Abortions are currently many times cheaper than embryo care. An abortion is generally less than $500, while embryo extraction and reimplantation at current IVF clinic prices would likely cost around $9000, with a yearly $300 recurring cost for storage.

Could we cut those prices down? Absolutely. It's just a matter of intelligent thinking and political will. The first step is to federally fund research into improved techniques which lower the cost.

Second, we could create a federal "pregnancy insurance" program, much like our existing flood insurance or unemployment insurance programs, to spread the risk and lower the cost. Benefits would be paid directly to approved clinics instead of individual claimants to avoid gaming of the system.

Third, government could incentivize nonprofit clinics and cold storage via tax breaks, student loan deferrals/forgiveness for their workers, or other forms of subsidy.

It's important to remember in any discussion of costs that unwanted children bring huge societal costs as well, in the form of AFDC, child protective services, foster care, and prisons, to name a few. Even at current prices, $9000 once is a lot less than the $23,000 a year it costs to incarcerate an inmate in federal prison. The money we save by offering enhanced reproductive options may more than pay for the money we spend.

* * *

I also think it's important to make this stand fundamentally in line with pro-choice principles.

The national commitment to broadening reproductive choice I imagine isn't based in the idea that embryos or fertilized eggs are citizens that need to be protected. Democrats broaden reproductive choices because we are pro-choice.

If a woman wants to donate her embryo to a stem cell research program, that is her choice, just as abortion also remains her choice. For the same reasons, we also support removing the medically unjustified rejection of the 'morning after' pill from over-the-counter sales, as well. But we recognize that women who believe abortion to be morally wrong have an inadequate complement of reproductive options. We respect their convictions and believe that broadening their choices is just as important as maintaining choices for those who believe differently.

An approach like this would be appealing to the mainstream, and even to many of those who see themselves as pro-life. A commitment to embryo storage and reimplantation completely changes the dynamics of the issue. It ends the oversimplified abortion debate once and for all and drags conservatives kicking and screaming into the reality of the 21st century. While anti-choice extremists argue that every pregnant 13-year-old should be required to become a mother in middle school, the rest of the country sees the obvious benefits and breathes a sigh of relief as the ugly, hostile abortion debate finally fades into the background of our national life.

I'm waiting to see this happen. It could happen today. It wouldn't take much more than a single bold Senate candidate, a policy white paper, and a catchy name we can use so voters can talk about "that embryo collection, storage, and reimplantation policy" without running out of breath.