Eziekial wrote:Lue, even routine abortions carry risks to the mother:
I'm aware of that, the difference though is that the survival of the baby would become a goal as well, and any procedure of this nature is going to offer a far greater risk to the baby then to the mother. Cost would be a huge factor, because of the number of abortions done for monetary concerns, you wouldn't want to have a procedure that was markedly different cost wise. That means using similar methods, which do not lend themselves well to preservation of the baby. What you are really talking about with the incubation concept is early term abortions, which are generally done either using vacuum aspiration or a D&E procedure. Both of these extract the baby in pieces, not intact, and while I might view that with horror, I'm under no illusion that it's done for a purpose to simply be barbaric. The reason behind this is that there is much less involved in dilation, and likely much less stress placed on the woman. Moving toward extracting the baby intact would complicate the procedure, and even if it was possible to incubate the baby, and the cost of it having already been mentioned, I was pointing out that it is even more issues that would need to be addressed even previous to that.
Eziekial wrote:Costs are an issue and I would be curious to see how pro-lifers would feel about footing the bill for a transfer over a traditional abortion. Anyone with strong religious views want to comment? I would really like to hear their position on such a procedure.
My thoughts on this... there is absent this procedure still avenues for financial help that would prevent abortions that are not taken, and instead money goes toward fighting to restrict or outlaw them. Groups like the NRL could work toward establishing programs to help deflate or even remove the costs for women who are not concerned with carrying the baby to term, but with the financial impact of pregnancy and birth. Still there are arrangements like this that do exist, although mostly in the form of wealthier couples looking to adopt and willing to pay the hospital bills, but they are by no means main stream. The lack of attention to this might very well be an indicator of just how willing or more aptly unwilling groups or individuals are to pursue this route. That being said I'm far more likely to donate to an organization that focuses on something with a direct result of this nature because it in my eyes would do more good in the short term. I know Italy was wrestling with a similar issue, although it was more of a proposal to pay women not to abort.. I'm not in favor of that kind of concept although I'm very receptive to the idea of non governmental organizations looking to get involved in aiding in medical bills and eventual adoption. I don't want to see government involving it's self with tax payer dollars, for the same reasons I wouldn't want to see government funding abortions. What need to happen in regards to this is society needs to step up of it's own volition, not due to being forced or pushed into by government.