Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Just sayin

Your argument is more full of holes than swiss cheese. Even if such a transfer could be done (and it is highly doubtful, you are talking moving massive blood supplies, etc), there is currently no medical procedure that is 100% without risk, nor is there likely to be any time in the forseeable future.

Therefore you would be risking the child, the biological mother and the host mother to preform a procedure that would be mitigated by carrying the baby to term in its original host. Besides that, you proposal is morally and ethically repulsive, and I don’t mind saying it.


8,540 posted on 04/25/2007 7:14:54 AM PDT by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8533 | View Replies ]


To: Mom MD

Abortion as it is today is without risk? Of course not. But every unborn dies huh? I’ll say it over and over again. What you say now was once said about organ transplants too, especially a heart.

‘Host’ eh? Interesting choice of words you used there.

I am sorry that you think exploring a way to preserve the life of an unborn child is something you find morally and ethically repulsive.

Look, I am not trying to be combative. I am trying to engage in a civil discussion about possible solutions concerning a very an ugly subject. Remember, in terms of the goal being about preserving the lives of the unborn, we are absolutely on the same side.


8,771 posted on 04/25/2007 10:20:44 AM PDT by Just sayin (Is is what it is, for if it was anything else, it would be isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8540 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson