I don’t normally talk about abortion.  It’s one of those nasty topics that can only get you enemies.  Otherwise rational people go stark raving spitting mad when it’s brought up.  That having been said, though, since today’s Bleat takes up the topic I thought, “What the heck?”

I once heard a libertarian (I think it was Dr. Mary Ruwart) propose a technological solution to abortion with the idea of transplanting the fetus to a willing recipient.  On first impression, that seems like an interesting idea, and one that could potentially end the whole debate over abortion.  The presenter of the idea thought that anti-abortion advocates would be better off putting their resources into researching and perfecting such a procedure.  And when considered strictly from a “market forces” approach, that may be true.  As we’ve seen, a simple ban on abortion will not end the practice.  Given that there will always be women who want to end a pregnancy, anti-abortionists can either provide an alternative or be ignored while abortions continue to be practiced (legally or not).

Since my falling out with the Libertarian party line after 9/11, though, I’ve started to question these things a bit more.  Also, since my cynicism knows few bounds, I suspect that such a simple solution would not actually solve the problem, or it least it would open up new problems.  But for the sake of argument, let’s accept the idea of a safe and effective medical procedure that would allow for the transplantation of a fetus from one woman to another.  As it turns out, such a procedure would open up a whole other set of questions.

Would such a procedure be accepted by the various religious authorities that currently condemn abortion?  Given the intransigence over birth-control in the Catholic Church, I could also see some sort of Papal edict banning the practice over some obscure bit of dogma.  Not being a religious person (I’m agnostic), I’m not really well versed on what issues might be raised.  I just sense that there could be some sort of resistance from this quarter.  Perhaps we’d see some ‘goalpost moving’ where the concept of life extends to the original mother or something.

Most of the anti-abortionists at some level want to see all abortion banned and made illegal.  Given that the law is not likely to make abortion illegal any time soon, would they be satisfied with this procedure as an alterative? 

But what about the pro-choicers?  Would they see this as an attack on their right to choose?  They’re pretty defensive about anything that gets in the way of choice.  They might interpret such a procedure as the camel’s nose of abortion prohibition under the tent (yes, this is counter to my assertion above that the legality of abortion is not likely to change, but I’m talking about the pro-choicers interpretation of events and their reactions to them). 

What would such a procedure cost?  I could see a situation where the transplant becomes more like adoption with the ‘donor’ vetting the prospective recipient and choosing based on homelife, income, etc.  The costs would then be borne by the recipient family.  But if the costs were too high, would there be enough propective recipients to take all of the unwanted fetuses?  Even if the costs are low, are there enough women who want children and can carry them to term but otherwise can’t conceive to take all of these fetuses?  According to the CDC, there were 857,475 abortions in the US in 2000.  At that rate, there’d have to be a veritable army of women volunteering each year to receive fetus transplants.

On the flip side of the ‘adoption’ scenario, would there be blind transplants where the ‘donor’ just wants to get rid of the fetus and doesn’t care who it goes to?  The adoption scenario presupposes that the woman cares enough about the fetus to go through the process.  If there is too much process or ceremony associated with giving up a fetus for transplant, it could continue to encourage some women to get an abortion.

What happens to the legal rights of the original mother after the transplant?  Does she implicitly give up all future rights and responsibilities or can she expect to have a knock on her door in 18 years?

What about the father’s rights and responsibilities?  If the father isn’t involved in the transplant can he suddenly show up and demand custody from the recipient?  Can he be sued for child support in the future?  Will the state come after him for support if the new mother ever applies for some kind of assistance?

I’m sure there a lot more issues that would arise.  These are just what I came up with after spending a few minutes thinking about it.  It still sounds like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in this situation.