Womb Transplant

[DL82]

If doctors could transplant a womb with an early-stage fetus inside it from one woman to another, would this:

a) take all the wind out of the pro-abortion lobby’s sails (because a woman would no longer be forced to carry the babyor kill it, but would have a 3rd option)?

and/or

b) be permitted within the Church’s teachings on reproductive ethics?

I know it’s somewhat far-fetched, but I’m curious about it.

 

[Dale_M]

Yes it is far-fetched, considering that no successful uterus transplant has ever taken place. In your scenario there would be the added complication of the placenta and the fetus.

And we don’t know anything about the effects of powerful immunosuppressive drugs on a developing fetus. Such drugs are essential to prevent organ rejection.

But even it were medically possible the Church would likely frown on it, since donating one’s uterus is effectively sterilizing oneself.

 

[vz71]

If doctors could transplant a womb with an early-stage fetus inside it from one woman to another, would this:

a) take all the wind out of the pro-abortion lobby’s sails (because a woman would no longer be forced to carry the babyor kill it, but would have a 3rd option)?

Likely not.
Abortion is big business, and they are likely not to give up on the source of income so easily.

and/or

b) be permitted within the Church’s teachings on reproductive ethics?

I know it’s somewhat far-fetched, but I’m curious about it.

While it would be a self-sterilization, we are already operating on a bunch of assumptions. One could easily presume that there is a medical reason other then the purpose of sterilization.
If that is so, then double effect would come into play, and the church could permit it.

 

[Swan]

If doctors could transplant a womb with an early-stage fetus inside it from one woman to another, would this:

a) take all the wind out of the pro-abortion lobby’s sails (because a woman would no longer be forced to carry the babyor kill it, but would have a 3rd option)?

and/or

b) be permitted within the Church’s teachings on reproductive ethics?

I know it’s somewhat far-fetched, but I’m curious about it.

I had a simliar idea - what if we could remove the embryo and implant it another woman? I didn’t think of the womb idea. If this were medically possible, it would work for me. Let me explain, I had an abortion about 23 years ago. I’m bipolar and it is likely that, given my mental condition and the circumstances involves, I would have committed suicide had I not been able to get the abortion. It is very possible that the hormone change exacerbated by illness and I also had servere nausea resulting in rapid weight loss (not helped by the depression). However, had I had an alternative such as this, where I could have passed it on, so to speak, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Sometimes the woman is just not able to carry the baby to term - which was my case.

 

[Newbie2]

I had a simliar idea - what if we could remove the embryo and implant it another woman? I didn’t think of the womb idea. If this were medically possible, it would work for me. Let me explain, I had an abortion about 23 years ago. I’m bipolar and it is likely that, given my mental condition and the circumstances involves, I would have committed suicide had I not been able to get the abortion. It is very possible that the hormone change exacerbated by illness and I also had servere nausea resulting in rapid weight loss (not helped by the depression). However, had I had an alternative such as this, where I could have passed it on, so to speak, I would have done it in a heartbeat. Sometimes the woman is just not able to carry the baby to term - which was my case.

That’s a more likely scenerio…being more medically possible than the original scenerio, that is…and an interesting moral question.

If the intent and result is that the embryo is “rescued”, morally, it seems to me a similar instance to a couple “adopting” a frozen embryo that would otherwise be destroyed.

 

[Dale_M]

That’s a more likely scenerio…being more medically possible than the original scenerio, that is…and an interesting moral question.

I’m not sure that it is medically more possible.

The fetus can’t survive without the placenta and the placenta digs its fingers into the uterus’s blood supply - this is the source of nutrition and oxygen for the fetus. Premature separation of the placenta from the uterine wall is known as placental abruption and there is no known way to reattach the placenta to the mother’s uterus, let alone a stranger’s uterus.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not sure that it is medically more possible.

The fetus can’t survive without the placenta and the placenta digs its fingers into the uterus’s blood supply - this is the source of nutrition and oxygen for the fetus. Premature separation of the placenta from the uterine wall is known as placental abruption and there is no known way to reattach the placenta to the mother’s uterus, let alone a stranger’s uterus.

I didn’t 'splain that well. Let’s say that at this point, with our current Medical technology, neither is possible, although the second scenario is less problematic than the first from what we currently know. I’m presuming given the two different sets of obstacles to overcome, the second presents the lessor of the two challenges.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m presuming given the two different sets of obstacles to overcome, the second presents the lessor of the two challenges.

I’m not sure that is true, given we would have to be concerned with the amniotic sac breaking. But whatever, either is a science-fiction scenario.

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not sure that is true, given we would have to be concerned with the amniotic sac breaking. But whatever, either is a science-fiction scenario.

Not really…amniotic sacs are tougher than they might seem (at least in dogs and cats; I’ve come across more than a few in my regular job. I would suppose that there might be a synthetic interface that could be used to replace the original uterine wall/placenta connection.

But your’e right…that’s Star-Trek stuff, at least for the time being.

 

[mapleoak]

If doctors could transplant a womb with an early-stage fetus inside it from one woman to another, would this:

a) take all the wind out of the pro-abortion lobby’s sails (because a woman would no longer be forced to carry the babyor kill it, but would have a 3rd option)?

No, because the pro-abortion industry’s interest is not in finding ways to get around having an abortion. Their industry sells a “service” which is death. They will not give up their livelihood because of options. All of the babies they currently kill do not need to be killed, but are killed anyway. Options make no difference.