victor809 wrote:So this is a much more complicated question. First, does anyone actually WANT the thing? I mean, if someone wants it then I'm comfortable with drawing the line at up to the point where our technology can make them viable without a host. If they are viable without the host, then remove them and place them in an incubator (assuming another individual has the desire and resources to keep said fetus alive).
An alternative would be to minimize the total amount of pain/discomfort across all parties. At this moment however, there isn't any conclusive evidence of fetal pain in time frames at which premature birth isn't feasible, so at this time it cannot be ascertained as earlier than the above.
When more/better/different information and technology is available that time can be shifted.
If no one wants it... well, then I'm not sure what the purpose would be to have it.
It's a more complicated question, but it is the crux of the issue for most.
The religious right feel that pulling-out too soon is against god's will.
Meanwhile, planned parenthood never met a pregnancy they didn't want to abort, and I hear they're pushing for 4th trimester abortions some day soon.
You have chosen to use technology to determine if a human life is worth saving.
So an unborn child of tomorrow is more important than those of 50 years ago.
And the unborn in America are more worthy than those in Zimbabwe.
You do see, don't you, how you're using YOUR beliefs to set the standard?
And as far as "nobody wanting" the unborn child?
The father in the first post apparently DID want the child.