I wonder how the conservative right will feel about this. I mean, pro-life is one thing. Uterus sharing may be quite another. I can only begin to imagine the potential backlash:
If God had meant for THAT woman to have/continue to have children, she wouldn't have lost her own uterus in the first place.
It's an abomination! Only those of us who have the uterus we were born with should be having children.
It's shameful, it's selfish, it's not natural.
Hmm... While it certainly may not be 'natural', it's no less natural than say, using botox to hide your 'natural' wrinkles. Or receiving any other organ transplant to unnaturally preserve or extend a life.
However, the concept of removing it post partum gives rise to the image of a single uterus being 'passed around' to multiple females (at $500k a pop), until it reaches a level of non-viability. Now that might be pushing the limits of moral tolerance. Or would it?
Shades of 'The Handmaidens' Tale'?
No comments:
Post a Comment