Sounds good, BUT - now think like an evil person...

What if, a few days before birth, the mother has a procedure (or takes a drug) that intentionally destroys the baby's lungs?

The baby survives through birth (as it is being oxygenated by the umbilical cord), but is not viable at birth -- it has no (working) lungs...

Now they can harvest organs from a full-grown baby (the most profitable kind).

And they can dissect the baby 'easily' and on an operating table instead of a (more difficult) 'in utero' procedure.

Everything I just described would be LEGAL.

I don't think the wording fixes things.

Sounds good, BUT - now think like an evil person...

What if, a few days before birth, the mother has a procedure (or takes a drug) that intentionally destroys the baby's lungs?

The baby survives through birth (as it is being oxygenated by the umbilical cord), but is not viable at birth -- it has no (working) lungs...

Now they can harvest organs from a full-grown baby (the most profitable kind).

And they can dissect the baby 'easily' and on an operating table instead of a (more difficult) 'in utero' procedure.

I don't think the wording fixes things.

Sounds good, BUT - now think like an evil person...

What if, a few days before birth, the mother has a procedure (or takes a drug) that intentionally destroys the baby's lungs?

The baby survives through birth (as it is being oxygenated by the umbilical cord), but is not viable at birth -- it has no (working) lungs...

Now they can easily harvest organs from a full-grown (most profitable) baby on an operating table instead of the (more difficult) 'in utero' procedure.

I don't think the wording fixes things.