As for the 8 months and beyond question, I imagine that the Academics would actively weigh the potential risks & rewards for the child rather than just removing the offending cells.

Sure. It seems also likely that a fetus could be removed without killing it.

I imagine, now knowing the Academic status on mercy-killing from this post, that if they believed a baby (baby as defined by any fetus that could survive outside the womb up to the point where they’re actively encoding memories, ~2.5 years) could have the potential to thrive, they would do everything possible to help zie do so. But if they thought the risks were too great, they would probably mercifully kill the child.

Well, now, that’s interesting. Particularly given that I remember stuff back to a year or so old.

But it also seems likely that they can tell when active memory is happening objectively. This comes down to the ability to process memes, I suspect.

The Academics are continually calculating risk, and their culture values experience and knowledge. I imagine with their technology that they have few infertility issues, and they carefully calculate resources. Why bother bringing an unwanted, unconscious clump of cells to fruition – why bother to risk that unwanted potential child’s health & emotional well being?

As for the 8 months and beyond question, I imagine that the Academics would actively weigh the potential risks & rewards for the child rather than just removing the offending cells.

I imagine, now knowing the Academic status on mercy-killing from this post, that if they believed a baby (baby as defined by any fetus that could survive outside the womb up to the point where they’re actively encoding memories, ~2.5 years) could have the potential to thrive, they would do everything possible to help zie do so. But if they thought the risks were too great, they would probably mercifully kill the child.

My 2 cents.

I think it’s an interesting question. I’d sure like to hear from a woman on it, though.