Womb to Move

Doctors say it may soon be possible to do a uterus transplant sometime in the near future, which I suppose, is the equivalent of putting wheels on a condominium and turning it into a mobile home.
A solution that seems more than a little bit cumbersome and inelegant, if you ask me.
Now I'm not one of those guys who carries torches and pitchforks to the castle to roust the mad scientist from his castle because he's tampering with things that are best left to God.
It's amazing what we can do, thanks to the brains the good Lord gave us.
And just because something is hard and fraught with risks does not mean that we should just quit trying.
But in this case, transplanting a uterus seems like a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that already has a solution. Why build a new uterus when you can rent a perfectly good one through surrogacy?
An ethicist (now there's a job I'd like to get paid to do: just sit around thinking about right and wrong, good and evil) pointed out on a morning news show that when it comes to transplants, things like hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys are necessary. People die without a heart.
That's not the case with the uterus.
On the other hand, it's possible to live without a penis, but if I lost mine, I'd get on that transplant list as soon as possible.
One of the things I learned in my philosophy classes is that when it comes to ethics ''you can't derive the 'ought' from the 'is'.
Just because something is possible does not mean that we ought to do it.
I'm perfectly capable of socking an editor in the nose, but does that mean it is good or right for me to do it?
Not necessarily.
So it is with this newest foray into body part swapping.