• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Artificial Uterus

*sigh*

Why do people think that technology and biology so seamlessly interrelate? There are constant problems with medical interventions. It's not like we would be able to safely remove a fetus that is attached to a woman's uterus and put it into a robotic uterus with ZERO risk to woman or fetus. Technological medicine is, quite frankly, barbaric.

That, and we don't know everything there is to know about human conception. It's hubris to say that an artificial womb could supply everything required to create a normal human being.

Stop watching sci-fi. We are a long way off.

There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion. Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.

It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.

Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction? You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.
 
I would think that the development of an artificial uterus would do nothing to the issue of abortion. A woman is not likely to give up a fetus to be brought to term by the father and be subjected to the same legal responsibilities that fathers are when the woman they impregnate brings to term a child the man didn't want. Likewise, what would be the legal and medical process for the transfer.

What this may do, however, is provide sometime in the future for men to have children without the need for a woman, just the eggs, similar to women having children without the need for a man, just the sperm. I can think of many men who'd think it was awesome to be able to have a child without the baggage of needing a woman to carry the child to term and all the emotional and legal messiness that can entail. And let's not forget gay male couples too - no more need for adoption or surrogates.

Interesting that you brought up the second half of your post. In the same episode they were talking to this lady who was studying a way of taking the XY chromosome of men and someone how combining the two X's from different chromosome and converting it into an egg. Thus giving the men the ability to have a child that is the genetic byproduct of the two men. At the time, though, they'd still need a surrogate mother.
 
1.) There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion.
2.)Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.
3.)It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.
4.) Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction?
5.) You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.

1.) yes there are, currently less risk than giving birth
2.) im sure millions disagree with you if it means the mothers life and if its before viability
3.) actually its just basic common sense for a couple reasons

unless this procedure is equle or less risk its very obvious why people would not risk thier life
2ndly this doesnt address the millions that feel obligated by their responsibilities and morals to not have bring the ZEF to term if they cant properly take care of it or be the parent themselves

so your opinion of "better alternative" extends no further than you, many would disagree and your opinion is no better than theirs. in fact since its their life and decisions there's is worth more for them just like yours is worth more to you.

4.) again your opinion on unnecessary isnt worth much to others
5.) out of your way? this is just nonsensical hyperbolic rhetoric
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one point. If there is no further trauma to be added onto the woman by the removal procedure vs the abortion procedure, then they had equal share in the creation and thus have equal say in the destruction, or lack thereof. If she is going to keep it dispite his not wanting to, she has the current custody and thus final say. If neither wants it, no issues at all. But if she doesn't want it, while it is her right to have it removed, he gets a chance to keep it even if she doesn't want it to remain viable. Again the key here is that the removal procedure is of equal or less trauma than the abortion procedure.

and if he doesn't want it, it's up to the life begins at conception folks to raise it to adulthood.
 
Scientists are already able to take a woman's egg make it hallow and then insert the DNA of a baby so they can grow a cloned embryo ( no sperm used ) for the stem cells of identical DNA to be used by that baby
 
Scientists are already able to take a woman's egg make it hallow and then insert the DNA of a baby so they grow a cloned embryo ( no sperm used ) for the stem cells

Cloned is the key word there.
 
Cloned is the key word there.

I know but I thought it was interesting they did not even need a mans sprem to grow an embryo.
 
I think it's pretty audacious for us to even be thinking about it when we still have IVF babies coming out disabled at significantly higher than normal rates.

^This
 
I know but I thought it was interesting they did not even need a mans sprem to grow an embryo.

I don't think it's of much value when it has to be cloned. :shrug:
 
What's wrong with making babies the old fashioned way?

Dit...it might start out with good intentions but when folks find out the regular way feels too good, that they might want to do it more...but without conceiving....but then the realization hits them that ...what they are doing is really for the purpose to conceive and birth a child.

It gets too complicated...too many people involve somehow...you get the gist...
 
I would think that the development of an artificial uterus would do nothing to the issue of abortion. A woman is not likely to give up a fetus to be brought to term by the father and be subjected to the same legal responsibilities that fathers are when the woman they impregnate brings to term a child the man didn't want. Likewise, what would be the legal and medical process for the transfer.

What this may do, however, is provide sometime in the future for men to have children without the need for a woman, just the eggs, similar to women having children without the need for a man, just the sperm. I can think of many men who'd think it was awesome to be able to have a child without the baggage of needing a woman to carry the child to term and all the emotional and legal messiness that can entail. And let's not forget gay male couples too - no more need for adoption or surrogates.

Even if the AU would require to be placed within the male such that he went through most of what the female goes through? Obviously there would be no birth canal, so it would be a C-section equivilant.

and if he doesn't want it, it's up to the life begins at conception folks to raise it to adulthood.

I think you need to go back and read my post. I noted that if neither wanted the offspring then it's abortion as normal.

What's wrong with making babies the old fashioned way?

Obviously the AU would be for couples who, for one reason or another, cannot make babies the old fashion way. It would also be used so that fathers can keep their offspring when the mothers don't want them (for those couples not in committed relationships)
 
Dit...it might start out with good intentions but when folks find out the regular way feels too good, that they might want to do it more...but without conceiving....but then the realization hits them that ...what they are doing is really for the purpose to conceive and birth a child.

Yep beat that system. It's all pure pleasure from here on out for me baby!


Interesting when I did the Reply with Quote the following came up in the quoted section:
It gets too complicated...too many people involve somehow...you get the gist...
Wierd!
 
Yep beat that system. It's all pure pleasure from here on out for me baby!


Interesting when I did the Reply with Quote the following came up in the quoted section:

Wierd!


It shouldn't be too weird. Sex isn't a private thing apparently. Some might think it is...but naaahhh. And certainly conception...whoaaaaaa....certainly isn't private. Everybody from the Pope, Pat Robertson, the Texas State Legislators believe that they have the right to manage everybody's reproductive rights, but more in particular women's.

Next on the sexual behavior agenda from the aforementioned is a "Peanut Gallery" to observe and make sure people are doing like they want and require them to do.

What's so weird about that? As I said. It's all too complicated and too many people believe that they have the right to be involved in everybody's personal life. You know, save everybody from destroying innocent folks and souls.
 
It shouldn't be too weird. Sex isn't a private thing apparently. Some might think it is...but naaahhh. And certainly conception...whoaaaaaa....certainly isn't private. Everybody from the Pope, Pat Robertson, the Texas State Legislators believe that they have the right to manage everybody's reproductive rights, but more in particular women's.

Next on the sexual behavior agenda from the aforementioned is a "Peanut Gallery" to observe and make sure people are doing like they want and require them to do.

My point is that sex has multiple purposes, and procreation is but one of them.

What's so weird about that? As I said. It's all too complicated and too many people believe that they have the right to be involved in everybody's personal life. You know, save everybody from destroying innocent folks and souls.

What was weird about it is that it wasn't there! When I responded to that post it was like it added a line or something. I thought maybe you had edited the line away but for some reason it was still in the system to be pulled up in the quote, or maybe you had set the text color to white to mess with people's heads. But I couldn't find it. And NOW I see the line and no indication of an edit. Like I said weird!
 
There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion. Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.

It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.

Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction? You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.

I'll be more willing to have this convo when an artificial uterus is created that can support human life in equal measure as a woman's womb. I've seen zero evidence that it can ever be accomplished or that it wouldn't produce an inferior offspring to the natural way.

If it affects the biological integrity of the human species, you bet I'd be against it. The prolife are against aborting people with downe's syndrome or hydroencephalus. It makes no sense. Sometimes destruction is better than half a life. It's not up to you. That choice is the woman's and no one else's. Even if an artificial uterus is available, you can't force a woman to undergo an operation to transplant the fetus.

She should still have the right to abort if she wants to.
 
My point is that sex has multiple purposes, and procreation is but one of them.



What was weird about it is that it wasn't there! When I responded to that post it was like it added a line or something. I thought maybe you had edited the line away but for some reason it was still in the system to be pulled up in the quote, or maybe you had set the text color to white to mess with people's heads. But I couldn't find it. And NOW I see the line and no indication of an edit. Like I said weird!

Well, actually I did hit the button prematurely...no pun intend...because I didn't really completely finish my comment.
 
There are risks to the woman in a regular abortion. Where the fetus is concerned, literally anything beats outright destruction.

It honestly boggles my mind that anyone would still push for abortion even if there was a better alternative available.

Why the insistence on unnecessary death and destruction? You'd basically be going out of your way to kill the unborn for the hell of it at that point.

Just because you can remove the risk to the mother or lower them and the save the child's life doesn't mean whatever you're thinking about doing is actually something we should seriously consider. Sure, the child won't die, but a child born with defects and all other kind of issues is undesirable just as well and when our actions caused it to happen it's hard to say we should consider such actions.
 
I'll be more willing to have this convo when an artificial uterus is created that can support human life in equal measure as a woman's womb. I've seen zero evidence that it can ever be accomplished or that it wouldn't produce an inferior offspring to the natural way.

If it affects the biological integrity of the human species, you bet I'd be against it. The prolife are against aborting people with downe's syndrome or hydroencephalus. It makes no sense. Sometimes destruction is better than half a life. It's not up to you. That choice is the woman's and no one else's. Even if an artificial uterus is available, you can't force a woman to undergo an operation to transplant the fetus.

She should still have the right to abort if she wants to.

I'm not equating this with a pro-life/pro-choice issue. I'm looking at this from the perspective of the rights of each of the biological parents. If a woman finds out her child is to be born with Down's Syndrome and still decides to keep it are you going to say that she shouldn't? So why should not the man get a chance to keep it, under the assumed conditions? If the woman is going to undergo an operation to begin with for an abortion and the removal procedure is such that it holds the same or less risk then what difference does it actually make? You are not forcing a procedure on her. She is getting what she wants, removal of the ZEF. I will always agree that she should have the right to have the ZEF removed, but not, under the given conditions, have the ZEF terminated.

Just because you can remove the risk to the mother or lower them and the save the child's life doesn't mean whatever you're thinking about doing is actually something we should seriously consider. Sure, the child won't die, but a child born with defects and all other kind of issues is undesirable just as well and when our actions caused it to happen it's hard to say we should consider such actions.

I would think it common sense that should we perfect this technology (and most likely NOT within our life time) then the risk of defects to the child would be equal to if not less than the natural method.
 
I'm not equating this with a pro-life/pro-choice issue. I'm looking at this from the perspective of the rights of each of the biological parents. If a woman finds out her child is to be born with Down's Syndrome and still decides to keep it are you going to say that she shouldn't? So why should not the man get a chance to keep it, under the assumed conditions? If the woman is going to undergo an operation to begin with for an abortion and the removal procedure is such that it holds the same or less risk then what difference does it actually make? You are not forcing a procedure on her. She is getting what she wants, removal of the ZEF. I will always agree that she should have the right to have the ZEF removed, but not, under the given conditions, have the ZEF terminated.



I would think it common sense that should we perfect this technology (and most likely NOT within our life time) then the risk of defects to the child would be equal to if not less than the natural method.

Even if it gets to that point eventually in the mean time many child will be born with defects that otherwise would not have been.
 
In a different thread, I had brought up a point about the possibility of bringing a child to term using an artificial womb. As it is the technology is still not there, but I just watched an episode of "Through the Wormhole" where a man had designed an artificial uterus to save an endangered species of shark.

An Artificial Uterus Gives an Endangered Species a Shot at Survival | Popular Science

Now granted, this is a shark, not a person, but it is a step in the direction.




Through the Wormhole s04e06 Episode Script | SS


I just thought I'd reintroduce the question and idea. If we could birth infants through an artificial womb, how would that change abortion?

The real question is whether it would be covered by health insurance. I do wonder if Pro life people will make such a noise about abortion if it means their insurance premiums going up in the process of saving fetuses. It would be interesting.
 
Even if it gets to that point eventually in the mean time many child will be born with defects that otherwise would not have been.

Maybe maybe not. There is no way to tell that. We may be forced to move towards AU technology because something has caused a significant rise in birth defects for ZEF's that remain in the natural womb. We don't know what the future will bring.
 
The real question is whether it would be covered by health insurance. I do wonder if Pro life people will make such a noise about abortion if it means their insurance premiums going up in the process of saving fetuses. It would be interesting.

If insurance companies cover it voluntarily I have no reason to care.
 
I'll be more willing to have this convo when an artificial uterus is created that can support human life in equal measure as a woman's womb. I've seen zero evidence that it can ever be accomplished or that it wouldn't produce an inferior offspring to the natural way.

If it affects the biological integrity of the human species, you bet I'd be against it. The prolife are against aborting people with downe's syndrome or hydroencephalus. It makes no sense. Sometimes destruction is better than half a life. It's not up to you. That choice is the woman's and no one else's. Even if an artificial uterus is available, you can't force a woman to undergo an operation to transplant the fetus.

She should still have the right to abort if she wants to.

True...it would have to be substantially more advance. But there are few other issues involved, too.

Some women really don't want their offspring to go to people who they don't know...or they would have zero control over as many women do actually worry about the welfare of the child if given birth to and let it be adopted. And some women see the world as a place that they don't believe is worthy of their offspring. Some see the world as an unfit place.
 
If insurance companies cover it voluntarily I have no reason to care.

Agreed. Neither AU nor abortion nor any other procedure should be required to be provided by insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom