Any objections to Artificial Wombs?

[BornInMarch]

Scientists are currently working on ways to develop artificial wombs, which would allow fetuses to develop outside of a woman’s body. There are many effects this would have?

The biggest effect is that it could potentially end all abortions. Woman get abortions because they don’t want to carry a child and are too impatient to wait until it is born and give it up for adoption. If Artificial Wombs were a reality, then unborn children who would otherwise be aborted could be simply relocated instead of murdered.

Apart from that, fetuses with deformities could have surgery preformed on them easier.

Are there any downsides to Artificial Wombs?

 

[edwest2]

This is a complex matter. On the scientific side, there are many questions to be answered. Among them, (A) to what would the umbilical cord be attached, (B) how would the proper nutrients and hormones be balanced, and (C) what would this cost?

On the ethical side. This is barbaric. Bad enough that an embryo is somehow transplanted to the device. A far worse case would be an in-vitro fertilized egg is inserted into the device. The woman experiences zero pregnancy.

However, such technology is very poorly understood. And if the developing baby dies at any point, who is liable? Such a device would have to undergo years of testing. Any problems manifesting in the resulting child may be traced to the device in some cases. Version 1.0 may not be good enough. Version 12.0 may be just barely good enough. And “good” here refers only to functionality. Too many problems and the public will lose confidence.

On moral grounds, this is 100% wrong. Better to continue to focus on nonharmful genetic testing, engineering out a piece of bad code and then splicing in the right code and improving surgical techniques while the baby is in the womb. These things would be better and certainly more moral and ethical choices.

Vat-grown babies. No.

May God have mercy,

Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Scientists are currently working on ways to develop artificial wombs, which would allow fetuses to develop outside of a woman’s body. There are many effects this would have?

The biggest effect is that it could potentially end all abortions. Woman get abortions because they don’t want to carry a child and are too impatient to wait until it is born and give it up for adoption. If Artificial Wombs were a reality, then unborn children who would otherwise be aborted could be simply relocated instead of murdered.

Apart from that, fetuses with deformities could have surgery preformed on them easier.

Are there any downsides to Artificial Wombs?

I’m sure Satan thinks it is a great idea.
The trouble is God gave man and woman the command to increase and multiply. He didn’t tell them to make a machine to do the job for them!!!

Linus2nd

 

[BornInMarch]

I’m sure Satan thinks it is a great idea.
The trouble is God gave man and woman the command to increase and multiply. He didn’t tell them to make a machine to do the job for them!!!

Linus2nd

I am not saying whether I agree or disagree, I am just saying that it could potentially end abortions. People usually get abortions for selfish reasons, so they normally don’t care whether the baby is healthy or not.

The baby would still be from the DNA of both of his parents, and therefore would have been the result of natural processes. It would just be in a special facility if his parents did not want him, if his mother was at health risk, or even if he was at risk.

Please, tell me who is getting harmed by this?

How is an artificial womb different from an artificial knee or a pacemaker, except that this saves lives?

 

[jediliz]

I don’t particularly like the idea, but since people claim the unborn child is just a clump of cells…I wish there was a way to show a view of the womb 24/7 (like an ultrasound) that would PROVE the humanity to those who failed biology classes (which I think is why they don’t understand fetal development)

And yes there are ethical problems with this…I wish there would be a way for this to help those who wanted a child, but suffered from uterine cancer resulting in permanent loss of fertility…but that would require IVF to use the artificial womb so it denies God’s roll in the process.

 

[on_the_hill]

 

[BornInMarch]

I don’t particularly like the idea, but since people claim the unborn child is just a clump of cells…I wish there was a way to show a view of the womb 24/7 (like an ultrasound) that would PROVE the humanity to those who failed biology classes (which I think is why they don’t understand fetal development)

And yes there are ethical problems with this…I wish there would be a way for this to help those who wanted a child, but suffered from uterine cancer resulting in permanent loss of fertility…but that would require IVF to use the artificial womb so it denies God’s roll in the process.

I never mentioned IVF: it could be possible to transfer naturally conceived babies into an artificial womb if the mother was too selfish or if there was risk (to the mother or to the child).

I find abortion to be abhorrent, making it a stain of hypocrisy on nations that claim to be civilized. But if artificial wombs become a reality, than Abortion will be reduced to nothing more than a bad memory.

Now, barring IVF (which I don’t know that much about), what is wrong with Artificial Wombs? How are Artificial Wombs different in any way whatsoever to life support?

 

[DAML72]

Uhm, is this a serious question on a Catholic website? Of course there’s a problem with artificial wombs - a LOT of problems.

Seriously?

Aside from the obvious harvesting of human beings in artificial wombs, bringing parent-less children into the world, creating babies that have never felt the comfort and connection of the mother’s womb, etc. etc., I don’t see how this would solve the problem of abortion at all. Do you really think that women and men who decide not to choose adoption are going to choose to have their offspring raised in a laboratory, not knowing what will happen to those babies - who will parent them, how they will be raised?

 

[z_0101]

given from what I understand of the other teachings of the church on ABC, ART, etc… an artificial womb, that is not intended to act as an organ replacement/transplant, such as an artificial heart, or some other very restricted application, is most likely to be held to be a violation of the dignity of the child.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has already made some comments about this:
articles on The Morality of Artificial Womb Technology
Sorry, this is just the abstracts to the articles in their publication and will cost you read the entire article.
CA-Live often has individuals from NCBC or those that cite the NCBC, the review should be within the norms.

For me personally, I remember reading the Orwellian type books (and for that fact, those actually written by G. Orwell) that described societies that used this type of “human creation” to control and dehumanize the population, assigning work types, education level, and more via the genetics. This type of technology, reminds me these novels and I don’t put it past any form of government to use it in an attempt to breed a submissive society, subservient to the elect few. :bigyikes:

 

[edwest2]

I hate the word “harvesting” which should only be applied to plants, not people. People get abortions for a number of reasons and some do claim they simply cannot afford to have another mouth to feed. If they are too poor, an artificial womb would not be an option. Abortion is evil, first, then it’s about money. The same would apply here.

The biological complexities of a real pregnancy would have to be duplicated by a device. And if it works incorrectly, at any point, liability kicks in for whoever is managing/operating the device. All medical devices have to be tested and meet government safety standards. A process which will take years.

Does anyone want to know how abortion got here in 1973?

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

I’m seeing the beginning of the same lies from 1972 and 1973. “Abortion should be legal and rare.” “Abortion should be done by trained medical professionals so women don’t have to die in ‘back alley’ abortions.”

Lies, and more lies. Human dignity requires mothers to be mothers and fathers to be fathers. This is about a woman’s right to choose? In cases of consensual sex, where was the man? In another room? His voice doesn’t matter? Think about it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Usige]

Please, tell me who is getting harmed by this?

First and foremost the hundreds or thousands of children that will be used as lab rats to see if it worked. I can assure you there will be several hundred failures and they will use human beings to test it. Even the successes will likely be destroyed. No lab is going to want to take care of the results of their experiments.

I also think you underestimate the difficulties of removing a living child from one womb and transplanting it into one of these machines. It’s not going to be as simple as unplugging a blender and handing it to the neighbor and plugging it in across the street. We are likely talking microsurgery and very skilled docs. That would not be remotely cheap. A woman willing to pay to have her child dismembered in her body and thrown in the garbage likely won’t sign up for a procedure that will likely run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Given that I doubt it would have any impact on abortions.

So where would we most likely seek technology like this used? I suspect rich people that don’t want to deal with pregnancy and are looking for a baby that they can customize to their specs. You might see it for very special cases for preterm surgeries but it would be a terrific hurdle to move the placenta or to attach a babies umbilical cord to an artificial placenta.

 

[z_0101]

I’m seeing the beginning of the same lies from 1972 and 1973. “Abortion should be legal and rare.” “Abortion should be done by trained medical professionals so women don’t have to die in ‘back alley’ abortions.”
Ed

And as we see now, quite often the person performing the abortions isn’t a fully trained medical professional. as having one onsite is considered too egregious of a requirement for the facility… it wouldn’t take long with the artificial womb for the same relaxation of rules to be enforced.

Here comes Orwell’s “1984” and " A brave New World"

:sad_yes:

 

[BornInMarch]

There are some things that need clearing up.

First of all, children born from artificial wombs will not be raised in laboratories: they will likely be put up for adoption.

Secondly, some people talk about “breaking the bond between mother and child” but sadly it is not always there. Some women abandon their newborns in alleys or in dumpsters, some give them up for adoption. Abortion and infanticide are two examples of how the connection between mother and child is based on nurture rather than nature. A third example is how a sterile can love an adopted child as though it was her own.

How is this different in any way at all from when parents give newborns up for adoption? If fetuses are human beings, than putting them on life support until they are ready to be born is probably going to be a good thing. Adults are put on life support when they are unable to live without it, so how is that different from putting the unborn on life support when ear parents don’t want them?

I want to see a world where Abortions never happen again (and where nobody has to die), and this is probably the best shot of that happening.

 

[z_0101]

There are some things that need clearing up.

First of all, children born from artificial wombs will not be raised in laboratories: they will likely be put up for adoption.

False assumption. We actually have no idea how these children would be raised.

As for adoption, in the USA, in many states, the adoption process can take up to five years and cost over 30,000US and then if the biological parents want the child back there is usually a two to five year window when they can file for paternal rights and the courts have usually returned the child to the biological parent.
I know this from first hand experience with the adoption system… sad, very very very sad… and recently there was a push to write into law that adoptive parents had be on the foster parent roles for three or more years first because the state is having issues with a lack of foster parents.

Secondly, some people talk about “breaking the bond between mother and child” but sadly it is not always there. Some women abandon their newborns in alleys or in dumpsters, some give them up for adoption.

and there are many reasons for this disconnect, quite often, something traumatic or medical is at the root cause. (Actually, I’ve never heard of a single case where there wasn’t something along these lines involved - however, I’ve only lived for half a century and didn’t follow such things for first decade or so )

Abortion and infanticide are two examples of how the connection between mother and child is based on nurture rather than nature.

no, these are the results of the failure of medical professionals and of the individual to provide and/or seek proper medical and psychological care.
The normative NATURE of the human is to cling to and protect new-born children. However, there are some people that suffer from a medical condition call postpartum depression and this condition can result in very tragic consequences for both mom and baby. Or even more tragically, there can be pressure from third parties to dispose of the newborn… even though the mother may still want the child.

A third example is how a sterile can love an adopted child as though it was her own.

There’s nothing in this statement that makes sense… my little brother was adopted, I love him no less than my four biological children love each other… I even have a few friends that I love as I would a sibling, and their children are as my own in my heart. God made us to love one another - that is the norm.

How is this different in any way at all from when parents give newborns up for adoption?

Because there is every chance that once the child is born of the mother that the family will accept this precious gift of life from our Lord and this does happen.

If fetuses are human beings, than putting them on life support until they are ready to be born is probably going to be a good thing. Adults are put on life support when they are unable to live without it, so how is that different from putting the unborn on life support when ear parents don’t want them?

Here we can agree, say for some reason the mother needs treatment for cancer or is killed in a car collision, etc… having this technology would be (IMHO) a wonderful thing. So long as the use of an AW is restricted to this context, I don’t see the harm.

I want to see a world where Abortions never happen again (and where nobody has to die), and this is probably the best shot of that happening.

• I too would like to see a world without the murder of innocent children; however, this isn’t (IMHO) the best shot… we need to not be having sex outside of marriage, we need to have fathers that stay and support the children they help to create, we need to return the dignity of women so that in the eyes of men they are no-longer an object for sex but the human being that God intended…
  in any case… as sad as it would be, this would come down to money… and I doubt that society will pay to place the unwanted child into one of these AW for 9 months and then pay yet more while the child is in the “system”
• As for no-one ever dying… if you mean by the hand of man then we agree too; however, if you mean by natural death, then we must disagree, the death of the body is natural in this life.

 

[CatholicSheila]

I don’t see how this is going to solve the abortion crisis.

Even if we assume that pregnant women who would currently get an abortion would choose to get a transplant into the artificial womb, what happens to the children?

There are over 1 million abortions each year in the US alone. Who would raise these 1 million children? The demand for adoptive children isn’t that strong. At best these children would be raised in group homes, with no parents.

This isn’t a solution to abortion.

 

[markomalley]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

---

Seriously, there is no ethical upside to this. And it will be abused. Horribly.

For example, in our utilitarian society, I can easily see a case being made for either conceiving (via IVF) or cloning a baby, maturing it in such an “artificial womb”, solely for the purpose of harvesting organs for transplant.

And, frankly, I can imagine worse than that happening.

 

[BornInMarch]

False assumption. We actually have no idea how these children would be raised.

As for adoption, in the USA, in many states, the adoption process can take up to five years and cost over 30,000US and then if the biological parents want the child back there is usually a two to five year window when they can file for paternal rights and the courts have usually returned the child to the biological parent.
I know this from first hand experience with the adoption system… sad, very very very sad… and recently there was a push to write into law that adoptive parents had be on the foster parent roles for three or more years first because the state is having issues with a lack of foster parents.

and there are many reasons for this disconnect, quite often, something traumatic or medical is at the root cause. (Actually, I’ve never heard of a single case where there wasn’t something along these lines involved - however, I’ve only lived for half a century and didn’t follow such things for first decade or so )

no, these are the results of the failure of medical professionals and of the individual to provide and/or seek proper medical and psychological care.
The normative NATURE of the human is to cling to and protect new-born children. However, there are some people that suffer from a medical condition call postpartum depression and this condition can result in very tragic consequences for both mom and baby. Or even more tragically, there can be pressure from third parties to dispose of the newborn… even though the mother may still want the child.

There’s nothing in this statement that makes sense… my little brother was adopted, I love him no less than my four biological children love each other… I even have a few friends that I love as I would a sibling, and their children are as my own in my heart. God made us to love one another - that is the norm.

Because there is every chance that once the child is born of the mother that the family will accept this precious gift of life from our Lord and this does happen.

Here we can agree, say for some reason the mother needs treatment for cancer or is killed in a car collision, etc… having this technology would be (IMHO) a wonderful thing. So long as the use of an AW is restricted to this context, I don’t see the harm.

• I too would like to see a world without the murder of innocent children; however, this isn’t (IMHO) the best shot… we need to not be having sex outside of marriage, we need to have fathers that stay and support the children they help to create, we need to return the dignity of women so that in the eyes of men they are no-longer an object for sex but the human being that God intended…
  in any case… as sad as it would be, this would come down to money… and I doubt that society will pay to place the unwanted child into one of these AW for 9 months and then pay yet more while the child is in the “system”
• As for no-one ever dying… if you mean by the hand of man then we agree too; however, if you mean by natural death, then we must disagree, the death of the body is natural in this life.

Finally, a counter argument that isn’t rooted in Luddism.

Scientists aren’t going to harvest their organs, for the same reason they don’t harvest the organs of people on life support. Putting them up for adoption seems like the most practical option.

I know the adoption process isn’t ideal, but it still gives the children a fighting chance and is MUCH better than just killing them.

There is some confusion by what I meant: I only meant that familial connections are formed as a result of who takes care of you, not who’s blood you have.

I wish it was as simple as people being willing to keep their babies/ show some self restraint, but the sad truth is that people tend to be selfish (the result of original sin). This is why the only other way to end abortions is to criminalize them (like in Chile). I am not suggesting all births be from artificial wombs, I am only saying that I would be okey if an unborn baby develop in one if that means it won’t be burned alive by saline or stabbed by the abortionists scalpel. Continuing the life support metaphor, it is meant for people who would die without it.

When I said I don’t want anyone to die, I meant unnaturally. I don’t want anyone to be aborted, I don’t want anyone to be the victim of avoidable accidents or succumb to untreatable diseases.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am not saying whether I agree or disagree, I am just saying that it could potentially end abortions. People usually get abortions for selfish reasons, so they normally don’t care whether the baby is healthy or not.

The baby would still be from the DNA of both of his parents, and therefore would have been the result of natural processes. It would just be in a special facility if his parents did not want him, if his mother was at health risk, or even if he was at risk.

Please, tell me who is getting harmed by this?

How is an artificial womb different from an artificial knee or a pacemaker, except that this saves lives?

First of all, in the process of perfecting this machine many eggs, sperms, embryos, human babies will be destroyed. Even after the machine has been " perfected " the reality will be that more than sufficient embryos will be produced so that one or two " perfect " ones will be allowed to grow to maturity. This means the less desireable ones will be destroyed. It all sounds like the same evils perpetuated as in invetro fertilization.

Then there is the question of how the sperm will be obtained. Doesn’t that require an immoral act to be performed? Then there is the question how to justify this given that God has already made his will known.

Linus2nd

 

[edwest2]

There are some things that need clearing up.

First of all, children born from artificial wombs will not be raised in laboratories: they will likely be put up for adoption.

Secondly, some people talk about “breaking the bond between mother and child” but sadly it is not always there. Some women abandon their newborns in alleys or in dumpsters, some give them up for adoption. Abortion and infanticide are two examples of how the connection between mother and child is based on nurture rather than nature. A third example is how a sterile can love an adopted child as though it was her own.

How is this different in any way at all from when parents give newborns up for adoption? If fetuses are human beings, than putting them on life support until they are ready to be born is probably going to be a good thing. Adults are put on life support when they are unable to live without it, so how is that different from putting the unborn on life support when ear parents don’t want them?

I want to see a world where Abortions never happen again (and where nobody has to die), and this is probably the best shot of that happening.

This is 100% wrong. There is no possible justification for its use. Private, unnamed companies would create lab rats and “human property.” If not in the US then elsewhere. The complexities of such a technology are apparently lost to some here. Only an embryologist and those who are educated in fetal development would know the difference between what “life support” means and putting an embryo, which is intimately reliant on the mother, connected through the umbilical cord, for it to grow, deliver all nutrients, hormones and other needs, in a machine that would have to duplicate all that.

This is also another attempt to destroy the family from removing the conjugal act from procreation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Pug]

I think abortion would always be cheaper than transference to an iron womb, hence they won’t end abortion. Surrogacy would likely remain cheaper as well, especially in third world countries.