Any objections to Artificial Wombs?

[TarkanAttila]

There are thousands of ways in which this could go wrong, and thousands of variables which lies in the hands of those who make decisions whom I don’t think should have anything to do with it. And, oh God, what would governments do with it? I think scientists and governments have caused enough trouble with contraception, abortion, IVF, and all the rest of the abominable sexual tinkering our society sees as permissible.

For one thing, what happens to all those embryos in science labs? Now, of course the best thing might be to grow them and give them up for adoption. But what chance do you think there is that all, most, or even half of frozen embryos will attain that fate?

Another, which edwest brought up, would there be differences between an artificial womb and a natural one? How would nutrition be regulated? The body does it well enough. How would a machine compete? There are other questions I wonder the answers to: is there something special about a natural womb that no otherwise functional womb lacks? Is there something about being in another person’s body that makes it different from being in a personalityless machine, however accommodating? One may dwell in an hotel room, but rarely is such a room an home. Maybe an embryo in such a situation would survive unscathed. But we don’t know. How far should we go to find out?

Yet another, what does having a child naturally do for the mother? I imagine it has some healthy effects. Being needed is one of those; I can’t imagine that’s quite the same.

Another still, does it not separate the parents from the child still further, even if they were not wanted in the first place? Humans are resilient; we’d probably forget most of it after a year or three. …Right? I’m not sure. I’m not sure the mother would have as strong an attachment to what might feel like someone else’s baby. But, then, I myself am adopted. Humans are very resilient.

I don’t think it’s a good idea, though. I understand the OP’s concern about abortion, and if it were this or abortion, I’d say artificial womb. But for the life of me I can’t see anyone who’d choose abortion here and now choosing an artificial womb if it were offered to them. They don’t see life in the same way the Church does. And what would a Catholic do with it? In the rare circumstance it might be useful. But I wonder whether it would just give us one more thing we must say “no” to in the name of God, in the face of a brutally efficient, godless, control-worshiping culture.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t think it’s a good idea, though. I understand the OP’s concern about abortion, and if it were this or abortion, I’d say artificial womb. But for the life of me I can’t see anyone who’d choose abortion here and now choosing an artificial womb if it were offered to them. They don’t see life in the same way the Church does. And what would a Catholic do with it? In the rare circumstance it might be useful. But I wonder whether it would just give us one more thing we must say “no” to in the name of God, in the face of a brutally efficient, godless, control-worshiping culture.

Better that than straight out murder wouldn’t you think? I’ve come to conclude that many people on these boards are just so bent on sexual abstinence, discipline, and ‘natural’ birth control. As far as the first two objectives go, history just doesn’t give us a picture of any society that doesn’t have dodgy view on sexual morality (nope, not even the glorified dark ages).

 

[sennincatholic]

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?

Evil is not fought with evil…And besides,this will certainly not reduce the amount of abortions going on.This technology will be affordable for the richest because being in the medical field myself I can just imagine how much this stuff is going to cost its users.

 

[jeannetherese]

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?

HI Bornin March,
It’s been a lot of years (over 20) since I did the research, but I recall learning about the way that moms send chemical messages to their babies during pregnancy in relation to their mental state (happy, stressed, etc).
I recall thinking of my siblings and myself and our differing personalities. I’ve wondered whether this is all genetic or if some of the chemical messages we received in the womb might be contributing factors?
I think of some of the experiments done with animals who had their mothers removed at birth and were given inanimate substitutes and experienced failure to thrive.
That sterile environment in an artificial womb holds little appeal as I think of these things. Might the child be harmed by this? Quite possibly. To what extent do you think it is healthy to keep humans isolated from each other?
May God bless you.

jt

 

[Bran_Stark]

I think it would probably sinful to conceive a child with the intention of transferring it to an artificial womb. But once the child has already been conceived, and the mother refuses to give birth to it, I don’t see how it could possibly be sinful to remove the fetus from an environment which seeks its destruction and bring it into an environment which will allow it to be safely born.

 

[BornInMarch]

I think it would probably sinful to conceive a child with the intention of transferring it to an artificial womb. But once the child has already been conceived, and the mother refuses to give birth to it, I don’t see how it could possibly be sinful to remove the fetus from an environment which seeks its destruction and bring it into an environment which will allow it to be safely born.

Finally, someone understands what I’m getting at. Artificial Wombs are not too different from life support, so they would be acceptable on their own.

Also, technology tends to become less expensive the longer it existed. This means that this technology could end abortions.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Better that than straight out murder wouldn’t you think? I’ve come to conclude that many people on these boards are just so bent on sexual abstinence, discipline, and ‘natural’ birth control. As far as the first two objectives go, history just doesn’t give us a picture of any society that doesn’t have dodgy view on sexual morality (nope, not even the glorified dark ages).

It would be better than murder. But there are at least two practical problems. One, would it be cheaper? Two, would it be any more convenient than an abortion? Remember why people get abortions: it’s cheaper and more convenient than pregnancy.

Also, it seems like treating the symptoms, not the cause. Underlying every society is a warped understanding of reality. Abortion is a symptom of sexual philosophy gone wrong. When sexual morality goes wrong, the media goes wrong, the people go wrong.

Artificial wombs will not change people’s minds and souls. These are the things that need to be changed if you wish to end abortion. Artificial wombs would not even be a bandage, I fear, and would create more problems, I suspect, for the aforementioned reasons.

OP, I understand what you are saying. But looking at why people get abortions, I just don’t think it would work. Not on its own, anyway. Our culture would need to change utterly.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Also, it seems like treating the symptoms, not the cause. Underlying every society is a warped understanding of reality. Abortion is a symptom of sexual philosophy gone wrong. When sexual morality goes wrong, the media goes wrong, the people go wrong.

That doesn’t mean there’s ever been a time when sexual morality has ever gone right either. I look at Middle East Islam’s treatment of sexual ‘crimes’ and I’ve grown disturbed at how it parallels the medieval Catholic attitude at times. I don’t know what spirit inspires any faith to answer sexual deviancy with brutal capital punishment but I can’t for the life of me call it holy. With artificial womb (assuming it works perfectly), at least a kid has a future.

 

[BornInMarch]

That doesn’t mean there’s ever been a time when sexual morality has ever gone right either. I look at Middle East Islam’s treatment of sexual ‘crimes’ and I’ve grown disturbed at how it parallels the medieval Catholic attitude at times. I don’t know what spirit inspires any faith to answer sexual deviancy with brutal capital punishment but I can’t for the life of me call it holy. With artificial womb (assuming it works perfectly), at least a kid has a future.

That is a very good point.

People do not always do the right thing, and sexual hedonism (like sinfulness in general) is unfortunately not going to go away anytime soon. That’s the manifestation of original sin, as is violence in reaction to it.

Artificial Wombs would act as a life support, giving the child a chance to be born.

Technology becomes more advanced the longer it is around, so it will eventually convenient and affordable. Apart from that, it will obliterate the arguments of the pro-choice side so that abortions will appear needlessly cruel (which they already are).

 

[tabycat]

 

[marymary1975]

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

Unfortunately Ed it looks like most american suffer from severe amnesia or amnesia by convenience and don’t notice that the same lies get repeated over and over and all this practiced are sold to people repeating the same lie over and over. I wish more people were like you calling out on these lies so people could see where the real indoctrination is coming from.

 

[mikekle]

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

Agreed, but eventually this and many other crazy things will become ‘the norm’, we are right around the corner from them being able to do some truly astounding things with genetics, so people can basically pick what traits they want in a child, ‘weed out’ any negative traits as well…of course they sell it to the public as being a great thing, it will end diseases, and other problems, and Id bet alot of people will love this kind of thing!

They are also researching and experimenting on how to literally end death…hard to believe isnt? I thought the same, but after watching a special documentary at some US university, I was SHOCKED at what they know and what they can do right now…they are really close to being able to actually ‘transplant’ a persons self/conscience being, into some kind of bio-data storage device, like a computer, I cant do it justice here, as I dont understand much of it, but they knew what they were talking about LOL It is a bit scary to think we can almost do things like this…and eventually, even if its another 1000 yrs, I do think things like this will become the norm.

Not sure how God will respond though, I really think he would intervene if man somehow devised a way to beat death…but then again, he gave us free will, so maybe this is a case of man becoming gods…?

 

[The_Serpent]

Read “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley!

 

[manualman]

The OP has already noted not knowing much about church teaching on IVF. It’s EXTREMELY relevant and needs to be looked into. I’ll take a stab, but please don’t take my layman’s summary as a Summa of catholic bioethics on the matter.

IVF can theoretically be practiced in a manner that does not create more than a few (say 3) zygotes and ALL of those zygotes implanted into the woman. No frozen babies, no wholesale abortion going on, no selective reductions. Still horribly sinful.

Why? It’s sinful because the action itself innately reduces the miracle of human life to a technological process. Objectively, the science of human reproduction can and should be studied and understood. But when we cross the line to applying that knowledge as if the new human created is nothing more than an industrial biochemical engineering challenge, we’ve crossed the line into dehumanizing our very understanding of who we are and why we exist. By deciding to do it, we cross a line into seeing humanity differently and as less.

The same reasoning applies to hypothetical “artificial wombs.” They’d reduce the baby to a product even moreso than IVF does. Every human being has the human right to be the result of the loving union of a husband and wife. It’s how God designed humanity to work. Yes, there is already plenty of sin out there that deprives children of that right, but that’s hardly justification to invent and promote more.

I get what the OP is saying and why he thinks it would reduce abortion. It won’t. The contraception evangelists have been saying the same thing for decades, but the exact opposite happened for the same reason. Contraception dehumanizes sex from what it was supposed to be and so human life is valued less as a result. The more contraception is embraced the more abortion there is. This will be the same thing.

 

[manualman]

…they are really close to being able to actually ‘transplant’ a persons self/conscience being, into some kind of bio-data storage device, like a computer, I cant do it justice here, as I dont understand much of it, but they knew what they were talking about LOL It is a bit scary to think we can almost do things like this…and eventually, even if its another 1000 yrs, I do think things like this will become the norm.

I call BS. Humans still have almost no idea how the brain works or even if the brain actually stores memory and produces thought versus serves as a two way radio that communicates with a non-physical mind. This isn’t just catholic wishful thinking, either. Dr. John Eccles won the noble prize in neuro-chemistry and spent his life’s work looking for evidence one way or the other and still concluded that it was not possible to rule out the theory that the mind exists external to the physical reality of the body. Science surely shows that the body influences the mind, but this hardly proves that the mind subsists somewhere physical.

SciFi often ponders the issue. The best illustration of the materialist view was in Farscape where the hero was reproduced in perfect detail down to the atom and as a result had all the memories, thought patterns and personality of the original. IMO, this is silliness unless you first and fundamentally disbelieve in the existence of a soul.

PR schpiels brag about being close to earth shattering breakthroughs all the time - right before the pleas for more research funding start. Personally, I think we’ll see artificial gravity mastered long before a mind can be transplanted (which I suspect will be never).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The same reasoning applies to hypothetical “artificial wombs.” They’d reduce the baby to a product even moreso than IVF does.

Hmm… not sure you’ve made a real case here. The goal of an artificial womb (from the OPs premise) is that it’s meant to remove incentives for abortion. Granted, a woman who gets knocked up and just puts the baby in an artificial womb due to convenience is being wholly sensitive, irresponsible, and quite possibly sinful.

But hey, at least we can be a culture of convenience without killing babies anymore.

 

[BornInMarch]

The same reasoning applies to hypothetical “artificial wombs.” They’d reduce the baby to a product even moreso than IVF does. Every human being has the human right to be the result of the loving union of a husband and wife. It’s how God designed humanity to work. Yes, there is already plenty of sin out there that deprives children of that right, but that’s hardly justification to invent and promote more.

If a conscious human is bedridden and on life support, is he any less of a human? This is not a hypothetical question, he is just as much a human as someone who does not need life support.

Artificial wombs would be nothing more than life support. If an embryo (which was naturally conceived) was transferred to an artificial womb, than he/she is not any less of a human than one who develops in a natural setting. To say otherwise is to deny the fundamental fact that life begins at conception.

The child would not be parentless; if the people who conceived it want to keep it, than it will have loving parents. If they don’t want to keep it, than it will be given up for adoption and will still have loving parents.

Abortion and infanticide are two examples of how a child can develop in a natural womb and still not have a mother: if a woman murders her child than she does not get to call herself a mother.

Life begins at conception, so an artificial womb is just life support.

 

[3DOCTORS]

That is a very good point.

People do not always do the right thing, and sexual hedonism (like sinfulness in general) is unfortunately not going to go away anytime soon. That’s the manifestation of original sin, as is violence in reaction to it.

Artificial Wombs would act as a life support, giving the child a chance to be born.

Technology becomes more advanced the longer it is around, so it will eventually convenient and affordable. Apart from that, it will obliterate the arguments of the pro-choice side so that abortions will appear needlessly cruel (which they already are).

A few thoughts on the subject I’ve had over the years:

• I can’t remember if science fiction was where I heard of the concept, or real science speculation, or even if I thought of it in my own imagination.
• I think some of the replies on this thread are equating it with sensationalist science fiction too much, though, and not taking it seriously as a potentially positive ethical possibility - though yes, one that may or may not fly with the Church and if the Church says no, then I’ll abide by that. Here is a more specific link to those bioethical articles that someone mentioned earlier - ncbcenter.metapress.com/app/home/search-articles-results.asp?referrer=main
• If it could provide the “life support” and a refuge for a child that the mother wants to be rid of - or even that both parents want but due to maternal health issues continuing the pregnancy is a risk - maybe it could help.
• Testing would take place on animal subjects before any human trials would commence.
• However, those who point out that the amazing connection between the pregnant mama and her baby may not be able to be duplicated raise a very valid point. Even babies given up for adoption early sometimes suffer attachment disorder. So all kinds of biological and psychological developmental issues would have to be taken into consideration.

Now all of the above is merely my opinion. I have no degree in biology or moral theology. I just wonder. I also acknowledge that there are unfortunately many ways selfish humans could use such technology wrongly if it did exist. But sometimes I wonder if it could save some babies from abortion and maybe rescue some “snowflake” embryos from their frozen limbo.

 

[manualman]

Hmm… not sure you’ve made a real case here. The goal of an artificial womb (from the OPs premise) is that it’s meant to remove incentives for abortion.

Precisely the argument contraception evangelists have been making for 90 years. And the more people they convinced that contraception was OK, them more abortion we got.

This will end no differently. Actions have consequences. You can’t decide to substitute technology for essential aspects of humanity unless you first devalue the human experience. Implicit in the argument for artificial wombs is the assertion that the mother is just a bio-technological incubator. A mother is so much more than that.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Precisely the argument contraception evangelists have been making for 90 years. And the more people they convinced that contraception was OK, them more abortion we got.

Yes and no. First you have to parse out the fact that several popular “contraception” methods are also at times abortifacient. But that people who use them wish to gloss over that, or they just plain don’t give a ---- they’re going to use it anyway.

But yes, abortion is contraception’s “back-up plan” - sadly enough. However, that takes us back round to the artificial womb issue. Let’s say hypothetically it got to the point where it would be no more trouble than a surgical abortion for the pregnant woman at a certain gestational stage. Let’s say, in our hypothetical scenario, that it might even be less dangerous for her body. Let’s say some charitable group would even foot most or all of the bill. Then it would be like giving up a baby for adoption. People are constantly saying there aren’t enough infants for adoption, so . . .

The trouble is, there’s this mentality that many women who abort have: “I don’t want it, but wait - it’s my baby, I don’t want someone else raising it” - this is very contradictory but it indicates the inner tug-of-war she doesn’t want to acknowledge. So even if my scenario in the above were possible, she might still choose to abort.

And if she’s at an earlier stage of pregnancy, where the fetus is too young to be transferred to the artificial womb, she might still be too impatient. She wants this settled NOW. Even if it would only be a 3-month wait, say, as opposed to a 9-month wait.

This will end no differently. Actions have consequences. **You can’t decide to substitute technology for essential aspects of humanity unless you first devalue the human experience. **Implicit in the argument for artificial wombs is the assertion that the mother is just a bio-technological incubator. A mother is so much more than that.

This is a very valid sticking point. I was reflecting about it last night after my previous post. We really have devalued motherhood, fatherhood, and marriage so much in this society. My main vision of the artificial womb being a positive thing would be if it could rescue babies that would be aborted or that have been conceived via IVF and are in “suspended animation” - or help a pregnant woman whose health is in danger. I wonder if, in a less screwed-up world, it could be developed ethically and used ethically. Again, all hypothetical, and I say it in the spirit of being willing to accede to whatever the Church decides as the science moves closer to reality.