Artificial Womb

  • Thread starter Thread starter batteddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

batteddy

Guest
Check out this article:

commondreams.org/views02/0117-05.htm

What do you all think?

In an emergency, I think artificial wombs could help…if a woman was miscarrying due to a hostile uterus and needed the baby transferred to a safe environment where it could develop until it could be moved to an incubator…or as a way for a future government to (hypothetically) forcefully bring all those frozen embryos to term (when they realize their mistake) without encouraging a market in embryos through the financial incentives of private embryo adoption.

Women who may have had abortions could just have the babies transferred to artificial wombs (though we wouldnt encourage this…I think we would prefer it to abortion) to be adopted later, without them having to go through the “humiliation” of pregnancy if they didnt want to.

Now…it could be abused (most technology can be). Women might get lazy and start not carrying their own babies at all. It may make abandoning of babies even more common, and help the “designer baby” movement…

But I think there are positives if the baby is moved to one in an emergency (just an extremely young-stage incubator, really)…
 
I knew we would eventually disagree on SOMETHING batteddy. 🙂

Not only do they repulse me in principle but the practical implications would be horrendous!!

Ever see star wars were they grow clones in cells, that is what these people are doing!!

This is one of the final steps that the human race has developed in an attempt to replace God with themselves.

These people want to be God!!

Thumbs down from me.

Lord Have Mercy on our souls.
 
I see the scene from “The Matrix” where Neo is in the pod of goop…then you see the millions of other pods all lined up… [shudder]
But I do also see your point about using it to save a miscarried baby or to save aborted babies so they could be adopted. :hmmm:
Overall, I would have to say that the potential for evil is much greater than the potential for good though. And the way the world is, you know that evil will be what it is actually used for. Unborn babies aren’t important enough to save. It would be used for cloning.
 
Artificial wombs, at least according to that site, don’t seem to sound too promising. The only justification for using them would be to treat EXTREMELY premature babies, if that would even be possible.

Other than that, it seems as if the baby is becoming a “pet.” We raise them in artificial wombs, hire nannies to care for them, play with them when we feel like it and get mad when they make a mess. We don’t raise kids anymore, we’ll “grow” them. We’ll care for them just like we care for a beloved animal… How insane are we!!! We’ve totally lost it!!!

I don’t understand why people are so fascinated with rebelling against our God-given nature. Wombs are good things! Babies are wonderful!!! As a man, I would love to experience what it means to be a mother… to feel so united with MY baby. I will never know what it will mean to be a mother, and neither will many women who deny themselves the opportunity to care for one inside their very bodies! I’m generally optimistic, but it’s becoming increasingly hard to be so.
 
The only justification for using them would be to treat EXTREMELY premature babies, if that would even be possible.
Click to expand...
But we cannot become Luddites. The Church has never encouraged that. As long as something has at least ONE valid use…we can, with caution, proceed with it.

Lot’s of things have negative uses. Doesn’t mean we should, quite literally in this case, throw the baby out with the bath water.

If these things could be used to help babies who would have otherwise been miscarried (“extremely premature”)…well, then we should cautiously explore that.

This idea Catholics are starting to get of shunning progress because of possible abuses or because it “seems unwholesome” is a little disturbing.

Yes, science is reaching a point where it is starting to be able to do extremely unethical things (well, actually, science has always been unable to do unethical things…the problem today is that they are venturing into new territory, and because there is no precedent for it…some people find okay)

But we must still proceed cautiously into areas that could possibly be useful. We must not shut off that path entirely, we must just tread carefully.

For example, the article in Nature about “safely removing” stem-cells from embryos was obviously still wrong for several reasons: a) they still destroyed the embryos and never proved they could still be implanted, b) the cells taken were “totipotent” and so actually just new humans, identical twins, c) this still requires the baby being created outside the womb, so it’s still wrong.

All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t dismiss this avenue completely because of this evil. IF it becomes possible to find a very early embryo in the womb without having to concieve it IVF, and IF they can safely take pluripotent cells (which cannot grow into a full human) instead of totipotent, and IF they can ethically prove that it can safely be done without harming the original embryo in anyway…then maybe this would be okay.

Artificial wombs could be used for a lot of negative purposes. But if we can save some babies that would be miscarried otherwise, or bring some babies to term who have already been “miscarried” as it were (through in vitro frozenness) then I think we should cautiously proceed.

If we could save babies born alive younger and younger…then abortionists might be more obligated to transfer babies born alive at earlier and earlier stages to these artificial wombs (under the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). Now, if a 12 week old baby was born alive…the abortionist could be held liable if it wasn’t rushed to a hospital (because with these artificial wombs…saving it might be possible, even at such an early age)

Proceed with caution in all these things, yes, but don’t dismiss them entirely.
 
What’s the big deal? It’s only a fetus…

WHOA! Just kidding, easy there, Turbo!

I have to say, the concept sounds just a bit too 1984 to me and reminds me of scenes from the Matrix (which I hated) so I’m not keen on the propsect of artificial wombs.
 
What I honestly don’t understand is why so many scientists spend so much time, money, and effort on developing fertility treatments such as this (or IVF). There are so many children who are already born (or on the way!) who need loving families, and it is selfish, IMO, to spend thousands of dollars to create a child in a petri dish simply so they can share their parents’ genetic code. It seems like what might be coming next is a situation where parents drop off their respective gametes at an office and return nine months later to pick up their baby… and that is a frightening prospect!

On another note- I appreciated what the article linked had to say about some feminists who opposed the artificial wombs because it takes away part of what makes woman, woman. I don’t see how any woman can gain from this technology–if we followed in the steps of Brave New World, it would even further turn a woman into an object for sexual pleasure alone, removing the potential motherhood which is so inherent in the dignity of woman.
 
I’ve always had the hope that technology could solve the impasse over abortion. If a woman could anonymously drop her unwanted foetus off at an abortion clinic, have it put in an artificial womb and then adopted out or put in an orphanage; then it seems as though everyone wins. The woman is not forced to be a mother and the foetus wins because it lives and any necessary medical info could be obtained via DNA. Wouldn’t this be better?
 
Hmmm interesting…

Obviously the natural womb is what God intended…
But I do see the case for those who would otherwise abort…

I’m not 100% sold, by any means… but it’s an interesting alternative to abortion!
 
a_cermak said:
I’ve always had the hope that technology could solve the impasse over abortion. If a woman could anonymously drop her unwanted foetus off at an abortion clinic, have it put in an artificial womb and then adopted out or put in an orphanage; then it seems as though everyone wins. The woman is not forced to be a mother and the foetus wins because it lives and any necessary medical info could be obtained via DNA. Wouldn’t this be better?
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that this would still be considered a sin. Though not a moral theologian and not connected to the Church hierarchy in any way, I can’t imagine that “not wanting” a baby would be justified by its survival.

There is a distinct difference between carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption, and simply removing the baby from the womb as soon as possible (which is what you would suggest). And many of the objections over the artifical womb, I’m sure, would revolve around what is “natural” and intrinsic to what it means to be a woman.

For one, though the outcome may be the same, carrying a baby to term does not violate nature as does using the artificial womb. This could be compared to the debate over contraception and NFP. In most cases, the outcome is the same, but certainly one is right and one is sinful.

Another problem which I see occuring is when women, having been raped, say that they don’t want to carry a baby to term. Rather than having an abortion, they would want an artifical womb to allow the baby to grow to full maturity. My very instinct tells me that this is wrong as well. Even horrific cirumstances would not justify a violation of this sort.

Life should always be wanted and cherished. Cirumstances might make this difficult, but no excuses should be made for even the most terrible of experiences. A life is a life, an infinite good. Any choices should be made in the child’s best interest, though there are some very difficult decisions when both the life of the mother and child are at stake. But deciding the convienience of the mother over the life of a child is perverted.
 
While there are countless abuses or misapplications of the idea readily apparent, how about the case of an ectopic pregnancy? Currently the only medical options include removal of the baby, and doctors will not even try to implant the baby into the uterous where it belongs. An artificial womb could be the perfect answer, then niether mother nor child will have to die for the other to survive.
 
This would be a good reason to use an artificial womb, as it is in the best interest of both the parent and child. 🙂
 
Zahmir said:
I have a feeling that this would still be considered a sin. Though not a moral theologian and not connected to the Church hierarchy in any way, I can’t imagine that “not wanting” a baby would be justified by its survival.

There is a distinct difference between carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption, and simply removing the baby from the womb as soon as possible (which is what you would suggest). And many of the objections over the artifical womb, I’m sure, would revolve around what is “natural” and intrinsic to what it means to be a woman.

For one, though the outcome may be the same, carrying a baby to term does not violate nature as does using the artificial womb. This could be compared to the debate over contraception and NFP. In most cases, the outcome is the same, but certainly one is right and one is sinful.

Another problem which I see occuring is when women, having been raped, say that they don’t want to carry a baby to term. Rather than having an abortion, they would want an artifical womb to allow the baby to grow to full maturity. My very instinct tells me that this is wrong as well. Even horrific cirumstances would not justify a violation of this sort.

Life should always be wanted and cherished. Cirumstances might make this difficult, but no excuses should be made for even the most terrible of experiences. A life is a life, an infinite good. Any choices should be made in the child’s best interest, though there are some very difficult decisions when both the life of the mother and child are at stake. But deciding the convienience of the mother over the life of a child is perverted.
Click to expand...
Oh, I’ve little doubt it would be a sin, but that’s not my concern anyway. I was thinking more along political and legal lines. After all, many things are legal that are still or could be sinful.

Perhaps life should always be wanted and cherished, but it isn’t in reality. Rape victims don’t want to (and IMO shouldn’t have to be) mothers; married couples decide they really don’t want a third child or can’t afford one; single women decide now’s not the time… If at least the foetus survived, then terminating a pregnancy would not be such a grisly affair.
 
It seems pretty obvious to me that it would be immoral to use an artificial womb unless it was absolutely necessary. For example, let’s say that a woman has such a bad case of toxemia that she is going to die if the baby isn’t removed. If the baby isn’t big enough to survive on its own, it could be put in the artificial womb.
 
Wow, I can’t believe this was posted as I was waiting for this site to return so that I could bring up the subject in some form. This is the first I have heard of this type of research reaching this level of advancement. I think it’s excellent. The only way my genes will ever be passed on is if there is someway that I do not have to give birth to the child myself. It is the one idea that I can’t even imagine, no I would never do it. I’m sorry-it’s my body and I’m not fond of pain. And nine months is a long time. If we can make it so that it could be done painlessly, why not? It’s common sense and human nature to advance so that we can make life better. And don’t even try to criticze me as lazy because I am an extremely hard worker in academic fields.
 
Skribilo said:
Wow, I can’t believe this was posted as I was waiting for this site to return so that I could bring up the subject in some form. This is the first I have heard of this type of research reaching this level of advancement. I think it’s excellent. The only way my genes will ever be passed on is if there is someway that I do not have to give birth to the child myself. It is the one idea that I can’t even imagine, no I would never do it. I’m sorry-it’s my body and I’m not fond of pain. And nine months is a long time. If we can make it so that it could be done painlessly, why not? It’s common sense and human nature to advance so that we can make life better. And don’t even try to criticze me as lazy because I am an extremely hard worker in academic fields.
Click to expand...
Forgive the lull in this thread, I suppose that no one really knew how to respond to your… rather unusual claims. Granted, your view is a very legitimate one and probably a convincing one to very many mothers and potential mothers. However, your lack of respect for motherhood proper is rather appalling and deserves readjustment.

I am a man. I am both quite happy about this fact but also quite disappointed that I will never know the joys of motherhood. I will never know what it feels like to carry a life inside of me, to feel my baby kick, to wonder if he knows I am here and that I love him. I will never be able to look in the mirror and take wonder at God’s design in me. The mother is the gateway of life, from nothingness to the fullness of God in heaven.

How you could reject this for your “escape from pain” is far beyond my reasoning. An artificial womb would devalue the female into something far from its original design. There is great joy in nature, why would you ever deny that? For a career? For school? For your “pleasure”? These are, frankly, pathetic reasons to disobey God’s design.

I am responding because I fear that your view is the predominant one.
 
Zahmir, why would you want to have another life inside of you? Quite honestly and logically that is bizarre. You would not be in proper form for nine months of your life and then you would experience immense pain at the end, it’s like a ticking bomb. For nine months it would be weighing on the back of your mind that you would have to eventually go through pain. I’ll put this in academic terms. When I know that I have huge test coming up, even though I know that I will be adequately prepared through studying, I still have it in the back of my mind until it is over. And you would also have to be limited for approximately nine months. It’s like being ill. You feel pain and are limited in your activity. You are not at the top human condition.

How does rejecting this devalue me? Is physical pain my duty? Work is a human duty and I do this through other means such as academic work, writing, learning from books, being tested in a school atmosphere. I eventually will be a psychiatrist and also be devoted to the study of the human mind and my writings. That sounds valuable to me. What if I would some day decide to pass on my genetic material? It won’t be done through traditional means that’s for sure. But this method might allow me to make such a consideration.
 
Skribilo said:
Zahmir, why would you want to have another life inside of you? Quite honestly and logically that is bizarre. You would not be in proper form for nine months of your life and then you would experience immense pain at the end, it’s like a ticking bomb. For nine months it would be weighing on the back of your mind that you would have to eventually go through pain. I’ll put this in academic terms. When I know that I have huge test coming up, even though I know that I will be adequately prepared through studying, I still have it in the back of my mind until it is over. And you would also have to be limited for approximately nine months. It’s like being ill. You feel pain and are limited in your activity. You are not at the top human condition.

How does rejecting this devalue me? Is physical pain my duty? Work is a human duty and I do this through other means such as academic work, writing, learning from books, being tested in a school atmosphere. I eventually will be a psychiatrist and also be devoted to the study of the human mind and my writings. That sounds valuable to me. What if I would some day decide to pass on my genetic material? It won’t be done through traditional means that’s for sure. But this method might allow me to make such a consideration.
Click to expand...
First of all, I dont’ think there is any more “proper” form than that of a pregnant mother. I think it is the most beautiful any woman can be. (This isn’t some sort of fetish, but a genuine respect for motherhood that makes a pregnant mom beautiful.)

Moreover, the JOYS of motherhood far outweigh a little pain and some discomfort for nine months. If you don’t believe me, ask any good mom about her experience and ask her if she regretted it. My guess is that 99% of the time you’re going to find mothers who are so excited about their experience as a pregnant mom. While certainly a lot of women take this for granted, many women value their femininity and female nature.

Physical pain is such a bad reason not to get pregnant, and in argument, you’re going to be defeated over and over. I undergo physical pain all the time to obtain certain things. I stay up too late studying… I run when someone needs me… I stand up for what is right even if it means some physical pain.

It’s a pity that you value your own life and career over the possibility of bringing another life into the world. And even still, you only consider that life to be “passing on my genes.” Excuse me, but HOW SELFISH!

Realize what a life is, and how precious it is. Maybe then you’ll appreciate motherhood a little more and be open to the possiblity of raising your own child the natural way apart from all perversions of science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top