Artificial Womb

[Skribilo]

I’m sure you’re no stranger to work considering the fact that you attend Notre Dame. My father went there, and that is one of the places that currently draws my interest. But to get back on topic, why would I want to go through the physical pain if it could be avoided?

 

[Zahmir]

Pain, or its avoidance, should not guide our actions. There are much greater things to do than to avoid pain. What if Jesus wanted to avoid pain? In fact, I think he did… But he knew what God’s will was, and followed it through to the end. As the Son of God, he could have easily stopped it at any point, blown up his enemies with a wink of an eye, and walked casually out of there… but he didn’t.

Sometimes, doing what God wills requires pain, and that’s okay.

 

[a_cermak]

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.

I don’t remember a great deal of pain. I had an epidural and after that there really wasn’t that much pain. Discomfort, yes, but not mind-numbing pain which is what I had feared. Hopefully they’ll improve pain management even better in the future so it will never bar anyone from being a mother. I’ve got some friends that had C-sections and they claim to have never felt any pain or discomfort, so that’s an avenue to pursue too, if you worry about pain.

As far as my form, yes I was bulky and clumsy. I would not recommend motherhood to models or athletes until they have finished these pursuits or can take a year off.

 

[batteddy]

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.

True, it’s not justified just by it’s survival.

But I think you are drawing a dangerous line here. So it can be “okay” to give up a baby once it’s born, but always “unnatural” to give it up before it’s born?

Isn’t this making exactly the kind of distinction between Born and Unborn that Catholics definitely DONT believe in?

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).

Howso? I don’t think there is much of a difference. I think this is drawing a line between the Born and the Unborn that doesn’t exist. Both are children, each has certain needs from a parent or caretaker…

Both are the giving up of a child naturally belonging to a certain woman to the care of some other. “Abandoning” it.

Yet do circumstances sometimes justify this? I think the Church condones giving up children for adoption (though not the ideal) if the mother cannot care for it. I dont think we ask too many questions. Perhaps some women who are pregnant feel that they don’t have the resources, including emotional resources, to care for the baby for nine more months. Why does birth suddenly magically make a mother allowed to give up a baby? If she honestly needs to give it up earlier (because she feels she is not ready for a child and feels she might accidently or delibrately hurt it otherwise)…how is it any difference from post-birth adoption? I think you are drawing a discriminatory line at Birth that somehow changes the baby somehow…

For one, though the outcome may be the same, carrying a baby to term does not violate nature as does using the artificial womb.

How does it violate nature. I think you may misunderstand what philosophers mean when they say “Nature” in cases like this. An artificial womb would just be, essentially, a very early-stage incubator that could sustain babies born extremely pre-mature.

Now. The argument could be made (and I definitely agree with it in most respects) that inducing a premature birth is wrong. If it happens otherwise…oh well, but we shouldn’t delibrately do it. And yet…how is a mother giving an unborn baby to someone else’s care (if the means exist to do so) different than giving a born baby? How is causing a premature birth and into an incubator different than kicking the child out of the house and into an orphanage? Perhaps it is only the risk to the child that makes it seem wrong. But if it became a perfectly routine and safe procedure…who knows?

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.

Exactly. This is the kind of emergency situation I am talking about. The child must be born very premature, and so needs a good incubator that can help it survive.

Whether inducing a premature birth (if there is a safe way to preserve the baby afterwards with little risk) is wrong, is another question.

But obviously, some women have scheduled cesarians and we don’t find that too objectionable…

So if a woman felt that a pregnancy put her under so much stress that she could not care for the baby and might even kill it…could it ever be okay to give birth to it early (if the means existed to do this without risk to the baby’s health) and put it in someone else’s care?

 

[Zahmir]

The only way I can respond to all these claims is to say that while a baby’s status does not change from before birth to after birth, his circumstances do. A baby’s “natural” place is in the mother’s womb until birth, at which point an adoption would be acceptable, not ideal… but better than being abandoned or poorly cared for. After birth, a baby requires many things… diapers, food, attention, clothes. Before birth, there’s not much a woman needs to do except eat right. The circumstances are different and the same arguments that justify adoption do not apply to a baby in the womb.

Granted, at any point where a baby’s life is in danger, the use of medical technology to save him would, of course, be the right thing to do. However, I have trouble understanding how it is a good thing to remove a baby from a mother’s womb.

Not to mention that the mother’s health would be in grave danger. Removing a baby from the womb would be extremely traumatic for the mother, with the mess of hormones and the such.

Nature is the way things were intended to operate. A baby is intended to remain in the womb for nine months. Why screw up a beautiful thing?

 

[batteddy]

A baby’s “natural” place is in the mother’s womb until birth,

Huh? When a baby leaves its mothers womb, we call that birth. Do you see what I’m saying? A baby removed from the womb, would be “born” at that time, yes? So how are we to say what is natural after that? Are you suggesting the premature babies “natural” place is to be shoved back into their mothers’ wombs? No. Well, these babies, once removed, would therefore have been “born” so there “natural place” would be outside the womb.

Now, whether inducing this birth in the first place is right or natural is another issue.

But then what do you think about women with scheduled cesarians, or who induce birth early for medical reasons?

The circumstances are different and the same arguments that justify adoption do not apply to a baby in the womb.

But I want to know specifically, philosophically, why not?

Granted, at any point where a baby’s life is in danger, the use of medical technology to save him would, of course, be the right thing to do. However, I have trouble understanding how it is a good thing to remove a baby from a mother’s womb.

I don’t think it would be a “good thing” to remove the baby from the mother’s womb any more than it would be a “good thing” to remove him from the mother’s breast, or mother’s house. But we know sometimes such givings up for adoption are condonable. Why is moving an unwanted child from the womb to a doctor’s care any different than a mother moving a baby from her house to an orphanage? I’m not saying it isn’t different, but I’d like convincing reasons WHY.

Not to mention that the mother’s health would be in grave danger. Removing a baby from the womb would be extremely traumatic for the mother, with the mess of hormones and the such.

The hypothetical assumes medical science has solved this problem. It is being assumed here, for purposes of discussion, that the whole procedure has become routine and basically entirely safe for both mother and child.

Nature is the way things were intended to operate. A baby is intended to remain in the womb for nine months. Why screw up a beautiful thing?

And a baby is intended to remain with its birth mother and nurse with her. But, in the Fallen world, sometimes circumstances justify or suggest another arrangement being made for the care of the child, through adoption, foster care, or an orphanage, which deviates from the ideal, but which is ultimately better for the child than being neglected, abused, injured, or even killed.

I think we really don’t want a woman, ideally, to give up a child ever. But if she feels her circumstances force her hand…would we rather have her expose the child on a hillside while we look the other way so as not to “participate”, or do we help her in bringing the child to an orphanage?

When women are aborting children…do we turn a blind eye and let the children just be killed or die outside the womb? Or do we try to help the mother put the child in a safe place, at least?

If a mother is going to kick a child out of her house anyway, is it really “participating” in her sin to provide a safe orphanage for the child so that she doesn’t leave it on a hillside?

And if a mother is going to kick a child out of her womb anyway, could it really be bad to provide a safe incubator for the child so that it doesn’t get left in some dumpster?

Ideally, in either case, we’d try to convince her to keep the child. But if circumstances suggest this would not be best for the child, we tolerate givings up for adoption. Why would “embryo orphanges” be any different? Aren’t embryos of the same status as the Born?

 

[Zahmir]

I see now where you are coming from and I must say, for the most part, I agree with you.

But I have a question for you, which may or may not be pertinent, but I think would help clear things up for me.

What is a mother? How is a mother defined? Is being a mother a choice that one can make at anytime? Or is being a mother a result of an action (sex and conception)?

My reasoning goes something like… Why should we not hold everyone up to the standards of what being a mother truly is? What good reasons would there be to removing a baby from the womb for no reason other than the mother’s convienience?

A baby after birth requires a lot of excess care, but a baby before birth does not so much. The arguments for adoption do not hold up because of this very fact. As it is, the concept of adoption is focused on the well-being of the child, not of the parent. Adoption, in some sense, is “unusual” and should not be taken lightly. In the same way, adoption before birth is “unusual” and unless for some reason the mother cannot care for her baby in her womb, adoption would not be a moral choice.

It is in my opinion (and maybe this is where we differ), adoption should be seen only as a last resort, not as a viable option. A baby belongs with his mother, unless of course, this baby is endangered by doing so.

 

[batteddy]

What good reasons would there be to removing a baby from the womb for no reason other than the mother’s convienience?

Well, what good reasons are there for removing a baby from a mother’s house after birth?

Really, we would ideally have her keep it. But if the child is going to be killed or neglected otherwise…the Church has certainly always accepted and cared for orphans because the alternative is worse.

The mother may be doing it for a selfish reason. But then again, so are perhaps a lot of mothers giving children up for adoption after birth.

But Catholic adoption agencies don’t really seem to ask too many questions on the part of the giving-up end. If a mother wants to give up a child, we’ll take it…because even if her reasons are selfish, who knows how the child will be treated by such a mother who doesn’t want it if we force her to keep it!

A baby after birth requires a lot of excess care, but a baby before birth does not so much. The arguments for adoption do not hold up because of this very fact.

Material care is harder for a baby after birth, but the toll on the mother of pregnancy can often be very much too. Especially emotionally. A

nd if a mother feels that if she is not allowed to put the baby somewhere safe, that she will kill it otherwise because she doesn’t have the emotional strength to face going through the pregnancy…well, I think its better to let her transfer the baby than kill it. We’d rather take the orphan (even if the woman is being totally selfish) than have her expose it on a hillside.

As it is, the concept of adoption is focused on the well-being of the child, not of the parent. Adoption, in some sense, is “unusual” and should not be taken lightly. In the same way, adoption before birth is “unusual” and unless for some reason the mother cannot care for her baby in her womb, adoption would not be a moral choice.

I totally agree. Giving up a child for adoption, before or after birth, is not the ideal, is not a “good” or “natural” thing, and cannot be taken lightly even though in certain circumstances it is condonable.

However, we are not so much focusing on the morality of the mother here. She is already giving up the child (one way or another) regardless of whether her motives in doing so are pure.

I am discussing the morality on the “Orphange” end here. Can’t an orphanage take in a child even if the mother is abandoning it for unwholesome reasons?

The mother herself certainly would** not** be right in “chickening out” and putting the baby in an artificial womb instead of carrying it. But *if *she has decided that it is either that or an abortion…would a Catholic hospital really be wrong in helping that woman give up her child (through transfer to an artificial womb) in order to make sure it is cared for and not killed?

If you think that it is wrong, then how come orphanages aren’t wrong for “facilitating” the abandonment of children? Because surely if a woman came to an orphanage with a baby…they’d usually take it. It’s not like adoption agencies only take “already abandoned” babies. No in a certain sense, for the good of the child, they do help the woman in giving up her baby. Because perhaps, more precisely, a baby doesn’t have to be physically abandoned yet to already be emotionally abandoned.

Surely we do not want either to become normal. But somehow, orphanages all through history haven’t become the norm for raising children. Most people still take responsibility. So I doubt artificial wombs would become the norm either. Both would be exceptions.

What I certainly wouldn’t allow is a woman to put her child in an artificial womb simply out of laziness…but then totally intend to keep the baby afterwards. Because parents shouldn’t use foster care to “raise the kids” for them when they want to go on a binge or be lazy, but then keep taking them back again and again when they get temporarily clean. A decision should be made and the child should be set on a stable path. Unless the child cannot survive in the womb for a valid medical reason…it should either be carried to term and raised by the mother, carried to term and given up for adoption, or put in an incubator and given up for adoption. But the artificial wombs should never be used just for a mother to shirk off a certain part of motherhood but then still expect to experience the rest. If they really can’t stand the idea of pregnancy…they can adopt one of the many other children needing a home.

 

[batteddy]

It is in my opinion (and maybe this is where we differ), adoption should be seen only as a last resort, not as a viable option. A baby belongs with his mother, unless of course, this baby is endangered by doing so.

Oh, I totally agree. Giving up a child is not ideal (though taking in a given-up child as ones own is very noble). It should only be a last resort.

But don’t you think that being in the womb of a mother who doesn’t want him, who might smoke or drink, or have an abortion…is endangering the child? Don’t you think that, regardless of the mother’s motives, if she doesn’t want the child…we should take it in and care for it, and provide that option rather than having it “exposed on a hillside”? And why should this help for given-up children extend only after birth?

 

[JamesG]

Check out this article:

commondreams.org/views02/0117-05.htm

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.

I think it is very sad that there are people who think that pregnancy is a humiliation.

 

[batteddy]

Well, I guess it is sad.

But if you are single and pregnant…it can be very hard.

If you know that it is because of your own sin…it’s sorta like having to wear a big scarlet letter…

It’s sad, but I think understandable for single women.

 

[Jennifer_G]

What about in rare cases (like me), where someone doesn’t have a womb/it never formed correctly (or at all)? Just curious.
(I’m kind of thinking along the lines of being inside where the womb should be, and constructing eggs based on the person’s DNA, but that’s probably 30-50 years off).
There was a thread on a similar tangent, but it was lost during the forum crash.

 

[batteddy]

No. The child would have to be concieved in the womb the regular way, because procreation is linked indissolubly to the unitive sex act. What you describe would just be in vitro or something, unless the artificial womb could somehow be considered PART of the woman (ie, an organic implant or something).

We are talking about transferring a baby whose mother’s womb endanger’s it…who is already concieved the natural way but may need to be born premature to save it.

 

[RyanL]

(I’m kind of thinking along the lines of being inside where the womb should be, and constructing eggs based on the person’s DNA, but that’s probably 30-50 years off).

Actually, they can do this now. It’s call “somatic cell nuclear transfer”, aka, cloning. It’s currently being done for non-reproductive purposes in the U.S., and a few foreign countries (think North Korea, et al) are doing it on humans.

Are you sure you would want this?

God Bless,
RyanL