The future of Child Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank-you everybody for posting, i have very much enjoyed reading all your posts.!!!

I like discussing future possibilities, because while they do not exist now
, the possibility does exist and can have a moral impact on society. Imagine the impact that nano technology might have in the future.

Godbless.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
From my understanding of early psychological deprivation and trauma. Reactive Attacment Disorder is a condition that can be triggered in a mere matter of weeks if an infant is not given the proper love and affection. Children are vulnerable with even just a few weeks of limited human contact/only “necessary” contact. We know that lack of proper affection is a very serious thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but i don’t see how an artificial pregnancy, assuming everything was done right, would result in the absence of cognition. You seem to go as far as to say that the result would be just a body with no mind.
Click to expand...
There would be a mind, just not a functional one. A child can’t be cared for by robotic systems. Humans are unpredictable and that very unpredictablity is at our very core.
 
I don’t think IWantGod is saying the child would be raised by robots.

I think the implication is only for artificial gestation.
 
Pup7 said:
I don’t think IWantGod is saying the child would be raised by robots.

I think the implication is only for artificial gestation.
Click to expand...
The child is being gestated by robots. If only a couple of weeks of early neglect between the years 0-3 can warp a mind beyond repair, than how much more so will a child who has no human contact in the “womb” going to have an affect?
 
I agree with that - I was just going off detachment disorder, which I don’t know that we can say develops in utero. I’m reminded of the case studies of Russian orphan infants, who don’t cry after they’ve been in the orphanage for several weeks, because they learn no one will come to comfort them. I don’t think that sort of disorder starts in the womb from what I know of RAD, which is currently known to develop between six months and three years of age. In as much as I know, one isn’t born with it specifically.

As for pre-birth bonding with the mother, that’s part of the reason I think this whole experiment would flop, as we’re not even sure how that really works.
 
Pup7 said:
I agree with that - I was just going off detachment disorder, which I don’t know that we can say develops in utero. I’m reminded of the case studies of Russian orphan infants, who don’t cry after they’ve been in the orphanage for several weeks, because they learn no one will come to comfort them. I don’t think that sort of disorder starts in the womb from what I know of RAD, which is currently known to develop between six months and three years of age. In as much as I know, one isn’t born with it specifically.

As for pre-birth bonding with the mother, that’s part of the reason I think this whole experiment would flop, as we’re not even sure how that really works.
Click to expand...
RAD can occur before 6 months of age. Children in the “fourth trimester” (0-3 months) are at high risk. This is why it is often better to put preemies at technical physical danger in order to get human touch.

Here’s a paper on therapeutic touch

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...rature-review-2167-0897.1000148.php?aid=28025

Micropreemies especially need touch and attention to survive. The more appropriate to their size, the better they do both right then and in the future. They are born but in an interesting state between gestation and actual living.
 
I did my pediatrics rotation in the NICU at a tertiary level referral center. Early intervention is key.

DSM-5 diagnosis of RAD actually generally requires an age of nine months (I believe DSM-4 was six). You can’t diagnose a mental disorder in someone ninety days old.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Diagnosis, yes, but the causal neglect can occur earlier. It’s not instant like diabetes type 1. Developmentally its nearly impossible to see before then at any rate. But the trauma can most certainly occur prior to 9 months.
 
Last edited:
Have you read “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, written around 1931? It predicted a lot of this including sexual promiscuity, the death of the family, ect.
 
An artificial womb would simply be an improvement on existing incubation technology. The use of artificial wombs, therefore, imposes no more moral issues than using incubators to care for premature infants. Creating embryos via IVF is sinful, as is inducing premature birth without just cause, but providing appropriate medical care to the child is no sin by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Said respectfully, you could perhaps do with more reading on this subject. Some articles have been posted on this thread that speak to several moral pitfalls. There is quite a bit to unpack with exogenesis that should give most people pause.
 
Doubtless, it can be abused for all manner of evil, but regardless, there remains the question of what to do with all the orphaned IVF embryos. Artificial wombs would allow them to be incubated as extremely premature children, freeing them from their frozen limbo.
 
It made me think of many different stories about Superman’s origin but this advice always stuck with me…

“You just have to decide what kind of a man you want to grow up to be, Clark; because whoever that man is, good character or bad, he’s… He’s gonna change the world.”
 
Yes Brave New World.
Also the Dialetic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone, a radical feminist who praised the Huxley’s Brave New World, and advocated for a society where women were completely free of pregnancy and childbirth, for only then will women have equality. Children would be raised by the state. Destruction of nuclear family.
This book has been praised by radical feminists since 1970.
Now about artificial womb technology, I can see one good coming out of it, premature babies too early to be saved could be gestated outside the womb-sort of an extension of the incubator.
But universal use- I agree with the poster who mentioned the interaction between mother and baby in the womb,both physical and psychological. I think it would cause great damage to our society on a large scale, worse than the pill.
The end of motherhood, as Firestone wanted.
 
Last edited:
What would stop fetus farms from cropping up where babies were conceived(via IVF) gestated to a certain point and then destroyed for experimentation or their organs? Or even grown to term and raised to be sex slaves or sold for human trafficking?
 
Roguish said:
40.png
TK421:
The impregnation of the child must occur during conjugal relations […] As far as transferring children into artificial wombs as a routine procedure, I don’t see any reason why this would conflict within Catholic sexual ethics
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is monstrous. It would not conflict with Catholic sexual ethics to routinely (as you say) reduce women to conception-stage-only carriers, after which they are robbed of the embryo, given no chance to experience the growth of their child inside their own body, and given no chance to experience natural child-birth in an environment of their choosing? Thus divorcing the experience of having children utterly and totally from nature? There is no reason this would conflict with Catholic sexual ethics??
Click to expand...
A fetus can already be removed from the womb prematurely if it absolutely has to be, then put on various life support systems. In the future, if it becomes standard to have a fetus develop outside of the original womb, this wouldn’t (at least not in any obvious way) conflict with the dignity of life or the sacredness of the sexual act.

It’s only monstrous if you choose to look at it that way. Feelings aren’t what determine right from wrong. The sort of things that would have shocked our ancestors are today viewed as pedestrian and taken for granted on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
Why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think? This suspense is killing us. 🙂

Do you remember the first reaction to the fact that Cesarean section liberated women from the pain of “natural” child birth? Which was considered to be against God’s will as expressed in Genesis 3:16 (To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”)
 
Agree!

I will add : very costy, un-ecological and reserved to some priviledge people. Will burden society anf people with debts for afford this.

And eugenistic.

This child will have no biological mother, and possibily no true parents at all.
 
Vanny said:
What would stop fetus farms from cropping up where babies were conceived(via IVF) gestated to a certain point and then destroyed for experimentation or their organs? Or even grown to term and raised to be sex slaves or sold for human trafficking?
Click to expand...
In my view, only a patchwork of state laws. This country here would ban it, but that one over there would allow it, perhaps even institutionalize it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top