The future of Child Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do we do with all the fetuses that are frozen? Can they be saved?
 
I have a sick feeling they will offer parents of frozen embryos a good sum of money to use them to experiment with artificial wombs to perfect the technology. I doubt it would be used with any concern about giving them a chance at life.
 
Last edited:
That would depend on how many units would be available, and the relative viability of each embryo.

Also, with presumably tens of thousands being brought to “birth,” who is assuming responsibility for them? Genetic parents may have surrendered rights, be deceased, etc.
 
Yes I couldn’t agree more.
Again, I am fine with it for medical reasons such as the last post above to save premature babies, of course. That child would still have a mother. But think of it this way:
Everyone on this planet today was born of a woman- including our Lord Jesus Christ.
Those (like Shulamith Firestone’s book) who called for this hate women in my opinion, just like those who call for abortion on demand. They say they are for women’s rights but they hate the beautiful ability of women to give life to the human race-something no man could ever do.
I cringe to think of the Pandora’s box this would open, in the likes of fetus farms and other atrocities.
What about babies that are conceived, with anonymous sperm and eggs, grown in a test tub-transferred to a bio-bag, experimented on, and discarded, maybe even mixed with animal genes to create some hybrid or super race? Of course I guess it’s possible this could happen now, but the embryo would still have to be implanted in a woman at this point.
 
Last edited:
These is a very hard question. I know there are places that try to pair these embryos with loving adoptive parents who will gestate and adopt and raise them. Of course with the consent of the parents who created them. I think that would be hard to know you have children out there who someone else is raising, but it would be the pro life thing to do.
This is why creating extra embryos is so controversial and is wisely banned in some countries, such a s Italy and I believe Germany. There they will only create as many embryos that will be implanted at that time, and must be from the sperm and egg of the married couple… Much better, I believe.
I personally know a couple who has that dilemma now. Christians(Protestant) who had four children via IVF including a set of twins, precious children to be sure. But now they must decide what to do with the spare embryos.
 
Last edited:
Vanny said:
Those (like Shulamith Firestone’s book) who called for this hate women in my opinion, just like those who call for abortion on demand. They say they are for women’s rights but they hate the beautiful ability of women to give life to the human race-something no man could ever do.
I cringe to think of the Pandora’s box this would open, in the likes of fetus farms and other atrocities.
Click to expand...
Same. It’s funny that you bring up women’s rights. The article I linked to touches upon this, but the feminist quoted believes this is a threat to women’s existence - not a liberation.

Right now, you can visit very dark corners of the web that openly express and promote misogyny. So called “black pillers” who refer to women as “femoids” and consider them sub-human. Less intelligent, spineless, weak, is how they speak of women. They resent like hell that women procreate, and the special considerations afforded them for that reason.

Now, take a technology that removes the reliance upon women to gestate. Combine that with developing stem cell technologies that can take cells from two men and manipulate them into developing oocytes and later eggs. Recombinant DNA techniques.

Or hell, just take all those frozen female embryos and develop them to the point where you can extract their eggs. Then kill off the “mother.”

Once they have their newly formed male embryo, it will be genetically enhanced. If it’s female, it will likely be enhanced with more “male” characteristics, and her own more meddlesome reproductive system inactivated. No need for it, it just costs her biologically, drains her energy, etc.

Eventually, why even maintain a separate sex? Men can be genetically and socially programmed from birth to be homosexual.

This future is androgyny, with the male as the standard.

This line of thought is exactly why I rejected this technology. I see the seeds of it now in the push for homosexual reproduction, in the rise of misogynistic movements, in the push to make women compete against men in order to be considered equals.

Make no mistake. This is an outright assault on Mary, herself. It’s the Dragon.
 
Last edited:
Vanny said:
Those (like Shulamith Firestone’s book) who called for this hate women in my opinion, just like those who call for abortion on demand. They say they are for women’s rights but they hate the beautiful ability of women to give life to the human race-something no man could ever do.
Click to expand...
They hate it because as beautiful and empowering as it is to give your body over to the growth and life of another human being, it also makes you extremely vulnerable as well. You have to be able to trust that while you are giving yourself over to this process, you will be loved, supported and protected by those around you, especially the baby’s father. A woman’s reproductive vulnerability gives them a weakness before men that they just cannot accept. No one likes to feel weak and vulnerable before another. They just have trouble seeing that all men aren’t monsters that can’t be trusted.

There is a lot of anger and rage at the idea that a man can simply walk away from his responsibility but a woman cannot do this so easily. Hence, why there is the push for contraception and abortion to attempt to even the playing field for women who bear most of the burden in the sex act. Unfortunately, instead of seeing the wisdom of the Church in which sex is safely kept in the confines of a committed marriage and advocating and fighting for that, they try to push for what they see as the man’s freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever they want without consequence. They don’t see that marriage IS empowering women and so-called “choice” doesn’t take away the vulnerability and weakness.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
They just have trouble seeing that all men aren’t monsters that can’t be trusted.
Click to expand...
No, but many are. Men are predators by nature. The statistics for incest, alone, should prove that our natural instincts are too easily disordered into harming those we’re charged to protect. That’s the bald faced truth, and women know it.

Marriage only offered partial protection, in that it blocked all the men a woman wasn’t married to from having sex with her. It didn’t block or provide protection from her husband, if he was a bully or a brute.

Christian marriage flatly forbids such animalistic behavior and the objectification of your spouse, but these things have never been emphasized historically the way female submission has.

The failure of the Church to consistently defend women in the past from male domination was, in my opinion, what seeded the modern feminist movement and the call to be able to divorce oneself from a controlling spouse.

This hasn’t ended male-on-female abuse, and in fact has only opened up the field. Now, not just her husband, but any man can sexually use and objectify her.

Women have turned predatory themselves to survive this sexual free-for-all. But in the battle of the sexes, she still ends up on the losing side, biologically. Look how many women have HPV. Look at increasing rates of other STDs. Women, by design, are anatomically more vulnerable to contracting these.

To be equals, they have to be doing paid work, have to do the same work as men, while dealing with leering men on streets.

And they still are the ones that deal with pregnancy.

This is frankly why I suspect that many Western women are converting to Islam. Perceiving the failure of the Church, and then secular society, they are now trying something else - segregated sexes, in a system with clearly delineated rules, roles, and rights.
 
Last edited:
yes so well put. You put it so much better than I could but exactly along the lines I was thinking.
And what would stop certain goverments,maybe less democratic-to start demanding this of their citizens in the future as a way of population control and eugenics? I realize the technology is far from perfect now but what about later?
 
yes no women needed. Horrifying. and I hate to see it, some will call for this for LGBT rights to have children.
 
Vanny said:
yes no women needed. Horrifying. and I hate to see it, some will call for this for LGBT rights to have children
Click to expand...
This is actually happen. I once had a talk with a outspoken gay wormate and he told me he´s glad to be a man so he doesn´t have to deal with such “disgusting thinks like menstruation every month” and that he hopes to have children one day with an artifical womb. There´s a lobby of LGBT people here who fights against the german law binding health insurances to pay for artifical insemnation only for married couples.
 
I’m pretty sure that they cannot be implanted or used. If we had an artificial uterus, I don’t think that the Church would allow them to be grown into maturity.

About two months ago, a facility that housed these embryos suffered a malfunction and most of the embryos defrosted:

www.google.com

More than 4,000 eggs and embryos lost in Cleveland fertility clinic tank failure

An Ohio fertility clinic says more than 4,000 eggs and embryos were affected by a freezer malfunction, double the number previously thought -- and that it's unlikely any of them are viable.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Last edited:
If this becomes viable then it’s possible to have children with 2 biological dad’s (or combinations of 3+ biological parents.

There’s currently the ability to turn skin cells into sperm-like and egg-like cells in mice. Only a matter of time before human trails…

www.google.com

Could we make babies from only skin cells?

Stem cell technology could enable humans to reproduce without the need for healthy sperm or eggs, but scientists are raising ethical and legal questions ahead of this becoming a reality.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Very interesting and informative. But those are only the physical things. It is difficult for me to believe a baby has no psychological or brain effects from being in the womb. Does it hear Mozart now and then, or drunken screaming? What of the various hormones and chemicals produced by the body of the mother and its interaction with the child’s own? Does its perception of light and darkness have an effect on brain development? What about mom’s movement?
 
When He was displeased, God stepped in at Sodom and Gomorrah, he stepped in with Noah and the Great Flood. Anyone think God may decide to do it again?
 
By the way, if this thread needs background music, I suggest “In the Year 2525” a 1969 hit from Zager and Evans. Seems prophetic.
 
One might ponder why, despite the mythological positing of warlocks, the far more common image of a person who connects with spiritual evil to gain power to produce more evil is that of a female-a witch. The male ogre has his perfect counterpart in the witch.

Women are not without their own devices for being evil. And very nearly as many women are charged with spousal abuse as men.

Without going all theological about Islam, one notes that women in the Christian west have (despite feminist mythology) always had status and power and, for the most part, equality. Read someday Caesar’s commentaries about Celtic women which, among other things, he characterized as “…if anything more ferocious and warlike than the men…”

As a man, I would far more want to be married to one of those than to some woman whose life has been spent in purdah.
 
I am profoundly distrustful of desires to create a “super race” by genetic engineering. I don’t think we know what we’re doing when it comes to that, and I doubt we ever will.

I recall reading a British study in which it was found that the occurrence of autism among Brits with graduate degrees was massivley higher than in other parts of the population. Why was that? Well, right or wrong those conducting the study figured that the gene pool among those highly educated people was awfully shallow. They tended to marry each other, and the genetic variations over time became fewer and fewer.

All well and good when it came to native intelligence, but then oops! A high incidence of autism went with it. I suspect there’s a lot more of that in potential than we sometimes think. It may be that wide genetic diversity is the only thing that keeps us from dying out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top