The future of Child Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There’s always a chance for things to go south, and we need to maintain our natural reproductive abilities.

What if there’s a massive sun event or stellar event that knocks out power? What if we nuke ourselves back into the stone age?

It’s perfectly possible that at some point, we’re going to lose a lot of our technology, and we need to make sure that we can live and reproduce on our own.
 
Anicette said:
It will never be “true” parents.
Just educator.
Click to expand...
As somebody whose parents were both adopted by the most loving people I’ve ever known they are true parents. 😊 it takes more to be a parent than just having sex or giving birth.
 
But they were conceived and born naturally, isn’t it?
Certainely not in artificial woomb!

And adoptive parents are just adoptive parents. No less, but no more.

you cannot advance that biology and pregnancy is not impactive on every human born.
 
Last edited:
Anicette said:
But they were conceived and born naturally, isn’t it?
Certainely not in artificial woomb!

you cannot advance that biology and pregnancy is not impactive on every human born.
Click to expand...
Wait up, so do you believe that the people who lovingly raised my parents were “true” parents? Are they only not “true” if the child was from an artificial womb?
 
I don’t know why do you take this like that.

I don’t even know why, you as a Catholic, do you seems to consider artificial woom as an accceptable way to grow children…And that uterine life don’t matter…

I don’t know, do you just want to provoc?
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Have we learned nothing from the Fall of Krypton?
 
They blew up cause their core was unstable, not because they reached a genetic dead end like the Asgard from Stargate.
 
Anicette said:
I don’t know why do you take this like that.

I don’t even know why, you as a Catholic, do you seems to consider artificial woom as an accceptable way to grow children…And that uterine life don’t matter…

I don’t know, do you just want to provoc?
Click to expand...
No, I’ve just had people in the past tell me that my grandparents weren’t “true” in spite of all they did for my parents and I. And I find this idea to be hideously offensive to people who adopt. People who choose to open their home to children and raise them with love and kindness.

Neither of my grandmother’s could have biological children. But they were some of the best and truest mother’s I have ever known and I will say that proudly when ever someone tries to say otherwise.

So; were you saying that these women weren’t true parents?

As for artificial wombs; they could save lives. My own mother almost died twice and miscarried both times; an artificial womb could mean that I’d have two living siblings and a far healthier mother. For one friend it would mean their mother would still be alive.
 
No, I don’t say that!

For artificial woms, sorry but miscarriages are often in the first trimester, and the child is usually not viable. But even if, place it at such a stage in a artificial womb would affect him anyway deeply: we will never know the close contact of his mother in her body. So it not for me a good thing, and it is unatural.

For much more older unborn, it can be envisagable mor easily as a super-incubator, if it become technically envisagable.

And no, artificial womb are not an option for the health of the mother. If a woman get pregnant, and then terminate her pregnancy to place the child in artificial womb is not moral. Then more, why do we have to go through pregnancy if the child could be conceive artificially and grow only in this super incubator, if the pregnancy will impair the woman health? (immoral at all).

More, it is avery costly method.
 
Alex337 said:
No, I’ve just had people in the past tell me that my grandparents weren’t “true” in spite of all they did for my parents and I.
Click to expand...
They’re obviously wrong and should be severely scolded!
Alex337 said:
As for artificial wombs; they could save lives. My own mother almost died twice and miscarried both times; an artificial womb could mean that I’d have two living siblings and a far healthier mother. For one friend it would mean their mother would still be alive.
Click to expand...
Yes. An artificial womb would be a medical marvel. It would save lives. However, there two very different cases here:
  • In your case, your naturally conceived siblings would gestate within the artificial uterus and be born outside your mother. They have a family waiting and there’s very little chance for the process to be abused.
  • In the Embryonic case, are they grown on demand, or all at once? Who would profit from or be in charge of this process? How can we assure that countless unwanted children won’t exploited? How can we ensure that we don’t start farming children?
 
Anicette said:
No, I don’t say that!

For artificial woms, sorry but miscarriages are often in the first trimester, and the child is usually not viable. But even if, place it at such a stage in a artificial womb would affect him anyway deeply: we will never know the close contact of his mother in her body. So it not for me a good thing, and it is unatural.

For much more older unborn, it can be envisagable mor easily as a super-incubator, if it become technically envisagable.

And no, artificial womb are not an option for the health of the mother. If a woman get pregnant, and then terminate her pregnancy to place the child in artificial womb is not moral. Then more, why do we have to go through pregnancy if the child could be conceive artificially and grow only in this super incubator, if the pregnancy will impair the woman health? (immoral at all).

More, it is avery costly method.
Click to expand...
If a child is born from an artificial womb then the people who raise them are their parents.

If a woman gets pregnant and finds out that the pregnancy risks her life and they life of her child, which would be made unviable from this danger; how is it immoral to save them both? Wouldn’t it be worse to either have them both die or need to terminate the baby to save the mother?
 
Cruciferi said:
40.png
Alex337:
No, I’ve just had people in the past tell me that my grandparents weren’t “true” in spite of all they did for my parents and I.
Click to expand...
They’re obviously wrong and should be severely scolded!
Alex337 said:
As for artificial wombs; they could save lives. My own mother almost died twice and miscarried both times; an artificial womb could mean that I’d have two living siblings and a far healthier mother. For one friend it would mean their mother would still be alive.
Click to expand...
Yes. An artificial womb would be a medical marvel. It would save lives. However, there two very different cases here:
  • In your case, your naturally conceived siblings would gestate within the artificial uterus and be born outside your mother. They have a family waiting and there’s very little chance for the process to be abused.
  • In the Embryonic case, are they grown on demand, or all at once? Who would profit from or be in charge of this process? How can we assure that countless unwanted children won’t exploited? How can we ensure that we don’t start farming children?
Click to expand...
I agree, it’s why I always try to check what people mean when they talk about “true” parents 😊

I think the technology has the potential to be misused, but almost all technology does.
 
I’m not really sure. But I think “Use it or lose it” is definitely in accord with some of the stories in the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top