It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My Weird Theory About How Technology Is About To Complicate The Abortion Debate

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 02:04 AM

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: Grimpachi

If a two month embryo was transplanted to an artificial womb, or incubator, would it still be okay to abort it? Or is considered alive? Does it have human rights all of a sudden because it's not in a womans body? And if it is given human rights while still an embryo outside of the womb, then it should be given the same rights if it's in a woman's body. Same embryo, just different environment. It can't be a life or not a life just based on it's environment. I guess the only factor that separates abortion from murder is if someone wants it or not. I don't like abortion, but my ex gf had one and I was part of the decision so I can't be a hypocrite and call it murder or else I'm an accomplice. But I do feel extremely guilty and so does she.

I sympathize with you. It was a hard call for you to make I'm sure. Interesting points on the rights of the child though. Thanks for sharing your perspective with us.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I think your comparison falls flat though, because you don't carry an apartment building around with you inside of your body everywhere you go, like you would say, a uterus. What can be one's personal property more intimately than a part of one's own body?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
Do you think when someone masturbates they owe their sperm to those who are infertile too?

This is not a troll post. This is a serious question, because you are headed down the same path here.

Nah, not really. There's a pretty big distinction, actually.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES

It would certainly change things regarding the debate, if the procedure was handled in time before the embryo became a fetus. I can't see it happening past a certain time frame.

I am assuming that you are referring here to a concern about the potential for a procedure like this to be overly invasive. I would tend to disagree, which is to say that I would guess that once the technology matured it would be almost completely non-invasive. An early labor and birth into the surrogate/artificial womb type of thing. If that's not what you meant, please clarify.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: BrianFlanders

No, no, no.

Your overpopulation argument is baloney, so while I think your heart is probably in the right place with your quality of life argument here, the overpopulation argument that's supposed to support such a perspective has no merit. Respectfully then, you are all wrong here BrianFlanders.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 02:42 AM

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Then the truth will come forward that a lot of, not all, maybe not even most but alot of women would prefer to just...snuff it out and be done with it rather than face a potential situation years down the road where their child tracks them down and *gasp* wants a relationship with their parent! Ugh! Much simpler to just...eliminate all witnesses/victims. This Never happened!

That's an interesting can of worms that I am content to leave on the shelf after having taken a look at it with you...I think gestation outside the original womb as a general practice really changes that argument.

If the fetus is not considered life under the law, then does the abortive mother have any say over what happens to the 'biological material' that is removed? If the fetus is considered life under the law, then does the state have a duty to intervene and apply government force to protect this young human? Require the 'biological material' removed to be brought to term if possible? What happens when you run out of parents wanting to adopt? Wards of the state?

If nothing else changed, this could still be an alternative option in the future to a pregnant woman not wishing to carry a child to term.

posted on Apr, 14 2019 @ 03:26 PM
This won't work once actual implantation has occurred. Here's why: the placenta. The fetus/mother relationship is pretty parasitic. The placenta sinks a network of capillaries into the uterine wall, and this is how the growing fetus gets its nourishment and oxygen--from parasitizing the mother.

It's a MASSIVE amount of blood vessels, and they are completely intertwined with the mother's system. If the placenta is removed (or dislodged by some kind of severe trauma), then unless strong uterine contractions occur and continue to occur till the uterus shrinks down in size enough to clamp off the (countless) blood vessels connecting it to the placenta, the mother will hemorrhage and bleed to death. (Not to mention the fetus will die from lack of oxygen in short order.) This is why placenta previa--where the placenta is attached in the wrong part of the uterus and may tear loose during labor--is so dangerous and women with the problem have to stay on bedrest and have a C-section.

So in order for this to work, the baby-to-be would have to be "transplanted" to the artificial womb while still in the embryo stage and before the placenta started to form.

Now that's a definite possibility, and we may see couples who are childless because the woman can't carry past the first or second trimester due to an incompetent cervix using this technology at some point. However, no one even knows they're pregnant at this stage, so it's not going to affect abortion at all.

posted on Apr, 15 2019 @ 08:10 PM
The technology already exists and is in use.

This was exposed by Fred Gunderson former FBI?

That's why when a woman is 'abducted by aliens and implanted/made pregnant ' (by the military industrial complex), her baby never goes to term.

Instead, at about six weeks, the aliens come back and take the fetus, to raise in their fake wombs.
There is a YouTube video with him discussing this.

Iv had the same thoughts as you OP.

Here is a classic example of alien abduction and implantation.
edit on 15-4-2019 by TheLorax because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

in the future it would make sense that all women have their babies growing in womb centers to keep from damaging their bodies and limiting their time/abilities. Carrying around a baby in your body and causing it damage through the rigorous pregnancy period would be a thing of the past and something only hippies do, kinda like with water births. I would do that if I was a woman and wanted a child

posted on Apr, 17 2019 @ 06:43 PM
a reply to: TheLorax


top topics

<< 1   >>

log in