Making Abortion Obsolete

reply to post by Annee


They think that soon they'll have that technology and could transplanted a fetus or an embryo to another woman's womb. That would be an incredible step, wouldn't it!? A real advancement for in vitro patients.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Annee

 

They think that soon they'll have that technology and could transplanted a fetus or an embryo to another woman's womb. That would be an incredible step, wouldn't it!? A real advancement for in vitro patients.

Not only infertile. But adult humans who have been exposed to and ingest harmful chemicals - - may not be the best place for an early fetus to develop properly without defects.

Survival of a healthy future generation may actually depend on sterile artificial wombs for the early fetus.

reply to post by Annee


Right!

And their diets can be regulated with only the highest quality of nourishment and pure, clean water and oxygen, free of air born toxins and second hand smoke. Their progress can be monitored and any problems detected and corrected early. All helping to make healthier babies!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Annee

 

Right!

And their diets can be regulated with only the highest quality of nourishment and pure, clean water and oxygen, free of air born toxins and second hand smoke. Their progress can be monitored and any problems detected and corrected early. All helping to make healthier babies!

Yes - - and some scientists say frozen sperm is better then the natural way.

Think about it. You have sperm readily available that can be examined prior to procreation. The healthiest can be selected and checked for inherited disease/weaknesses. Same with the egg.

After both are screened - - artificially fertilize them - - grow the fetus with all healthy - clean - pure nutrients - - - then at some time option the mother to carry it herself to term - - or continue to birth in the artificial womb.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real question: is your goal a healthy child - - or is your belief more important?

Here's a quote from the interview (Leuren Moret on Population Control) I mentioned before, plus a link to a PDF copy of it, if anyone's interested. I never had time to fact-check the statements made, which are very scathing to the establishment. It's food for thought if nothing else. This interview has to be maybe 6 or 7 years old. Moret is a prominent whistleblower & conspiracy theorist.

www.scribd.com...

"LM: I’d like to read something. This is also from Bertrand Russell’s book, The Impact of Science on Society, and this was published in 1952. He said "the Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia. If they had survived they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: Except possibly in the governing Aristocracy all but 5% of males and 30% of females will be sterilized. The 30% of females will be expected to spend their years from 18 to 40 in reproduction in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method."

That’s Bertrand Russell’s own words. Medical doctors and insiders today have told me that “wild reproduction” is not a desirable outcome in the future. Already we have terrible infertility problems in men and women. He also told me that in the near future the only way people will be able to get pregnant is to go into a hospital.

RM: Why is that, because we’ll be infertile?

LM: Infertile. And, 20 years ago, in the 1980’s, 15% of men’s sperm globally had damaged DNA, 85% was normal. Today that is reversed. Only 20% of men’s sperm today is normal, and 80% has damaged DNA. It is so damaged now that at scientific conferences, where scientists come together from all over the world, they are ringing the alarm and they are making comments and statements publicly that everything is wrong with the sperm. It is very weak; it is not motile; it can’t swim in the fluid to reach the egg, and of course, the DNA is damaged. When you put the damaged DNA in an egg or a sperm to form the first cell of a new living organism every cell in that organism has the damaged DNA expressed—in every cell."

Originally posted by jem78
He said "the Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia. If they had survived they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding.

Apparently - or so I've read - many top Nazi scientists were released in exchange for their data. America made a deal to acquire their studies.

Only 20% of men’s sperm today is normal, and 80% has damaged DNA. It is so damaged now that at scientific conferences, where scientists come together from all over the world, they are ringing the alarm and they are making comments and statements publicly that everything is wrong with the sperm. It is very weak; it is not motile; it can’t swim in the fluid to reach the egg, and of course, the DNA is damaged. When you put the damaged DNA in an egg or a sperm to form the first cell of a new living organism every cell in that organism has the damaged DNA expressed—in every cell.

Have you ever read this book? Adam's Curse: A Future without Men www.amazon.com...

EDIT: There are also science studies that reject it.

reply to post by Annee


Very interesting synopsis to that book. Why does the author state that male DNA has become damaged? Moret implied that the mass-degradation of DNA is being intentionally inflicted. That there are some problem-reaction-solution motives, in addition to a depopulation motive.

Originally posted by jem78
Why does the author state that male DNA has become damaged? Moret implied that the mass-degradation of DNA is being intentionally inflicted. That there are some problem-reaction-solution motives, in addition to a depopulation motive.

I don't know.

Other then scientists (Professor of Human Genetics) are as varied as any other group. They all have their own viewpoints and different ideas.

Did you read the wiki on Brian Sykes? Just curious. I try to always research the author of any book.

en.wikipedia.org...

I've always thought there was a sort of emotional, hormonal, telepathical connection between a women & the baby she is carrying inside her.

Although I have no proof or examples to the contrary ( I guess we will in 20yrs). I would hate to imagin human babies being born missing some vital emotion or such that we later discover was transferred via mother.

Not really sure if my line of thinking is making sense. I worry for our future that is all.

Originally posted by feelingconnected
I've always thought there was a sort of emotional, hormonal, telepathical connection between a women & the baby she is carrying inside her.

People say that - - - but I'm not so sure.

I have a grandson that I've been his primary caretaker since birth. I could not be more connected to my own children.

I believe in Energy Consciousness - - - so I believe that is where the connection is - - - not the physical.

What about adopted parent/child. Some have a closer bond with an adopted child - - then their natural child.

reply to post by Annee


I probably don't know how to word what I mean . I'm not talking about what emotions or relations ships they develop after birth, I'm not talking about adopted or even if a women uses donor eggs. It's more what a human baby gets out of a human womb other then what is needed to grow. Maybe there's more that comes though a human women to baby that we don't understand regardless of who bonds or raises baby.

Not sure I could be any more -less clear lol oh well I tried.


Ok maybe an example : the ability to love, or feel empathy or have a conscious or something that may not be solely a learn emotion.

reply to post by SaturnFX

from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego motherhood simply for that)

Actually, any sane woman would want to have a natural birth.
There's many many women who can't have children and they're going through a lot of procedures just to have them naturally.
I haven't met any woman who didn't want to have a natural child birth.
The only women I have met like that were not women but were in fact, girls.
Girls that care more about their figure are not really prepared to be a mother, a parent.
When you have children, their lives come before yours.

That's all I have to say for now.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
A population who reject's the mercy of their Creator would find this appealing.
The root word in Hebrew of both mercy and womb is the same.

Science continues on it's relentless Godless path, thinking that it is God. Man, in complete and utter rebellion to his own Creator, strives to be a creator.

This is abhorrent, unnecessary and a waste of our God given resources and intelligence. It is from the minds of the depraved.

This thing is neither good or bad. But how is used can be good or bad. From my point of view god is waiting for us to catch up with it and understand everything including it. God uses evolution on so many levels to evolve both species, knowledge and civilizations.

How can you be sure that god does not want this technology? If the child feels a connection then it is good but if the child get psychological issues because of this then it should not be done. It is like to early newborn babies that gets issues when the are not exposed to affection.



GMO is another thing from my point of view. We should have researched for 50 years in labs so that we really understand what we are doing and not just trying stuff out. Humans shortsightedness knows no boundries.

reply to post by ParaSpy2012


Through out my life, I have met many woman who were terrified of pregnancy, and they weren't just girls. Reproduction isn't an amusement park ride, that women wait in line for, for thrills. It takes a great amount of courage, support and education for most women to take on the prospect of planning and carrying a pregnancy to term.

My daughter, although she played with dolls as a little girl, now as a 38 year old adult has no desire, whatsoever, to be pregnant and give birth. Her priorities are on her career. Her and her husband, who also still building his career, have both decided that if the "parental urge" should strike, they will adopt.

Speaking for myself, being unmarried and having my daughter at 19, was the stupidest most selfish thing I ever did. But, I'm glad that I was so ignorant and defiant, because as I matured and weighed the consequences, both physical and financial, of having another child, I realized that "if I knew then what I knew now," I would never had even had her!

reply to post by feelingconnected

I've always thought there was a sort of emotional, hormonal, telepathical connection between a women & the baby she is carrying inside her.

Feelingconnected, what a great name for what we're discussing!

Emotional connectivity between the mother and baby, although unverifiable, most probably do effect their relationship.

Let me give you an personal example, for consideration. I was my mother's the 3rd girl. Her second daughter died at 3 months, due to heart failure. When she became pregnant with me, people told her that I was her 2nd daughter, returned to her by God.

That made her very angry! She felt that no one could replace that child. Apparently, she believed that it was true because she used to tell me, "You're not even supposed to be here!" In addition to her resentment of any insinuation by friends and family, that her daughter had been replaced, she wasn't really able to bond with me, for fear that I too would die. She was unable to fully accept me because of that sneaking suspicion and resentment that I was supposed to be some sort of substitute. She was never able to shake that trauma and loss and projected onto me, creating a sense of fracture within my self identity and our family unit.

Just because a woman is pregnant, there is nothing to ensure that her emotions are those that one would necessarily want projected or embedded into a new born baby. Consider the amount of hate a woman may project on an unwanted fetus. What if the child was conceived in order to manipulate a relationship. What kind of emotions of expectation and deviousness are projected or embedded into the fetus? How will those underlying emotional messages translate later in life in times of stress, trauma or disappointment?

Originally posted by feelingconnected
It's more what a human baby gets out of a human womb other then what is needed to grow. Maybe there's more that comes though a human women to baby that we don't understand regardless of who bonds or raises baby.

That is what I was responding to. I honestly don't think its necessary.

The physical part has genetic behaviors and memory cells. The fetus already has the physical genetics and memory cells of its parents.

My daughter was 5 months pregnant before she knew it. We tease her about her 1 month pregnancy. Her son was born at just under 7 months and spent 2 months in an incubator. He was allowed to come home on Christmas Day. She had never been around babies, did not plan this one, and was scared out of her mind to hold a 3 pound baby. It took her a while to be comfortable with her son - but she became a very devoted mom and they are very close.

On the other hand her father is adopted. She is very different from my genetic side. She doesn't fit our family - - which is kind of sad - - - and shows there is more to genetic inheritance then nurturing.

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012

Actually, any sane woman would want to have a natural birth.

Why? Sanity has nothing to do with it.

There's many many women who can't have children and they're going through a lot of procedures just to have them naturally.

Biology not sanity - - - drives reproduction.

I haven't met any woman who didn't want to have a natural child birth.

Biology and maybe Society influence.

Many women today are opting for C-sections rather then going through the pain of natural birth.

Some opt to have a surrogate carry their child.

Scientific advancements create opportunity. There will always be those who choose to take advantage of these opportunities.

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego motherhood simply for that)

Actually, any sane woman would want to have a natural birth.
There's many many women who can't have children and they're going through a lot of procedures just to have them naturally.
I haven't met any woman who didn't want to have a natural child birth.
The only women I have met like that were not women but were in fact, girls.
Girls that care more about their figure are not really prepared to be a mother, a parent.
When you have children, their lives come before yours.

That's all I have to say for now.

Its great that everyone has these super high expectations of humanity...I however live in a place called reality where there are endless commercials about skin beauty products, magazines with endless high expectations for beauty, etc...and yes, with that comes women whom would like to have alternatives.

Don't mistake a desire for natural child birth with a simple fact that for now thats all that can be done.

Natural doesn't mean squat when there are alternatives..let me give an example

What can be more natural than hunting/killing/skinning/eating your own meal?
Yep
And so why do people hands down choose to go to the olive garden and get a nice meal there verses go hunting?
Even out in the country, people choose supermarkets and such, synthetic processed convenience foods verses going out and killing or growing.

Natural is nice...technological evolution however is better.

So yes, I forsee that when the ops little picturevision of the artificial womb comes to a reality, especially if there are added benefits (perfect mix of chemicals, etc) that method will be preferred vastly over the current method. There may always be traditionalists, but don't underestimate the vanity and desire to not be in pain in the human species.

There is a lot of short sightedness going on..people demanding nothing will ever change, that people a thousand years from now will still do things exactly the same as they do now.
reminds me of when they said the horseless carriage was a passing fad, people will always prefer a horse, or when more recently I was told in my youth the internet would never challenge books, papers, or magazines because people want something tangable to read verses on some screen.

Don't take your comfort in something as the norm on how things will always be...nor dismiss those whom think differently..its best to consider society and the progressive nature of people as a whole when determining the outcome.

Originally posted by windword

1) Although the fetus can be safely monitored and it's diet safely regulated, avoiding unsafe drugs, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine etc, will the absence of the mothers voice, heart beat and rhythm of her body motion effect the babies overall well being.

Pardon the interruption...

but did I just here you refer to one of those things in the incubators as a baby?

reply to post by Bone75


A fertilized egg goes through the process of "becoming" a baby. Baby, being the final outcome after becoming a blastocyst, an embryo, then a fetus.

A female baby is not a woman. And, in fact, has no guarantee of ever even becoming a woman.

but did I just here you refer to one of those things in the incubators as a baby?

Uhm, those aren't incubators. They're (artist renderings of futuristic) "artificial wombs." Hence, the "obsoletion" of abortion.