Making Abortion Obsolete

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well this is brilliant. I use to be severely pro-life... have had some misfortunes in life that made me change my attitude. And while I desperately want more children, going through difficult pregnancies is not something I ever want to endure again. This is something I would fully support.




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Sorry, but this won't do anything to curb the abortion rate. The decision to abort is a social one, not a medical one. If women are aborting to dodge responsibility now, what makes you think they're gonna want someone to save the babies life?

This isn't about abortion, its about a woman's ability to have a child without going through pregnancy. Call it what it is.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


If abortion clinics were equipped or had access to such technology and equipment through clinics, universities or hospitals, I'm sure that many woman would opt for their fetus to be donated and adopted. As it is now, many woman donate their fetus to science.

If the pro-life evangelical right are sincere in wanting to save lives, they should be all over this!

I'd imagine this new technology would first be tested, when it is developed enough for human testing, on potentially aborted embryos and fetus' or in an experimental neo-natal crisis situation where death is imminent. Not in an in-vitro situation.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
 


If abortion clinics were equipped or had access to such technology and equipment through clinics, universities or hospitals, I'm sure that many woman would opt for their fetus to be donated and adopted. As it is now, many woman donate their fetus to science.

If the pro-life evangelical right are sincere in wanting to save lives, they should be all over this!

I'd imagine this new technology would first be tested, when it is developed enough for human testing, on potentially aborted embryos and fetus' or in an experimental neo-natal crisis situation where death is imminent. Not in an in-vitro situation.


I'm certain that this technology will come with some benefits, but its gonna do more harm than good. This will drive the wedge between men and women even deeper. Imagine a world where I don't need a woman to have a child... good for me in the short run, bad for humanity in the long run.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PassedKarma
 


That's exactly it isn't it, this technology will happen & will come from necessity. A women's desire to grow a baby in her womb can be all consuming. I do understand this as my womb was empty for 4 yrs when trying. I women having problems will do just about anything possible.

On the other hand I can only imagin, if reproductive help can do nothing looking else where in your quest to be a parent will be just as strong. Like women who look for surrogacy or couples look for adoption. Or in 20yrs time growing our babies like this.

I also do not believe it has anything to do with abortion, I also think if a women doesn't want to carry a baby inside her just to keep her figure she's not mentally ready for parent hood & there may be other things going on.

However it's a huge step. I worry and am not entirely convinced. In saying this 10yrs ago I felt the same about the assisted reproduction technology so readily used. My stance had to and has change from a 'no' to an absolute 'yes'.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


People will never stop longing for physical affection. Sex will always still be sex. If getting a woman pregnant is the only thing a man has to hold a woman to his side, I'm not sure he should even be a father. Such men need to put down their cave man clubs, and realize women have higher aspirations than to remain barefoot and pregnant, making sandwiches in the kitchen.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by feelingconnected
 





I also do not believe it has anything to do with abortion, I also think if a women doesn't want to carry a baby inside her just to keep her figure she's not mentally ready for parent hood & there may be other things going on.


I think that most scientist and researchers don't feel as passionately or are influenced by a sense of urgency about the abortion issue as those who have pinned their morality to this issue with a fervor. So, most likely you're right when you say that this isn't about abortion. However there are many on both sides of the abortion issue that are looking to resolve the conflict and many are aimed at finding solutions, rather than pragmatic imperatives.

Women who find themselves in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy don't have the time or money to lobby and demonstrate for funding of options, development of better contraception and medical procedures or affect rights and legislation.

It needs to be done by large groups that represent the ideals of their membership and have the ability to fund and support the changes they're looking for. If some of these groups find abortion so troubling, there's a technology that can be developed for that!



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75
If women are aborting to dodge responsibility now, what makes you think they're gonna want someone to save the babies life?


Why don't you start ranting about the Male contraception pill? Go research it.

They were available years ago - - and got shelved because in studies men rejected the idea.

Men want and force women into getting abortions - - - when the man chooses and rejects being a father.

Your rant against women is getting really old and tired.


edit on 17-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
If a woman's body / physical appearance is the root of her livelihood - - - and she has a good/safe alternative to having a child - - - why shouldn't she use it?

Her physical appearance is the same as a carpenter's tools.

Should a carpenter be forced to give up his tools - - - because of pregnancy - - - when there is a good/safe alternative?

edit on 17-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by feelingconnected
 




I also do not believe it has anything to do with abortion,


I'm not trying to single you out, by quoting you again, I'm just trying to address the theme, that being, this technology making abortion obsolete.


I found this article that echos my thinking of the pro-choice ideologues getting behind it to prevent abortions.

Would an Artificial Womb Solve the Abortion Issue?


Imagine the implications of such a machine. If a mother finds herself pregnant and unable to care for the child, she would have several options. Perhaps the father or someone else capable of raising a child would want to adopt the unborn fetus. The mother could also simply give it to the state. The state would fund centers (likely within hospitals) that house rows upon rows of these devices. Instead of terminating her pregnancy with an abortion she could choose to simply give it up for adoption early. The fetus would be transferred from her to the device and the pregnancy would continue uninhibited. When the gestational age is reached, the baby would simply and effortlessly be released from the artificial womb in a process free from complications seen in natural births. The child would be born an orphan, put in the care of the state just as other orphans are. Who would pay for all this anyway? An unwanted pregnancy would not be entirely consequence free. The cost might be broken up between taxes, the original parents, plus insurance of course, but perhaps with actual abortions no longer needed, the members of the pro-life and pro-choice camps that have been so adamantly donating to their cause could consider donating to such a worthy life-sustaining artificial womb program instead…or better yet, a program that increases access to contraception and sex education.

But the reality of such a technology would be rather marvelous; no unwanted pregnancy would have to end in death. Simultaneously, no parents would suddenly be faced with caring for children they’re not ready for. Both sides would get what they're fighting for at once, and since taxpayer costs for such an operation would be a serious issue…the real focus could be turned to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
This has got my mind going all over the place. My first thought was about maternal influence during development, but it was pointed out that's not necessarily a positive. (My own mother had a psychotic break when she was pregnant with me. Or she was actually stalked by a malevolent ghost. Either way...) There would just have to be ways of dealing with that. The option of freeing women from childbearing (and, yes, providing another alternative to abortion) certainly seems like a positive thing to me. But if fertility levels are dropping, should we really be fighting against that? Seems like the biosphere striving for equilibrium to me. But in a world where growth is considered a necessity that argument will never fly.

One thing's for sure. If this can be done it will be done. We need to start making sci fi/horror movies about this right now so we can get some widespread debate going.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Everyone knows how babies are made; stop, damnit! At what human population level does each new baby make its parents selfish? Men, if you're too drunk to control your body, use a latex device. Ladies, what's up with letting men put little soldiers in your body? These baffling arguments really showcase the apathy we have regarding the future of our species.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I'm worried about the psychological side effects of this. It is true that during the pregnancy the baby learns its mother and fathers voices. It also reassures the baby. It's the same reason that all of this, leave your kid to cry, bullcrap doesn't work in practical parenting. Kids, from the age of fetus, do need these natural rituals to occur for proper development.

As for abortion, at least they won't be actually murdered anymore... It's just sad that people are so callous they don't mind discarding a potential life anymore. It's the same reason we don't murder the old for being a burden, so on...

One thing is certain, we all have a lot of ethical and legal debates and disputes coming up in the not too distant future. Even if we do have to wait more like 50 years for this stuff, can you imagine how pissed off people are going to be about clones rights, and clone marriage?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slante
reply to post by windword
 


I'm worried about the psychological side effects of this. It is true that during the pregnancy the baby learns its mother and fathers voices. It also reassures the baby. It's the same reason that all of this, leave your kid to cry, bullcrap doesn't work in practical parenting. Kids, from the age of fetus, do need these natural rituals to occur for proper development.


I could see those issues, like movement and mom and dad's voices, being programmed into weekly routines, robotically piped into the womb, to simulate the everyday activity of the mother.



As for abortion, at least they won't be actually murdered anymore... It's just sad that people are so callous they don't mind discarding a potential life anymore. It's the same reason we don't murder the old for being a burden, so on...

One thing is certain, we all have a lot of ethical and legal debates and disputes coming up in the not too distant future. Even if we do have to wait more like 50 years for this stuff, can you imagine how pissed off people are going to be about clones rights, and clone marriage?


HAHA! I can see it now!

CLONES! They Took Our Jobs!




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeantherapy
At what human population level does each new baby make its parents selfish?


Give me ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason to bring another child into this world.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
In 20 years, science will have advanced to a point as to make abortion obsolete. The pro-life vs pro-choice debate will be irrelevant. So before science overwhelms us, we best start discussing NOW the repercussions and consequences, soon to be reality, of the "Artificial Womb."


What are your concerns, ATS? I know that there will many.
Let the civil discussions begin!


I'm confused as to why you think an external womb would make abortion obsolete?
It might make the need for surrogate mothers obsolete, however a woman having an abortion (for whatever reasons) is unlikely to be wanting a child of hers grown up in a machine so that in 20 years time it can track her down to ask why?

I would argue that in 20 years time abortions will increase due to advances in genetics.

Once the genetic markers for down syndrome was discovered, people were given the choice of a test where it could be identified whether the embryo had down syndrome. The numbers of abortion increased significantly.

Currently, scientists are looking for the genetic markers for autism, any other learning disability and schizophrenia. Once they know what it is, they will be offering more tests for embryo's and more opportunities for parents to have an abortion so that they can raise a 'perfect child'.

My question would then be

What of the false positives...
What would we as a society be losing by not having people like this in our world.



Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by windword
 


I guess if we do perfect the procedure, so there would be no side effects, or abnormalities.

It would boil down to whether, a human babies living in artificial womb will be have any motherly feeling toward the mother.


This makes me think of the Harlow Monkey Studies and is an interesting question.

It could be the machine babies could turn out to have horrible lives.
Studies show that the process of attachment starts in the womb and often it is those who have poor attachment that end up with mentall illness or personality disorders or worse.

edit on 18-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jeantherapy
At what human population level does each new baby make its parents selfish?


Give me ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason to bring another child into this world.


Clearly I can't, thus I didn't and I have made good on my promise to never reproduce. Each additional human born is a knife in mama Earth's back and it is my desire to be part of the solution to the Earth's problems, not contribute further to those problems.



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Bone75
If women are aborting to dodge responsibility now, what makes you think they're gonna want someone to save the babies life?


Why don't you start ranting about the Male contraception pill? Go research it.


First, because we're not talking about male contraception pills.


Second, the only person ranting here is you.




They were available years ago - - and got shelved because in studies men rejected the idea.


Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't part of that study. It sounds like a great idea to me.



Men want and force women into getting abortions - - - when the man chooses and rejects being a father.


True and sad, but hardly relevant to this discussion.


Your rant against women is getting really old and tired.


I'd reword my statement to suit your needs, but last time I checked, men can't abort. I'll change it anyway if it makes you feel better.Here ya go...



If men and women are aborting to dodge responsibility now, what makes you think they're gonna want someone to save the babies life?


I guess if I wrote it like this it would be correct...

If men and women are choosing to abort in order to dodge responsibility now, what makes you think they're gonna want someone to save the babies life?

There that's better.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Bone75 because: booboo



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jeantherapy
At what human population level does each new baby make its parents selfish?


Give me ONE - - just ONE unselfish reason to bring another child into this world.


How about, "I screwed up and got pregnant at the worst possible time, by the worst possible guy, under the worst possible conditions... but none of that is the baby's fault, so I'm gonna let him LIVE." That is unselfish.
edit on 18-11-2012 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Loopdaloop
 


Thanks for chipping in!



I'm confused as to why you think an external womb would make abortion obsolete?


I'm not a scientist, a doctor or a researcher. I'm just a person who would like to see solutions to the bitter debate between pro-life and pro-choice factions. The premise that "artificial wombs" may be able to offer alternatives to abortion isn't my personal claim, but a solution being considered by activists on both sides.

Will Science Trump Politics in Resolving Abortion Debate?

Would an Artificial Womb Solve the Abortion Issue?

Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate?



It might make the need for surrogate mothers obsolete, however a woman having an abortion (for whatever reasons) is unlikely to be wanting a child of hers grown up in a machine so that in 20 years time it can track her down to ask why?


That's a personal value judgment that we really can't make. We don't know how many woman would opt allow their fetus to be adopted, if they didn't have to carry her pregnancy to term and go through labor. I don't think it's fair to assume that all women who opt for an abortion are irresponsible, wonton, cold, heartless murderers. Given the opportunity. my bet is on many women opting for their fetus' survival.

I'm not certain of current adoption record laws, but it's my understanding that both the mother and the child have to enter some kind of registry to find their estranged relatives. If, for some reason, an unwilling mother is contacted by a representative or the child itself, the mother can just deny the request.



I would argue that in 20 years time abortions will increase due to advances in genetics.

Once the genetic markers for down syndrome was discovered, people were given the choice of a test where it could be identified whether the embryo had down syndrome. The numbers of abortion increased significantly.


I don't see that as a "bad thing."

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions

Personally, I think that a woman should be informed, if the doctor is aware of fetal defects, and be allowed to make an informed decision as to whether she wants to continue her pregnancy or not, in light of such a critical problem. No woman should be lied to about her unborn's health status, in order to coerce her into a lifestyle she doesn't want, have the skills or resources to accept.



This makes me think of the Harlow Monkey Studies and is an interesting question.

It could be the machine babies could turn out to have horrible lives.
Studies show that the process of attachment starts in the womb and often it is those who have poor attachment that end up with mentall illness or personality disorders or worse.


Your link isn't working for me.


Your observations and questions are all vary valid, and certainly need to be looked into. The future is upon us. We need to stay informed and be open minded, while remaining skeptical and vocal.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join