Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Making Abortion Obsolete

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Loopdaloop
 


Thanks for chipping in!


An interesting read and an interesting subject!



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.



Even after reading the links thoroughly I'm still unsure as to the premise, how it might be a solution for abortion?

In the study by Finer and Henshaw (2005) about why women have an abortion the following results came up
(www.guttmacher.org...)

74% felt "having a baby would dramatically change my life" (which includes interrupting education, interfering with job and career, and/or concern over other children or dependents)
73% felt they "can't afford a baby now" (due to various reasons such as being unmarried, being a student, inability to afford childcare or basic needs of life, etc.)
48% "don't want to be a single mother or [were] having relationship problem[s]"
38% "have completed [their] childbearing"
32% were "not ready for a(nother) child"
25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"
22% "don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child"
14% felt their "husband or partner wants me to have an abortion"
13% said there were "possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
12% said there were "physical problems with my health"
6% felt their "parents want me to have an abortion"
1% said they were "a victim of rape"




posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 18 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeantherapy

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.


Yes. However - me being 66 I'm from another generation that wasn't yet in the "aware" state environmentally or that women were meant to do much else but get married and have children.

It was a generation of "role playing" - - not becoming what you were meant to be as an individual.

I support Planned Parenthood world wide - - to help infiltrate cultures that still believe pumping out babies is God's will.

But people will still reproduce and I'm all for science that will help make the next generation healthy.



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



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bone75


OK, that was pretty funny.


I'm also seeing this as a clarification of something you posted earlier.


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.


As a Darwinist (I guess you could say) I get what you mean by "the wedge". The biological differences between the sexes far exceeds any between the "races" (which, biologically, is a nearly meaningless term). John Lennin once titled a song "Woman is the N*gger of the World.". His point was that the continued subjugation of the "weaker sex" in modern society is f*cked up and wrong. I agree. Machinery, knowledge, and guns are all equalizers. So is this artificial womb.

On a related note, I remember Richard Pryor saying "How come I always gotta be a black man? Why can't I just be a man?" This comes up because of your talk of "driving the wedge deeper". I've been hearing this lately. It seems to mean "This [woman, gay, black, poverty-stricken] person has attained some level of influence or equality. That is a direct affront to my straight white maleness."

I'm probably projecting intent on you, Bone. It's just that I've seen so much misogyny and racism lately. I can't tell if your viewpoint is rooted in male privilege. Can you?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Loopdaloop
 


Your video with the Rhesus Monkey made me sad. Also, I was like "WTF?" More scientists proving that "water is wet" by abusing baby animals.
Point made.
Yeah, all babies need attention, physical love and affection.

Which brings us to the question, "If we are able to use this technology to end abortions, who's going to adopt and take care of all the babies born that would have been aborted?"



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Which brings us to the question, "If we are able to use this technology to end abortions, who's going to adopt and take care of all the babies born that would have been aborted?"


The same people that do it now?

Except gays in the states its illegal for them to adopt.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Yeah, all babies need attention, physical love and affection.


Yes! I am MAJOR on nurturing a living baby. I carried my grandson in a sling from birth - - practically 24 hours a day until he became too heavy. He slept next to me (on the floor at first) until I felt he was safe enough to be in a bed.

I did baby oil massages on him. I played various genres of music for him. He ate only homemade and organic baby food. I took him for a walk in his stroller almost every day.

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

But I'm not so sure the nurturing in the womb is necessary. I don't think the growing fetus is sentient until near birth (or after).

I do think the physical health is far more important - - - which could be better monitored in an artificial womb.

I can see the artificial womb as a great tool in healthy reproduction.

I don't really see the connection to abortion - - - because I think by the time something like this is available - - - contraceptives will be far more advanced too.

But Thanks - - seeing it from different perspectives makes for more interesting debate.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvius
 


Of course I'm not a caveman, but if I'm gonna be placed in their camp... then there ya go.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I could see moms going for this, not considering what is important for the baby's emotional/spiritual development inside her womb. Some women talk about abortion as if it's like getting a mole removed. (I am not against abortion, I am merely stating this attitude as a sad fact among some women today.) I also see young mothers treating their daughters like best friends instead of daughters (hanging out with them in malls and socializing with adults, coming onto guys, etc. in front of them (and dressing them like young adults, which...they aren't.) And we keep hearing how parents will be able to choose their baby's hair, skin and eye color, like ordering out of a catalogue. Lovely...

As a spiritual guy, of course I have a problem with technology replacing biology (and could make a logical case to support my view,) but I think many young mothers today would be all for it just because it would be easier for them. (I don't mean to downplay the difficulties of pregnancy and child labor, but I believe that some things are meant to be the way they are.)

We keep straying from nature’s design, and the further we go the more over-medicated on pills for anxiety, depression and other emotional disorders we become. (Go figure.)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneCloudHopper2
 


I would also never advocate raising fetuses in artificial wombs. Deprive the mother/baby nine whole months of bonding time? I don't know exactly how that benefits a child but I wouldn't want to tamper with a system that's been working just fine for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of years. I understand that pregnancy and child birth are very difficult, but you really ought to have to pass this test in order to even be a parent. I want to be hands on with a child if I ever have one, not "grow it" in an artificial womb, nor would I want it to be raised by nannies or nanny robots, or really even go to public schools all day long. You can't have everyone else caring for your child and then expect them to grow up the way you want.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


I can certainly understand people's reaction to the artificial womb as unnatural. Even though science can be cold and uncaring, there are people who volunteer to hold and cuddle abandoned crack babies who never were allowed to bond with their mothers. Let's not underestimate the altruistic nature of mankind.

If a fetus could be removed from a crack addict to the safe environment of an artificial womb, I'd be all for it. If a premature baby could be placed in an artificial womb that is far better than an incubator, to allow for continued fetal growth and development, I'm all for it!

I don't like the idea of growing babies. But I do like the idea of saving lives and providing a higher quality of life for some.



I understand that pregnancy and child birth are very difficult, but you really ought to have to pass this test in order to even be a parent.


This is all well and good sentiment, but it fails to consider adoptive parents or single fathers or women who's lives may be at risk because of pregnancy.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slante
reply to post by windword
 

s 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...


Instead, we stick them in institutions for strangers to take care of them.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by jeantherapy
 

This is all well and good sentiment, but it fails to consider adoptive parents or single fathers or women who's lives may be at risk because of pregnancy.


Those tadpoles developed in a flesh womb, where they are supposed to, not in an artificial womb. I'm also not convinced that we can duplicate the nutrition a well nourished mother's body provides a fetus. I can just imagine what kind of disgusting byproduct slurry that artificial womb babies would receive and I could dry wretch about it.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


I'm quite sure that caretakers would provide the highest quality of nutrition available, not a slurry of by-products. Although some of the things I ate while pregnant, due to bizarre cravings, might make you dry wretch.

The impetus for the design and creation of the artificial womb didn't come from ideal pregnancies, but from the medical needs that arise from premature babies, infertility and birth defects. Certainly, pro-lifers could save a few fetus' from abortion with such a technology.

I agree that there are many ethical concerns that need to be addressed. But, make no mistake, this is a technology that won't be stopped and won't just go away.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
How would this be making abortion obsolete? Women will still be fertile, and people will still have sex.

If anything I would say this would be making pregnancy obsolete.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


I can certainly understand people's reaction to the artificial womb as unnatural.


I doubt any of those "natural" believers would reject an incubator if they had a preemie.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jssaylor2007
 


Certainly women will continue to have sex and get pregnant. The only way that this technology will make abortion obsolete is from an organized push from the pro-life community. The doctors of woman seeking to terminate a viable pregnancy could transfer the fetus to an artificial womb, instead of aborting it, as they do now. Win/Win!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jssaylor2007
 


I thinking its mainly for a scenario where this happens...

1) women becomes pregnant

2) women does not want the baby, the man does...

3) women says "my body, my choice" the current cries.

4) Artificial Womb, so the baby is still born but Women can keep her choice of being "unmutilated" and perfect lifestyle.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by jeantherapy
 


I can certainly understand people's reaction to the artificial womb as unnatural.


I doubt any of those "natural" believers would reject an incubator if they had a preemie.



Right!!??

It's all cold, unnatural science fiction until something happens to them or one of their loved ones. Then, they're all in!



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
women becomes pregnant - - women does not want the baby, the man does...


Good point.

Make it legal - - sign the papers - - woman has no more rights to the baby.

Definitely a plus for the artificial womb.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join