Post # 31
I voted that I’m pro-choice and that I like the idea. But I think I may have voted too soon – I think I’m more on the fence with it than anything else.<br /><br />I do agree that if the technology was good enough to be made publically available, that an artificial womb could be an alternative to abortion in some cases. But as PPs have said, there will always be a need for abortion. What if a woman becomes pregnant, but doesn’t want a child to be brought into the world? That would still happen in this scenario.<br /><br />If anything, I think this technology would be much better suited for endangered, non-human animals (like the giant panda example a PP gave). While scientists don’t agree on our planet’s human carrying capacity, we already have so many environmental problems already. So why not encourage birth control to prevent these pregnancies, instead of counting on the chance that a woman would choose to use an artifical womb?
Post # 32
That is just implausable from a scientific standpoint. Getting it out would be so hard that if your end goal was fetus in fake womb, it would be easier to start with sperm and egg outside the body, and implant it. Once it’s implanted if it becomes not implanted anymore- that’s a miscarriage. Happens all the time. What you are talking about is sort of like cutting a tree off 3 feet off the ground, then digging a new hole and shoving it it. You’ve killed all the roots of a brand new tiny spark of life at it’s most delicate time. I don’t think that would/could work. And for it TO work it would involve taking part of that woman’s womb. At a min. Doesn’t seem worth it IMO.
Post # 33
DH is Catholic and would say that he is pro-life, if you pushed him. I would say I was pro-choice, if you pushed me. But unofficially, we meet more in the middle, as we both agree with the wording of the UK abortion act.
He has often brought up this idea in the past. My main problem with it is that it is impractical. Carrying these unwanted foetuses to term would cost a fortune… money which could be spent on pre-existing human beings. It would also increase the number of children in care, because there are far more children out there than families who want them. Children in care are more likely to have negative outcomes as adults. So we would be investing a lot of time and energy in creating an underclass. Finally, many people abort because the foetus has deformities or serious health issues. Are we really going to spend a fortune investing in carrying children to term which have serious health problems, just to dump them into an already overloaded care system?
Post # 34
I am ok with the idea of this for women where it is unsafe to carry a pregnacy to term themselves or as a surrogate, but not at all for an alternative for abortion. I think that just opens up a whole new door for irresponsilbity and unwanted children for those who don’t want to be responsible with safe sex. There are enough children who need care and adoption as it is, there does not need to be a way to create more. Put the money into birth control and education to prevent the need for this to be an alternative to abortion instead.
Post # 35
- Wedding: March 2014 - Chicago, IL
I work in tissue engineering. I’d estimate that to grow a fetus (after of course the lab has been set up) it would run into the hundreds of thousands over the 40 week gestation period. In no way do I think this is a better option than abortion. Perhaps an option for same sex couples or for those struggling with fertility issues..
Culture medium is really, really expensive. So are artificial hormones. I’m guessing that this fetus would require a LOT of those things, and even more as it grew.
Post # 36
Why are we not funding this? In this financial climate, the NIH has a hard enough time funding research on cancer, AIDS, and vaccines. The technology for this is a long way off, and if it ever happens, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that a private company/industry puts up the money for its development.
And to add, I agree with previous posters — I can’t see this system ever being a viable option for transferring existing pregnancies from a uterus to an artificial womb, so it’s not going to be some magic cure for abortion.
Post # 37
I’m pro-choice and this sounds horrific.
Post # 38
- Wedding: March 2014 - Chicago, IL
My previous comment made me ponder this a bit more. I need to go look up the study on sheep or lambs or whatever, but another huge concern should be sterility. When I’m culturing tissue I can’t take my experiments past a couple of weeks because everytime you change the culture medium you are introducing the possiblity of contamination. Once you get mold or bacteria introduced into the system you’re screwed and the only way to get it out is to end the experiment and re-sterilize everything. Can you imagine if a growing fetus got contaminated? How horrible. What would we do? Would we “end the experiment?” Would we “harvest” the baby early to try and give it extra antibiotics? I could see easily how a baby being “cultured” could easily get sepsis and die. Yikes. Obviously science needs vast improvements before we move to a human model – but everyone should consider the laboratory costs, setup, and risks.
Post # 39
I’m pro choice, and I don’t have a problem with it, provided that it’s privately funded. I would much rather see public funding go towards contraception and prevention. I also don’t see this as being an abortion alternative. I see the use for women who want a child, but are physically unable to carry to term.
Post # 40
All i can think of are the many very bad results that this could lead to…cloning, illegal “growing” of babies that aren’t in the legal system for who knows what end (think off the grid work camps or whatever), easier access to black market organs…nope not a fan. Extreme ideas yes but possible, i think.
The problem isn’t too many babies, it’s sexually mature people ignoring the fact that sex=babies. No sex=no babies, rape and incest aside. I’d rather ppl just stay abstinent and make the whole womb thing a non-issue.
Post # 41
Ugh, NO. I don’t believe people should play God. If you can’t have a baby, get a surrogate or better yet adopt.
And I really feel sorry for the goats who are going through unneccesary surgery for this. They are being caused pain and they are likely dying all for what?? Jeez. There’s enough animal abuse in the world. Look up animal testing through the Beagle Freedom Project and see what we are doing to these poor creatures. Humans are assholes.
Post # 42
Medical issues aside, I think if you are too selfish and lazy to carry your own baby, then you don’t need one.
For medical/fertility reasons,I don’t have a problem with it.
Post # 43
I’m wondering about the effects this might have on the fetus, being incubated away from a human mother, without being able to hear her voice/heartbeat. And I also don’t think this would be a viable alternative to abortion completely, because some women simply don’t want a biological child of theirs out there in the world (not necessarily they don’t want to be pregnant), and some abortions are done because of health issues with the fetus.
Post # 44
the bottom line is, there are not enough potential families out there to adopt all the unwanted fetuses out there. Its a nice idea, but there would be tons of homeless, family-less ‘orphans’ out there. Wouldnt work.
Post # 45
- Wedding: September 2014 - Dallas, TX
Hate it. Who is going to take care of all these “farmed” babies? There are already more kids than parents who want to adopt. It would become a strain on our society. Who is paying for it? The goverment? Taxpayers? Because that is going to be expensive. Lastly, the idea of rows and rows of babies incubating in fake wombs just creeps me out. It feels a little too 1984 for me. No one should be controlloing our own fertility.