Agnostic.com

25 2

I think technology may eventually provide an answer to the abortion debate. If we can develop an artificial womb, women faced with an unwanted pregnancy could transfer the embryo to the machine and it could be brought to term for adoption. Do you think the religious right would accept this option?

By JerryPetersen5
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

25 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

What about educating about birth control and not making women feel uncomfortable about choosing a form of it? We would come very if we could stop making women feel like criminals for wanting to enjoy sex without becoming pregnant.

FoxyMoron Level 5 Dec 14, 2017

Agreed. I would even go so far as to make contraceptives freely available. The problem is that many in the religious right view procreation as the only reason for sex, or so they say in public, but which I think is pure bullshit.

They really mean the only reason for women is procreation... or other use by men...

To DJVJ311 - I agree with all of you. The control of women's bodies has been exercised for hundreds of years (SEE Mousu Tribe, China). The Pope is still doing it and it is a misogynist 'agenda'. There is proof of this desire of control of women having pleasure all through Africa and the Middle East by continuing to castrate women's genitalia from as early as 5 years of age - in the effort to remove any pleasure whatever from women for sex. The fact that male fascist regimes are continuing this act of war on women/children proves a misogynist agenda in this world. Who is to say that these nutters will not attempt any and all measures to take away other rights as well. If our current admin in 2017 is still slut shaming women who need birth control any evil thing is possible.

4

This only adds to the out of control population problem ,more unwanted children ,and additional costs to an already out of control healthcare system

4

I think we first need to examine the motives of the anti-abortion (quantity over quality) crowd. I don't believe their concern is actually the life of a child. I think it is a need to feel morally superior to someone else. And it is also a need for something to be against to promote unity among themselves. If they don't have something to be against, they will invent something like the war on Christianity. It's really about power and pride.

3

First, there should be no debate. The anti-abortion crowd is fueled by the christian agenda and its absolutes. No other religion on Earth has a major problem with this issue.

Having said that, we have a population that is growing too fast as it is and I can find no way to reconcile what you suggest with that. Frankly, we need fewer people in the world, not more.

Actually Ivangelicals' spiritual brothers, the Islamacists are anti-abortion, too.

@RonWilliam53 -- Though that is true, Islam allows for abortion, though there are varying schools of thought on when and for what reasons. There is no specific statement in the Qur'an about abortion.

Interestingly, there is a statement in the bible where the Big Guy not only authorizes abortion, but gives instruction to the priests on how to carry it out. It's a little vague, but it's there. With respect to the comparison between the fundamentalist evangelicals and the followers of Islam, the evangelicals say no abortion at any time for any reason, whereas the muslims follow guidelines akin to the orthodox jewish community. To them also, there is a different value allotted to the foetus with respect to that of the mother and the foetus loses if the woman's life is in jeopardy.

It's all quite complicated.

3

That sounds uncomfortably like the MATRIX.

Skyfacer Level 7 Dec 14, 2017

What about Brave New World?

2

My question would be who is going to pay for the gestation? Certainly not the government. And if it's the woman, then why keep the man out of the equation. After all, it takes two to tango.

Another question is what if the child is unadoptable for some reason? Who pays for it to live?

No, this isn't an answer. It just opens up more questions to argue about.

kiramea Level 7 Dec 14, 2017
2

They will find something else to bitch about. I faced them head on when I took my daughter to planned parenthood. They're against birth control but against abortion-purely control issue.

2

there is a lot more to this than mechanically gestating an embryo. I can think of reasons a woman would not want to do this religious or not. We really don't know what effects being carried in the womb has on brain development.There are probably benefits that can not be reproduced in an artificial womb. I for one cringe every time I run across an article about this possibility

btroje Level 9 Dec 14, 2017
1

I think this would be an awesome choice. People who want to have children but can't could be the other side of the equation.

CherylM Level 3 Feb 27, 2018
1

No, because like the previous post says, the anti-abortion movement was never about “saving babies” but always about controlling women, their bodies and their sexuality. If babies were the point, Christians and conservstives would be lining up to foster all the unwanted babies who grew into angry children and troubled adolescents. Anyone see that happen lately?

Aspasia Level 3 Feb 7, 2018

I want to know why all those young nuns and other pro-life women are so greedy they won't save a baby's life by accepting surplus frozen embryos, or what the Ivangelicals call "snowflake babies". The average woman could probably save 10-20 of them over her lifetime. For Jesus. Who, like his daddy, never actually mentions abortion as a bad thing.

1

That with genetic engineering is what Huxley envisioned in Brave New World.

JLFowler Level 6 Dec 14, 2017
1

We have always had a cultural arms race through history. A major part of keeping a culture viable is to grow its population. I think most individuals understand the world has a population problem but at the same time, that individual does not want to be part of a vanishing or minority culture. If we embrace a common non-theist world culture before massive famine and pandemics kick in, perhaps sterilizing newborns will be normalized and procreation will require a permit based on health, wealth, merit and need. In short, using technology to add to our already too large population, seems like pandering to religious conservatives trying to maintain their strength through numbers.

MuniJohn Level 5 Dec 14, 2017
1

I've thought of two other issues that could come up with the advent of an artificial womb. The religious right could demand that all viable fertilized eggs be gestated. They might already be barking up this tree, given the huge numbers that are discarded at fetilization clinics, but an artificial womb would make this demand more feasible. If that were to happen, again parental rights would be another issue.

The other big issue is the risk to the unborn in any natural situation, i.e. miscarriages. They could demand that all babies be gestated in an artificial womb in order to avoid this, since the life of the unborn is paramount. This could easily lead to everyone being sterilized in some reversible fashion, and couples having to petition the court for permission to have children. If granted, it would of course have to be carried out by in vitro fertilization.

bingst Level 8 Dec 14, 2017

There is no telling of the madness that could ensue. Did you see 'The Gift'? It was about this.

1

You may need to visit, or revisit the Harlow monkey experiments... without a 'human' connection and experience of the mother the children would possibly become psychopaths before being born.

Issa Level 5 Dec 14, 2017

that is what I have been thinking since the start of the thread. we really don't know the impact on brain development that being carried in the womb has

0

I do not think that would end the abortion debate at all. If anything, I think it would only give strength to the strict pro-life thinker's current stance. I would even guess that, from this idea, were it a reality, the pro-life debate would shift, evolve to something along the lines of, parents refusing God's gift is wrong, etc etc.

My rebuttle... Don't have one that hasnt already been said. Women should be free to make up their own minds.

Dean out.

DAC13 Level 1 Apr 4, 2018
0

Pro-lifers are actually pro-birthers. They don't care what happens to the "person"once it pops out. They seem more interested in seeing the evil woman punished for having fun than anything. want to make a "pro-lifer" go nuts? Ask them if they were in a burning IVF clinic and they could save either a 4 year old child OR a dozen frozen embryos, which one would they choose.

0

I'm not sure that the woman would, you never know if an adopted baby is going to have a good childhood. Besides would women want mini me's out in the world that they'd forever have to worry about, but never know that they are ok? Just playing devils advocate here...

0

What part of unwanted do you not understand? How about just wear a f** condom!

tell us where you buy your never fail condoms!

0

As long as that's what the woman wants.

One question--who pays for the procedure and the incubation costs?

0

It's been done to some extent, with lambs! Although it's really a fluid incubator, it's a step closer to an artificial womb.<br><br>

A brief article. [nature.com];

Long and highly technical article. <br>
There are a few fantastic pics of a lamb in the device, at 4 and 28 days.<br>
Very similar to some of my ideas for such a contraption.<br>
[nature.com];

A relatively short article on the legal implications for humans. <br>
[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

bingst Level 8 Dec 14, 2017

Unless creating the fetus is done entirely outside of a woman, it will never get rid of abortion. I hope it gets there, so that children are only created intentionally with both parents having legal responsibility for them, and are required to acknowledge that before the fact.

@obviouspseudonym Have a look at the other two comments I made on this thread. One relates directly to the points you've raised.

0

its been done with a calf and I don't care what religion thinks.

0

I like that idea.

0

Only if they were allowed to auction off (secretly of course) the child to their highest bidding follower… It’s not as much the ‘loss of life’ as it is the loss of their chance to brainwash an innocent..

Varn Level 8 Dec 14, 2017
0

Lolz! Are you kidding me? They'd probably be up in arms about it being unnatural.

0

It opens cans of worms. I'm not sure if the religious right would accept it or not. They probably still wouldn't want to support the child post-birth.

Not only that, there's the issue of parental rights. I'm sure if more women were willing to give up these rights in favor of adoption, there would be fewer abortions already.

Where this could really make a difference is if abortion is banned. Women could opt to give up their parental rights and embryo. It could be gestated in an artificial womb then put up for adoption. But this won't set well with all women. I suspect it won't set well with most women.

On a side note, an artificial womb would be highly beneficial in the case of premature births. I think it would have a greater impact in that area.

bingst Level 8 Dec 14, 2017
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:8207'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • Agnostic.com is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!