Just wanted to know if anyone else was familiar with the process of ectogenesis - the growing of a fetus in an artificial womb. It's been researched for the last thirty years in animals and just recently scientists were able to grow human embryos for fourteen days. Imagine if we funded this to its logical conclusion - being able to remove a fetus from the mother, placing it in an artificial womb, and putting the child up for adoption. In the words of Peter Griffin, "Why are we not funding this?" Sadly, the answer is because of politics. It's very easy to take a stand on abortion (on either side) and say, "I am going to fight for a woman's right to choose" or "I am going to fight for life", be elected, go to Washington, do very little or in many cases absolutely nothing (because it's going to take an act of the USSC to change anything) and when election time comes around simply say,"It's not me...it's them...send me back to Congress and I will continue to fight for [insert ideaology here]. It's like sweeping a dirt floor. If someone was paying you a hundred bucks an hour to sweep a dirt floor how willing would you be to point out that it would never get done?
Some questions: How much will women be paid for their fetus? Why would such extreme measures be used to bring more people into an already crowded world? Who pays to support all these fetuses while they are growing? Who will support all those kids who are waiting to be adopted? You: ""being able to remove a fetus from the mother, placing it in an artificial womb, and putting the child up for adoption"" "being able to remove" by force? Or will women still have their right to choice/consent ?
How much will women be paid for their fetus? They won't be. Why would such extreme measures be used to bring more people into an already crowded world? Because no child has ever asked to be conceived and they have a right to life. Who pays to support all these fetuses while they are growing? The funding that would normally go to planned parenthood - plus additional funds from other more progressive means i.e. the legalization and taxation of marijuana. Who will support all those kids who are waiting to be adopted? Same people who are supporting them now. You: ""being able to remove a fetus from the mother, placing it in an artificial womb, and putting the child up for adoption"" "being able to remove" by force? Or will women still have their right to choice/consent ? Of course not by force, whereas now if a woman doesn't want to carry the child to term she hasan abortion and kills the fetus. With ectogenesis, she would still have the same option of not carrying the child to term only, instead of killing the fetus, it would be grown to term in an artificial womb.
I've raised the "What if the fetus could be removed, without damage....then frozen...for later re-implantation in another woman".....OR "What if the fetus could be removed without damage and incubated in an artificial womb" questions in the past.... and I found something very interesting among "pro-lifers" (almost exclusively male).... they STILL object to the idea. And the reason is simple....it's not about abortion. Or "killing a baby". It's about controlling women. A scenario where the fetus is not destroyed, even proceeds to full gestation....would not satisfy them. It's about controlling women, through reproduction, and returning them to a state of "No sex without 'payment'...i.e. pregnancy." In fact, I've seen male "pro-lifers" on this very forum refer to pregnancy as the "consequence" a woman MUST "pay" for having sex. Using the phrase "Having sex as they like without consequence" or "If you way to play, you have to pay." A clear indication that they don't give a s**t about fetuses.....it's about uteruses...and the person surrounding it.
Assumes facts not in evidence. A fetus does not have any rights whatsoever. There are 400,000 children in foster homes waiting to be adopted. Who is going to magically adopt another 1,000,000 children each and every year?
I love this topic. The replies hit the nail on the head. The issue with unwanted pregnancy is the "Unwanted" part. Those who advocate forcing them to give birth don't want the children either. They are still a part of the "Unwanted" problem. There is no possible solution that can get around that. none!
Such technology is not needed. The human race is in no danger of becoming extinct. It also is highly unlikely that it will be possible to disconnect an embryo/fetus from the woman and attach it to a machine without killing it. Even in farming, when they do embryo transfer in livestock, they flush the embryos before implantation.
Fundamental Christians wouldn't be happy with it because it's "unnatural" Does anything ever not get their panties in a twist though?
There is the possibility that the flushing can kill the embryo and there is also the timing factor. How does the OP intend to deal with the"murder" of the embryos killed by flushing, AKA abortion, and what does he do with a fetus that has passed the flushing window? Even assuming 100% success what does this procedure cost and how much does an artificial uterus cost? Given that he will need at least a million of them, probably more, there is also the cost of maintaining and operating them on top of the cost of the supply of nutrients. So is the OP willing to increase taxes to pay for the enormous overhead because none of the funding that goes to PP is for abortions anyway. He is going to have to come up with all of the funding from scratch and it is probably going to run into billions of dollars.
But Repubs love to raise taxes to help raise children as long as they think it stops abortion.... ...........Now I have to hide so I don't get hit by lightning for telling such a whopping big lie
Paid for what? The removal and freezing? Plus, I doubt you, Joakim. Your posts on controlling women are pretty consistent....on a few occasions you've even openly defended the idea of "we have to control women for their own good." So I seriously doubt you'd accept a "non-damaging abortion" where the fetus was removed intact and capable of re-implantation.....since your repeated agenda (in your posts) has been about the control of women. For a reason, we all know.
In general terms, why are you seeking a solution to satisfy the extremists at either end of the spectrum? Id suggest its the vast, vast majority in between who are more relevant, not least the pregnant women and medical staff involved with them. I guess this may well be technically possible but there is a massive difference between supporting early embryos and bringing a pregnancy to term so there would likely be a lot of effort in making it viable as a standard procedure. I think this technology is also based around artificially inseminated embryos. Even in the earliest decisions to have an abortion, a pregnancy will be more advanced than that safely transferring a partially developed foetus from a womb to an artificial alternative is a whole different prospect. There is also a significant cost and resources issue. Youd need a artificial womb setup for every single foetuses currently aborted, each over a nine month period. Thats going to be in the region of 500,000 in the US alone. You then have hundreds of thousands of new born babies to adopt out every year and given there are already more children awaiting adoption than there are prospective adoptive parents, Ive no idea where you expect them to go. Youd also have to account for the sudden increase in population and, for the next few decades, the sudden demographic shift, affecting childcare, schools then on to jobs. I simply dont see this as a viable alternative to any significant proportion of abortions.
The issue with unwanted pregnancy is the "Unwanted" part. Those who advocate forcing them to give birth don't want the children either. They are still a part of the "Unwanted" problem. How do you suggest we get around that?
I couldn't have said it better myself. As a matter of fact the first person I spoke with about this idea was a pro-life male whose first response was,"So, everybody should just have sex with whoever and whenever they want? You shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to have a baby." It's just like my grandmother always said, "If it weren't for a rainy day, what would we complain about?"
Are you suggesting the following is correct ? : ""","So, everybody should just have sex with whoever and whenever they want?"""" or "" You shouldn't have sex unless you are ready to have a baby." Neither makes sense.
His assumption was that if there was a way to get around the choice of "either have a baby or have an abortion" it would encourage everyone to have sex because there would be no "consequence", no "price to pay." That is absolutely ridiculous.
Glad you agree.......people who think women should have to pay a price for having sex are misogynists
YUP! Sometimes it does. Can't afford a kid? Do the responsible thing and don't have one. Want to support MORE kids in the system then RAISE TAXES to pay for them.....now contact your Repub buddies and ask how high they want their taxes raised. You know, those people who scream and whine about, "not one penny of mine should go for abortion/Welfare/social programs for CHILDREN"
If you are willing to convince the extreme right that they must start paying higher taxes to support your obsession with something that is actually none of your business then go right ahead and make the case. But you are going to have to come up with some hard numbers and do a cost/benefit analysis and prove that this nation will benefit from what you are proposing. That is a whole lot of hard work so perhaps you should focus on that instead of wasting time trying to come up with ever more ludicrous scenarios here at PF. Get back to us when you proposal for higher taxes is ready and we will fact check it for consistency and feasibility.
Exactly. Over and over we see "pro-life" males who eventually make some comment about women having abortions and they say "If you want to play...you have to pay." Which brings up three interesting points- 1. They consider pregnancy....a "payment" or even a "punishment" that women must endure for having sex. Which runs counter to their otherwise "pro-pregnancy" claims. 2. It clearly indicates a Medieval/Taliban-style misogyny towards women. The idea, that they deny but often prove....that conservative men want women "in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant." 3. You'll notice, as I've stated many times, that these same men.....very often have never had a successful, long-term relationship with a woman. Either numerous failed relationships or none at all.
