Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Artificial Wombs


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4769 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:04 PM

2012-02-23-artificial-womb-375x250.jpg

>>Click here to read the article<<

>>Another supporting article<<

"Of all the transhumanist technologies coming in the near future, one stands out that both fascinates and perplexes people. It's called ectogenesis: raising a fetus outside the human body in an artificial womb.

It has the possibility to change one of the most fundamental acts that most humans experience: the way people go about having children. It also has the possibility to change the way we view the female body and the field of reproductive rights."

 

Some believe the technology behind ectogenesis will be here, and readily available to all in another 30 years. The research focuses primarily on these ideas: preventing premature babies from developing life threatening conditions, create an alternative option for surrogacy, helping women (and men  :o ) who are unable to reproduce, and of course further enabling homosexual couples to have children. 

 

"IT WOULD FURTHER UNCHAIN WOMEN FROM THE HOME AND EXTEND THE AGE WOMEN CAN HAVE CHILDREN."

 

Thoughts, ideas, or comments?

Do you think this will separate men from women? Maybe dwindle down the 'need' to have a spouse?


Edited by Adam, 05 August 2014 - 04:06 PM.


#2 Boggart

Boggart
  • Professional Napper

  • 7981 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:21 PM

I think that this can be very beneficial. The technology for men and women to have a child without the mother being pregnant already exists (surrogates) but people generally still choose to carry the child themselves due to price. I think this is a similar situation where people who can't have children on their own (such as me) will do choose this method without all the legal issues and emotional drama of a surrogate.



#3 SuperDuperPuppu

SuperDuperPuppu
  • 148 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:29 PM

From a purely medical perspective, this is great. When do we reach such a point, it would help foster development in immature newborns or allow ones that would be unviable to exist outside the womb at that time period to do so.

 

Also, it does skip all the emotional, legal, and ethical weights of having a surrogate mother.



#4 Lily

Lily
  • 279 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:42 PM

That picture looks like something you'd see in a sci-fi movie. 



#5 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:09 PM

I can't fathom what there is to debate.

As far as I can tell, this kind of technology expands the options potentially available to millions of people without any apparent downside.

#6 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:10 PM

Isn't there something important about a child being able to hear the mother's heartbeat and voice and all that, though?

 

And I doubt that the expense of a surrogate would be any more than the expense to keep a fetus essentially on life support for nine months.



#7 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:13 PM

I honestly feel this is further than 30 years away, and even further until it is a monetarily viable option. There are still plenty of unknowns going into the healthy development of the baby. It would be interesting to see the differences (if any) psychologically. Hmmm...



#8 Karla

Karla
  • 2478 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:40 PM

I'm still wierded out about this thing because it's different from the conventional conception of life that we as humans are used to, but I think it can be beneficial for both genders.

 

I'd like to see what pro-life activists think of this. :o



#9 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:09 PM

I don't feel this will ever replace natural birth entirely. This would really only be used for people who couldn't be pregnant for one reason or another. I imagine it would be used by older ladies, ones with health issues or demanding jobs.
Also, I had lunch with Michio Kaku, and he said that he feels being able to grow functioning Kidneys from a single cell is still 50+ years away, so to grow an entire human, I would say closer to 2100.



#10 Parasol

Parasol
  • 52 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:14 PM

Isn't there something important about a child being able to hear the mother's heartbeat and voice and all that, though?

 

And I doubt that the expense of a surrogate would be any more than the expense to keep a fetus essentially on life support for nine months.

 

Hearing the heartbeat/voice/being held in general is important for the baby to bond and feel loved/protected, but I thought that was post-birth? Feel free to correct me, though.

 

It's cool in concept, but I can't help but feel all of the trans-humanism theoretical stuff of today is our equivalent to flying cars in the 50's.



#11 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:21 PM

Hearing the heartbeat/voice/being held in general is important for the baby to bond and feel loved/protected, but I thought that was post-birth? Feel free to correct me, though.

 

It's cool in concept, but I can't help but feel all of the trans-humanism theoretical stuff of today is our equivalent to flying cars in the 50's.

webmd thinks that fetuses can feel parental love while in the womb.

In my opinion, it's equally important for the mother to bond with the baby too though, and for me, that began when my children were in the womb. 



#12 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:43 PM

webmd thinks that fetuses can feel parental love while in the womb.

In my opinion, it's equally important for the mother to bond with the baby too though, and for me, that began when my children were in the womb. 

I would agree. Though, webmd... ugh. 



#13 arcanum

arcanum
  • 1748 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 06:50 PM

That picture looks like something you'd see in a sci-fi movie. 

I thought the exact same thing xD

 

webmd thinks that fetuses can feel parental love while in the womb.

In my opinion, it's equally important for the mother to bond with the baby too though, and for me, that began when my children were in the womb. 

I definitely agree with this.

 

*shrug* to each his own, I suppose.

 

Edit: i just realized this was in the Debate forum, I'm not very good at debates cause I'm all about agreeing to disagree xD soo... sorry I didn't contribute much to this debate.


Edited by arcanum, 05 August 2014 - 07:32 PM.


#14 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:16 PM

I'm interested in knowing how the legal battle over who's responsible for the accidental deaths/mutations of any babies brought up in this manner. 



#15 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11533 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:30 PM

I'll agree for sure that there is an almost immediate bond that mothers can have while their baby's in their womb. I was 8 weeks before I miscarried and I knew there was something wrong before I ever got any real physical indications. They're sharing your blood and there are even cases of Maternal Mirror Syndrome where a mother will actually develop preeclampsia and edema from fetal distress. There is absolutely a strong bond hormonally with the chemicals released during birth. That being said, that does not mean that a mother cannot bond with her baby if he or she is adopted, conceived with a surrogate, or an artificial womb. Daddy can bond with the baby, too, after all, and he doesn't have the pesky pregnancy hormones mommy has.

Because there can be some serious problems associated with pregnancy for some women, particularly those with a history of late term miscarriages or still births, I see absolutely no problem with artificial wombs. It also gives the possibility of being able to save an ectopic pregnancy since uterine transplants are not often successful. While many would disagree with me, I also fully support the idea of optional genetic screening for problems such as preventing Huntington's or breast/ovarian cancer from the BRCA gene, particularly if the woman has already had to have her breasts and ovaries removed to prevent cancer. 

That being said, I'm a very strong supporter of breast feeding - up to or above 2 years if the mother wants. Yes. Really. And if those babies are to be born with artificial wombs, we must find a way to induce breastfeeding in the mother because of its powerful ability to boost the immune system. Colostrum is particularly important within the first couple days. I also have concerns over proper volumes of hormones inside the womb. During fetal brain development in particular, they are extremely susceptible to hormonal changes. We have seen this be implicated in a range of (epigenetic?) disorders from autism to sex addiction. How do we accurately measure healthy levels considering they vary so greatly from woman to woman and often on a very carefully regulated feedback system? However, if we -can- do this, we could prevent disorders which start in the womb.



#16 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:35 PM

I'm interested in knowing how the legal battle over who's responsible for the accidental deaths/mutations of any babies brought up in this manner.

I'm tempted to try to diagram that sentence. It lacks sufficient clarity. The root sentence, sans prepositional clauses, is "I'm interested in knowing how the legal battle" which is incomplete.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, I can more or less discern what you're trying to get at. I think it's rather obvious that litigation will follow the standards set up at fertility clinics. There will be paperwork to sign to the tune of "Nothing is the clinics fault" before the egg and sperm even meet.

By the way mutation is a natural part of the life cycle of almost all animals on earth, including humans. If we didn't mutate, our genes would stagnate and lead to a heat death of sorts (that analogy might not be the most accurate, but I've got cosmology on the brain). With that in mind I don't think that mutation by itself is grounds for legal action.

#17 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:43 PM

I'm tempted to try to diagram that sentence. It lacks sufficient clarity. The root sentence, sans prepositional clauses, is "I'm interested in knowing how the legal battle" which is incomplete.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, I can more or less discern what you're trying to get at. I think it's rather obvious that litigation will follow the standards set up at fertility clinics. There will be paperwork to sign to the tune of "Nothing is the clinics fault" before the egg and sperm even meet.

By the way mutation is a natural part of the life cycle of almost all animals on earth, including humans. If we didn't mutate, our genes would stagnate and lead to a heat death of sorts (that analogy might not be the most accurate, but I've got cosmology on the brain). With that in mind I don't think that mutation by itself is grounds for legal action.

 

I was pushing more towards mutations that could be perceived as having a negative impact on the baby's life (shorter life expectancy, hardship, etc.) that could be tied back to a mistake on behalf of the technology or an operator using the technology. 

 

I'm glad you reached through my lack of clarity and found what I was trying to get at. A two-year old screaming at your knee's tends to degrade one's writing. 



#18 GuntMyFries

GuntMyFries
  • 10 posts

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:57 PM

Isn't there something important about a child being able to hear the mother's heartbeat and voice and all that, though?

 

And I doubt that the expense of a surrogate would be any more than the expense to keep a fetus essentially on life support for nine months.

 I'm sure they can replicate outside noises and a heartbeat. But what about mothers that are unable to speak or babies unable to hear, a bond is still formed. Also if a surrogate is used or a baby is adopted, a bond is still formed.

 

I think it would be wonderful. One of the main reasons would be because you can actually get a chance to see what goes on in there, the scariest part about about being regnant is having no idea wtf is going on in there. Also my pregnancies were frigging horrible. I think if this option was available and I could afford it, I would give it some serious thought.

Also to all of the women that go through extremely invasive and expensive procedures again and again for a chance at a viable pregnancy, or others that are just unable to reproduce for any reason could benefit greatly from this.



#19 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 10:19 PM

That being said, I'm a very strong supporter of breast feeding - up to or above 2 years if the mother wants. Yes. Really. And if those babies are to be born with artificial wombs, we must find a way to induce breastfeeding in the mother because of its powerful ability to boost the immune system. Colostrum is particularly important within the first couple days. I also have concerns over proper volumes of hormones inside the womb. During fetal brain development in particular, they are extremely susceptible to hormonal changes. We have seen this be implicated in a range of (epigenetic?) disorders from autism to sex addiction. How do we accurately measure healthy levels considering they vary so greatly from woman to woman and often on a very carefully regulated feedback system? However, if we -can- do this, we could prevent disorders which start in the womb.

Yikes! 2 years!? That is a little much. I think it is an absolute must for 6 months, weaning off by 1 year. Babies don't make their own antibodies for 6 months and get the IgG through placenta which doesnt last long, so the IgA through milk is necessary until they can make their own. But once they can form a coherent thought, asking for milk, that is too old for me.

Also, isn't autism caused by vaccination???? How would this help? *obvious sarcasm*



#20 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 05 August 2014 - 11:46 PM

I was pushing more towards mutations that could be perceived as having a negative impact on the baby's life (shorter life expectancy, hardship, etc.) that could be tied back to a mistake on behalf of the technology or an operator using the technology. 
 
I'm glad you reached through my lack of clarity and found what I was trying to get at. A two-year old screaming at your knee's tends to degrade one's writing.

On the mutation, is there any evidence that supports the assertion that such a birth would have any increased or malignant mutation?

I'm interested to know why you think that is likely.

#21 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 August 2014 - 04:58 AM

webmd thinks that fetuses can feel parental love while in the womb.
In my opinion, it's equally important for the mother to bond with the baby too though, and for me, that began when my children were in the womb.


"Love" is a physiological phenomenon that can be simulated like any other.

#22 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:27 AM

On the mutation, is there any evidence that supports the assertion that such a birth would have any increased or malignant mutation?

I'm interested to know why you think that is likely.

 

I don't have any evidence off the top of my head, I was more interested in opening up the line of discussion as it being a possibility (and a learning opportunity for myself). I would think that anything administered to the fetus during this process, by an operator or by the technology, that shows an immediate negative effect on the fetus could be tied back to the operator/technology. I don't know enough about biology to know if a 100% connection could be made, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that operator error during this process could potentially result in negative effects on the fetus. I guess I'm thinking more on the lines of botched abortions.


Edited by Josh, 06 August 2014 - 05:27 AM.


#23 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:30 AM

I don't have any evidence off the top of my head, I was more interested in opening up the line of discussion as it being a possibility (and a learning opportunity for myself). I would think that anything administered to the fetus during this process, by an operator or by the technology, that shows an immediate negative effect on the fetus could be tied back to the operator/technology. I don't know enough about biology to know if a 100% connection could be made, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that operator error during this process could potentially result in negative effects on the fetus. I guess I'm thinking more on the lines of botched abortions.


Doesn't this also apply to literally any medical procedure?

#24 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:41 AM

Yikes! 2 years!? That is a little much. I think it is an absolute must for 6 months, weaning off by 1 year. Babies don't make their own antibodies for 6 months and get the IgG through placenta which doesnt last long, so the IgA through milk is necessary until they can make their own. But once they can form a coherent thought, asking for milk, that is too old for me.

Also, isn't autism caused by vaccination???? How would this help? *obvious sarcasm*

The WHO recommends 2 years and beyond also. It's not an outrageous thought.



#25 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:45 AM

 

Doesn't this also apply to literally any medical procedure?

 

 

Yes, I suppose you're right. I was trying to go somewhere else with this but I think I got lost on the way :p I'll have to re-think my approach and come back a bit later.


Edited by Josh, 06 August 2014 - 05:45 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users