Brave New Womb

[Aelwydd]

Apologies for the title, lol. Saw this in yesterday's news feed: CHOP has been developing and testing an artificial uterus. Curious as to others' thoughts on this, as I find the prospect both fascinating and daunting.

 

 

Web address:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/25/525044286/scientists-create-artificial-womb-that-could-help-prematurely-born-babies

[Tanaqui]

You know, it probably says something about our world that my first thought was not "aw, good for the premies!" or even "look at the cute little lambs!" but "gosh, I wonder what effect this is going to have on abortion laws?"

 

And I will leave it at that.

[Guest]

Given some of the biggest challenges in stabilizing preemies I welcome this. I hope they can keep developing it and bring it into use.

[Mergath]

I think that, for the purposes of improving outcomes for micro preemies, it would be great.

 

Will the stuff the ethicists were wringing their hands over in the article ever come to pass? I kind of doubt it, but it is troubling to think about. It sounds like the technology isn't even close to being used for growing a baby from conception to birth, though, so I think those concerns are quite a ways off. The idea that a woman who wanted an abortion could be forced to transfer the embryo into an artificial womb instead is... you know, I don't even know how to process that. It's a lot to think about, for sure.

 

The idea that a woman could be forced to transfer an embryo into an artificial womb in order to avoid taking maternity leave is obviously repugnant.

[Rosie_0801]

Good for the preemies, but I wonder if it will be used as another way to discredit mothers.

 

Not that I enjoy pregnancy, but is that another part of mother/womanhood for "them" to take away? 

 

Will babies get pre-birth RAD or something?

[Guest]

Good for the preemies, but I wonder if it will be used as another way to discredit mothers.

 

Not that I enjoy pregnancy, but is that another part of mother/womanhood for "them" to take away?

 

Will babies get pre-birth RAD or something?

Except we deal with attachment issues in the nicu already. If we could deal with them without brain bleeds and blindness? I'm all for it.

[Aelwydd]

Makes me wonder about the implications of generations of children being gestated from conception to...emergence?

 

It's not really being "born" as such. How would such a generation relate to wisdom and scriptures - from all religions - that relate spirital concepts like "rebirth" and being "born again" when they have no more reference?

 

I suspect it would also relegate child bearing to something only "poor" and disadvantaged women do. Particularly when we attain singularity.

[Tanaqui]

I suspect it would also relegate child bearing to something only "poor" and disadvantaged women do. Particularly when we attain singularity.

 

Or the ultra rich, who have the time to spend on frivolities like a long maternity leave and natural feeding.

 

[maize]

I doubt the artificial womb could ever really replicate the baby's growth experience inside a mother. I think it has the potential to save lives for micro premies, and to do so much more safely and effectively than current methods--I entirely applaud that. But the entire complexity of the actual womb experience is not I think something we are close to being able to replicate--the effects of the mother's movement, speech, diet, immune system, specific hormonal and body chemistry environment...I think we will find that these things still matter and that babies who must complete their development in the artificial womb still face many disadvantages and challenges. I hope this can become a valid and useful intervention available as needed but don't have any real fear that it will ever be a preferred choice over natural development within the mother's own womb.

 

Besides which it is doubtless going to remain extremely expensive.

Edited April 26, 2017 by maize

[Guest]

As someone who has watched two children in our family die simply because they were born too early, I think this is freaking great. Full stop.

[MercyA]

"Davis also worries about whether this could blur the line between a fetus and a baby."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 

[MedicMom]

"Davis also worries about whether this could blur the line between a fetus and a baby."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

That made me cry. I'm not even 100% decided what I think about abortion, but that bothers me.

 

As a mom who fought so hard to keep her baby and delivered a preemie(and had a brother die at 21 weeks and a sister born at 22 weeks who has the lifelong effects of micropreemiehood)....I am all for this. I think it's great.

[Aelwydd]

I doubt the artificial womb could ever really replicate the baby's growth experience inside a mother... But the entire complexity of the actual womb experience is not I think something we are close to being able to replicate--the effects of the mother's movement, speech, diet, immune system, specific hormonal and body chemistry environment...I think we will find that these things still matter and that babies who must complete their development in the artificial womb still face many disadvantages and challenges.

 

 

Maize, I agree it cannot replicate a natural intrauterine experience, because it's really categorically different, hence why the change in terminology. Emergence versus birth.

 

From what I've read, the technology for total ectogenesis - what scientists are calling it - is still decades away. Not imminent, but appears to be inevitable in some manner.

 

 

Frankly, I'm interested in just how the immunological development would take place, given the sophisticated exchange between maternal and fetal systems.

 

That's the science side of me. The bigger questions to me are philosophical. I've heard some feminists (mostly second wave) predict that males will become obsolete.

 

With this tech, I could actually see the reverse happening - females are no longer needed. One more step to the end of sexual dimorphism.

 

Here's another article that discusses several possible developments, though it was written last year. At that time, it claimed no one was working on artificial womb technology, but I guess that may not be the case now.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/06/artificial-uterus-close-reality/amp/

 

 

 

 

.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

That made me cry. I'm not even 100% decided what I think about abortion, but that bothers me.

 

As a mom who fought so hard to keep her baby and delivered a preemie(and had a brother die at 21 weeks and a sister born at 22 weeks who has the lifelong effects of micropreemiehood)....I am all for this. I think it's great.

MedicMom, I am so sorry. I also think this could make a huge difference in the lives of early preemies. Could save lives and prevent serious disabilities caused by premature birth.

[sassenach]

"Davis also worries about whether this could blur the line between a fetus and a baby."

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Cry. What a world we live in.

 

Ethically, the hardest part will be the early testing. When do you take the leap into human testing? The families presented with the option will have to live with the what ifs of their decision. Whether they opt-in or opt-out, if their child's outcome is poor, they will always wonder if they made the wrong decision. That's an awful position to put families in. And yet, if it ultimately leads to better outcomes, it's worth pursuing.

 

Our dear friends lost their 23-weeker in September. It's been awful.

[sassenach]

Also, synthetic amniotic fluid...I wonder about cancer risk.

[wonderchica]

Cry. What a world we live in.

 

Ethically, the hardest part will be the early testing. When do you take the leap into human testing? The families presented with the option will have to live with the what ifs of their decision. Whether they opt-in or opt-out, if their child's outcome is poor, they will always wonder if they made the wrong decision. That's an awful position to put families in. And yet, if it ultimately leads to better outcomes, it's worth testing.

Of course, but that's an issue facing families today who choose experimental options. Sometimes your only option is to weigh what you know and pick the one you think will give your child their best chance. My parents had a similar quandry in the early 90s with a child with a fatal birth defect- try the experimental surgeries or wait for a maybe, possible, mostly unlikely transplant. Their baby didn't make it, but their choice ultimately helped thousands of babies with the same defect live today. Sometimes there aren't any good options.

 

As someone who works with micropreemies I am following this closely!

[kewb]

Much like 1984 was a warning and not a guide.  Brave New World was also a warning, not a guide.

.

I am all for helping wanted babies to grow to full term but this is entering territory where we might want to stop and say just because we can doesn't mean we should.

[MercyA]

Cry. What a world we live in.

 

That made me cry. I'm not even 100% decided what I think about abortion, but that bothers me.

 

I understand. I just can't help but be a little amused when presumably intelligent people get angsty about something so obvious. 

 

When I did pro-life work, I sometimes used a sign with a photo of an 8-week-old fetus on it. I will always remember when a gentleman with an intellectual disability came up, studied the sign, and said, "Baby!" Years later, a very young child (2 or 3?) who, incidentally, had Down Syndrome, approached the sign, said, "Baby!" and proceeded to kiss the photo.  :)

 

"God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise..."

 

I don't want to go too far afield of this interesting discussion, so that's probably all I should say about that. Thanks for sharing the article, OP. I  :001_wub: NPR.

[MercyA]

Like others here, I'm concerned about the ethics of testing this. To be honest, even the animal testing with the lambs bothers me. 

 

Also, I was disturbed by the "better dead than disabled" sentiment expressed by one of the researchers. 

 

Interesting things to ponder as I leave to run errands.

Edited April 26, 2017 by MercyA

[maize]

Also, synthetic amniotic fluid...I wonder about cancer risk.

 

I'm sure any attempt at simulating amniotic fluid would try to mimic as closely as possible the contents of natural amniotic fluid--primarily water and electrolytes. The baby themself will contribute other components over time, as they do in the womb. 

 

I don't think that synthetic in this context means someone is going to be adding in a bunch complex manufactured chemicals. 

[Janeway]

I think it is wonderful!!!

 

The only effect I can think of on abortion laws is that it might become illegal to kill a younger baby. I doubt it though. Most abortions are not about not wanting to be pregnant but rather about killing the baby. THAT is what will tick people off. 

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, a complex set of feelings around that.

 

It really would be great for care of pre-term infants.  Though as some noted, it could really push the discussion of when and why we give the protections of a person.  I usually think discussion is good, but I can see that possibly going in a scary direction.

 

I have doubts about the possibility of a complete machine gestation - I think if that happens it will be done with biological sysyems which brings in some other medical ethics concerns.  But if it could work either way, it seems like it isn't really a way to keep people more closely connected, but that it makes us less connected to other people in a variety of ways. 

 

I worry too about the continued move to technologically modify women to be more like men.  I hate that idea because I think women, as women, are valuable, because it's a way to enslave us to outside interests, and I also think that ultimately it will end with a loss of women's rights. 

[Bluegoat]

Like others here, I'm concerned about the ethics of testing this. To be honest, even the animal testing with the lambs bothers me. 

 

Also, I was disturbed by the "better dead than disabled" sentiment expressed by one of the researchers. 

 

Interesting things to ponder as I leave to run errands.

 

I think with these sorts of things, early testing is often done by those who have nothing to lose if it fails - the alternative is death.

[Paige]

I think it's great for babies and families struggling with infertility. I have no reservations about using it for preemies once it is functional.  I am conflicted about the ethics of these animal tests. Poor baby lambs- why'd they have to cut them off their womb-support? I do not like creating life- any life- with the intent to kill it. I understand the usefulness of animal testing but I'm uncomfortable with it and wish there were another way. 

 

I expect that the first babies it will be offered to are those with no chance without it. Having been in the NICU and seen the micropreemies (mine were regular preemies) I think I'd pick the artificial womb, even experimental, if my babies were borderline (22-24 weeks). It seems torturous for the babies right now. 

[kewb]

 

 

Most abortions are not about not wanting to be pregnant but rather about killing the baby. THAT is what will tick people off. 

 

What? I am trying to understand what this even means.

[gardenmom5]

I doubt the artificial womb could ever really replicate the baby's growth experience inside a mother. I think it has the potential to save lives for micro premies, and to do so much more safely and effectively than current methods--I entirely applaud that. But the entire complexity of the actual womb experience is not I think something we are close to being able to replicate--the effects of the mother's movement, speech, diet, immune system, specific hormonal and body chemistry environment...I think we will find that these things still matter and that babies who must complete their development in the artificial womb still face many disadvantages and challenges. I hope this can become a valid and useful intervention available as needed but don't have any real fear that it will ever be a preferred choice over natural development within the mother's own womb.

 

Besides which it is doubtless going to remain extremely expensive.

 

but this is about micropremies - and this could be a superior option to an external incubator if that's the only other option.  inside mom is always preferable - but sometimes that isn't possible.

 

Cry. What a world we live in.

 

Ethically, the hardest part will be the early testing. When do you take the leap into human testing? The families presented with the option will have to live with the what ifs of their decision. Whether they opt-in or opt-out, if their child's outcome is poor, they will always wonder if they made the wrong decision. That's an awful position to put families in. And yet, if it ultimately leads to better outcomes, it's worth pursuing.

 

Our dear friends lost their 23-weeker in September. It's been awful.

 

we have a church leader who was a pioneer in open heart surgery. (in the 40s/50s)  he had many many failures before starting to have successes.  he nearly gave it up because loosing children was so devastating to him.  after one child's death, her father told him because of his skills - his daughter had a chance, even if it still wasn't a 'good enough' chance.  without his skills at even attempting to repair her heart defect - she had no chance.

I'm sure there are parents of micropremies who would jump at the chance. if it works - it could have far better outcomes.  even if their are still ability/health issues - they would be less than they would have from an incubator.

[Paige]

I don't believe the researchers are being honest in saying they have no intention of pushing the limits of viability. If you have this device and use it for 23 weekers, and it is mostly successful, of course they are going to start trying it with 21 and 22 weekers! Parents will demand it instead of watching their babies gasp for air. It's ridiculous to pretend we aren't going to push the limits and that it won't impact abortion laws and the question of when we give humans rights, and that it won't affect the limits of viability. 21 and 22 weekers occassionally survive today! Of course they'll go in the artificial womb. And then, we'll put the 20 weekers in and see what happens. Of course we will.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paige

[Bluegoat]

I don't believe the researchers are being honest in saying they have no intention of pushing the limits of viability. If you have this device and use it for 23 weekers, and it is mostly successful, of course they are going to start trying it with 21 and 22 weekers! Parents will demand it instead of watching their babies gasp for air. It's ridiculous to pretend we aren't going to push the limits and that it won't impact abortion laws and the question of when we give humans rights, and that it won't affect the limits of viability. 21 and 22 weekers occassionally survive today! Of course they'll go in the artificial womb. And then, we'll put the 20 weekers in and see what happens. Of course we will.

 

Yeah, I think that is inevitable even without an intent to do it.

 

I'm not sure whether that is bad or good, but it is something to think about. 

 

A lot of technology is like that - it has larger consequences than we expect, but somehow that possibility often is dismissed early on.

[Guest]

A lot of technology is like that - it has larger consequences than we expect, but somehow that possibility often is dismissed early on.

Wendell Berry has a phenomenal book about that.

[Bluegoat]

It's interesting how framing affects things. If this had been announced as an improved incubator for micro-premies rather than as an artificial womb how would that have changed the conversation?

 

I think some people really want to see the development of an artificial womb for social-engineering reasons (both feminist and anti-feminist) and that's affecting how this technology is seen.

 

Yeah, that is probably true, but maybe not the only reason for the difference.

 

I think that most people think of an incubator as being out in the air, and so really limited in the degree to which you could use it for younger babies. 

 

Whereas an artificial womb seems connected to the idea of producing really womb-like conditions, immersed in fluid and such, so we can imagine it potentially holding even embryos or zygotes. Whether or not we could get all the details to work is questionable, but it's easier to picture it.  And many people don't realize how complicated the interplay between mom and baby is in the womb, so they may think it would be a lot easier than is the reality.

[Paige]

I don't have a problem with artificial wombs. I think it is just what the preemies need. The air is painful for the babies, touch is painful, they can't wear diapers, their skin isn't ready- wombs are exactly the right word. Shoot- if I could have stuck my 33 weekers in a womb-like environment, even as strong as they were, I would have. Nothing about the incubators is happy or safe feeling.

 

I'm not concerned about the artificial quality of lack of connection with the mother. They said they tried to simulate some of it with the lambs, and babies born from brain dead mothers seem to be just fine. Of course, live mother is best, but if we are talking life or death, I have no problem with the wombs. It's much better, IMO, to put the preemies in the bag and not touch them than to have the NICU environment or even kangaroo care after birth. They can't even do kangaroo care for the tiniest ones. Mine weren't that small and we were only allowed to take them out of the incubator for 1 hr a day total at first. The human connection they were getting was not positive. I think mothers in the NICU could still talk to the babies through the bag and play music for them. 

[Mergath]

Makes me wonder about the implications of generations of children being gestated from conception to...emergence?

 

It's not really being "born" as such. How would such a generation relate to wisdom and scriptures - from all religions - that relate spirital concepts like "rebirth" and being "born again" when they have no more reference?

 

I suspect it would also relegate child bearing to something only "poor" and disadvantaged women do. Particularly when we attain singularity.

 

I don't know. I think if you're developing and then you come out of some kind of womb, it's birth. I had someone tell me once that I didn't actually give birth because I had a c-section rather than a natural birth, which I think is ridiculous. Of course my daughter was "born." And of course a baby that comes out of an artificial womb at some point is being "born."

 

I'm sure that when IVF first became a thing, people probably freaked out about that, too. I'm not sure what to google to read the history of anti-IVF thought, but I'd bet a lot of the same kinds of arguments were made. Now, you'd never know from looking which kids were conceived with IVF and which were conceived the old-fashioned way. It hasn't completely distorted society's views about conception or children. It's just another (expensive!) way to have a kid if you suffer from infertility.

 

So, now that I've slept on it, I think I'll wait and see with this before I freak out too much.

 

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I think it is wonderful!!!

 

The only effect I can think of on abortion laws is that it might become illegal to kill a younger baby. I doubt it though. Most abortions are not about not wanting to be pregnant but rather about killing the baby. THAT is what will tick people off.

"Most" abortions are simply about killing the baby?!?!

 

Where's your data? How many women have you spoken to?

[Guest]

Like others here, I'm concerned about the ethics of testing this. To be honest, even the animal testing with the lambs bothers me.

 

Also, I was disturbed by the "better dead than disabled" sentiment expressed by one of the researchers.

 

Interesting things to ponder as I leave to run errands.

That made me want to punch them in the face. Because quite frankly, the idea that one might be better off dead than alive is a luxury only afforded to the living. They have that opinion because it's not their life they're calling worthless. If there is one thing massive and rapid immersion into the world of medically fragile special needs immaturely developed babies has given me it is a huge perspective shift on what makes life meaningful and worthwhile. Edited April 26, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Mergath]

I think it is wonderful!!!

 

The only effect I can think of on abortion laws is that it might become illegal to kill a younger baby. I doubt it though. Most abortions are not about not wanting to be pregnant but rather about killing the baby. THAT is what will tick people off. 

 

Are you insane? Honestly. That doesn't even make sense. Women who get an abortion don't do it because they get off on killing babies or whatever.

 

If all you want to do is start arguments by saying ridiculous, inflammatory things rather than contributing to the conversation, you might find Reddit more enjoyable.

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

So what happens in a scenario when a mother is considered unfit, but there are no more abortions because it's been made illegal due to the option of an artificial womb. Do the authorities forcibly remove the mother's fetus and "save" it in this way, intending it for foster care or adoption? I'm thinking of women in prison who are pregnant, for starters. Political dissidents later...

 

I'm not comfortable enough with the status of women's rights in this era, to believe that we will be safe with medical and technical options that reduce the necessity of a mother to incubate a child.

[Janeway]

Are you insane? Honestly. That doesn't even make sense. Women who get an abortion don't do it because they get off on killing babies or whatever.

 

If all you want to do is start arguments by saying ridiculous, inflammatory things rather than contributing to the conversation, you might find Reddit more enjoyable.

 

No one ever gets an abortion whose only reason is that they do not want to go through pregnant and would object to alternatives. They want the baby gone. Only way anyone would object to this based on the fact that the baby would not die upon being removed from their uterus is..well..people who wanted the baby dead. How can you say otherwise? If a woman just didn't want to be pregnant or had health conditions that prevented safe pregnancy but she did not object to the baby living on with an artificial womb, then this would not bother her.

 

It does not matter. This has been created for premature babies, to save their lives. To prevent women from being allowed to save the lives on their children all so that others can have the right to kill their children is not ok. As it is, in most of this country, if someone kills an unborn baby through assault or murder or whatever, there is no crime against that child. They are not charged with the death of that child. All because of "abortion rights." Because of abortion rights, someone else can chose to kill an unborn child and that child was not considered real, so the killer will only be charged with whatever harm they caused the mother.  Not ok.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Janeway

[Liz CA]

Sounds wonderful to help preemies along their journey to maturity and viability.

 

As others have said I do think limits will be pushed and would not be surprised if they have not already tried to develop a baby from conception to birth.

Could this become a new method of having babies - for a price of course.

Pay a fee, use the "gestation machine," don't have to inconvenience yourself with a pregnancy and in the end you have a "machine developed" baby.

It sounds horrific now but technology will likely always go further than originally intended.

 

I can almost visualize the ad pitch:

Watch your baby at every stage of development!

No more pregnancy symptoms, morning sickness, maternity clothes, keep in shape while your baby grows!

No more labor. Painless "delivery!"

 

[Mergath]

No one ever gets an abortion whose only reason is that they do not want to go through pregnant and would object to alternatives. They want the baby gone. Only way anyone would object to this based on the fact that the baby would not die upon being removed from their uterus is..well..people who wanted the baby dead. How can you say otherwise? If a woman just didn't want to be pregnant or had health conditions that prevented safe pregnancy but she did not object to the baby living on with an artificial womb, then this would not bother her.

 

It does not matter. This has been created for premature babies, to save their lives. To prevent women from being allowed to save the lives on their children all so that others can have the right to kill their children is not ok. As it is, in most of this country, if someone kills an unborn baby through assault or murder or whatever, there is no crime against that child. They are not charged with the death of that child. All because of "abortion rights." Because of abortion rights, someone else can chose to kill an unborn child and that child was not considered real, so the killer will only be charged with whatever harm they caused the mother.  Not ok.

 

I'm not even going to dignify most of your asinine assumptions with a response except to say that yes, some women DO get abortions because being pregnant would kill them.

 

ETA: Typo, still caffeinating.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Mergath

[gardenmom5]

Yeah, that is probably true, but maybe not the only reason for the difference.

 

I think that most people think of an incubator as being out in the air, and so really limited in the degree to which you could use it for younger babies. 

 

Whereas an artificial womb seems connected to the idea of producing really womb-like conditions, immersed in fluid and such, so we can imagine it potentially holding even embryos or zygotes. Whether or not we could get all the details to work is questionable, but it's easier to picture it.  And many people don't realize how complicated the interplay between mom and baby is in the womb, so they may think it would be a lot easier than is the reality.

 

I can imagine some parents of micropremies will jump at it, just as parents jumped at the earliest incubators - then they pushed them earlier and earlier. I can't imagine using it for an embryo or zygote being desirable or even practical - but I can also see parents who can't carry a child due to health reasons but desperate for their own genetic child, jumping at the option instead of seeking a surrogate.

it's such a blurred line - even now, some premies do great - and others really struggle even at the same gestational age.

 

I don't know. I think if you're developing and then you come out of some kind of womb, it's birth. I had someone tell me once that I didn't actually give birth because I had a c-section rather than a natural birth, which I think is ridiculous. Of course my daughter was "born." And of course a baby that comes out of an artificial womb at some point is being "born."

 

I'm sure that when IVF first became a thing, people probably freaked out about that, too. I'm not sure what to google to read the history of anti-IVF thought, but I'd bet a lot of the same kinds of arguments were made. Now, you'd never know from looking which kids were conceived with IVF and which were conceived the old-fashioned way. It hasn't completely distorted society's views about conception or children. It's just another (expensive!) way to have a kid if you suffer from infertility.

 

So, now that I've slept on it, I think I'll wait and see with this before I freak out too much.

 

this.

 

and I remember hearing a lot from the "crunchy  mommies" back in the early 80s, if you don't have a drug free birth outside the hospital - you're a failure as a mother.  I also heard the stupid "a c-sec isn't a real birth".  big. huge. eyeroll.  my first was a section.  I very much gave "birth" to her.

'emerging' from an artificial womb (which I think is more reflective  on what it is than calling it an incubator as it is attempting to replicate the womb environment more than an external incubator could ever hope to achieve) - would still be "birth".

[kewb]

No one ever gets an abortion whose only reason is that they do not want to go through pregnant and would object to alternatives. They want the baby gone. Only way anyone would object to this based on the fact that the baby would not die upon being removed from their uterus is..well..people who wanted the baby dead. How can you say otherwise? If a woman just didn't want to be pregnant or had health conditions that prevented safe pregnancy but she did not object to the baby living on with an artificial womb, then this would not bother her.

 

It does not matter. This has been created for premature babies, to save their lives. To prevent women from being allowed to save the lives on their children all so that others can have the right to kill their children is not ok. As it is, in most of this country, if someone kills an unborn baby through assault or murder or whatever, there is no crime against that child. They are not charged with the death of that child. All because of "abortion rights." Because of abortion rights, someone else can chose to kill an unborn child and that child was not considered real, so the killer will only be charged with whatever harm they caused the mother.  Not ok.

 

I have now read this a few times.  I still do not understand where you are coming from.  I am trying, I really am.  Your thoughts on this issue are really foreign to me.  Do you know anyone who has had an abortion?  I do, and their experiences do not line up with anything you are saying.  The thought process you are sharing is so broad and sweeping, it is just not computing for me.

[gardenmom5]

Sounds wonderful to help preemies along their journey to maturity and viability.

 

As others have said I do think limits will be pushed and would not be surprised if they have not already tried to develop a baby from conception to birth.

Could this become a new method of having babies - for a price of course.

Pay a fee, use the "gestation machine," don't have to inconvenience yourself with a pregnancy and in the end you have a "machine developed" baby.

It sounds horrific now but technology will likely always go further than originally intended.

 

I can almost visualize the ad pitch:

Watch your baby at every stage of development!

No more pregnancy symptoms, morning sickness, maternity clothes, keep in shape while your baby grows!

No more labor. Painless "delivery!"

 

more likely - would-be parents desperate to have their own genetic child but not being able to find a surrogate that works for them.

eta: clarifying - there are women who desperately want to be mothers, - but they can't carry a baby.

Edited April 26, 2017 by gardenmom5

[wonderchica]

I don't believe the researchers are being honest in saying they have no intention of pushing the limits of viability. If you have this device and use it for 23 weekers, and it is mostly successful, of course they are going to start trying it with 21 and 22 weekers! Parents will demand it instead of watching their babies gasp for air. It's ridiculous to pretend we aren't going to push the limits and that it won't impact abortion laws and the question of when we give humans rights, and that it won't affect the limits of viability. 21 and 22 weekers occassionally survive today! Of course they'll go in the artificial womb. And then, we'll put the 20 weekers in and see what happens. Of course we will.

This. 23 and 24 weekers were NOT viable in past decades because we didn't have the technology we do now. As more technology was developed, doctors began trying to keep younger and younger preemies alive. If this is successful, it'll absolutely be used to push back viability. Currently 24 weekers have a 40-70% chance of living (in America, with extreme medical care). 23 weekers are 10-35%. These babies aren't surviving without extreme interventions.

[Liz CA]

 

I'm sure that when IVF first became a thing, people probably freaked out about that, too. I'm not sure what to google to read the history of anti-IVF thought, but I'd bet a lot of the same kinds of arguments were made. Now, you'd never know from looking which kids were conceived with IVF and which were conceived the old-fashioned way. It hasn't completely distorted society's views about conception or children. It's just another (expensive!) way to have a kid if you suffer from infertility.

 

So, now that I've slept on it, I think I'll wait and see with this before I freak out too much.

 

 

IVF was viewed as "strange" and men messing with nature by some. Everything new is usually greeted with anticipation and criticism. I do think that ethical issues crop up fast and we are faced with problems that did not exist before. Most researchers and biomedical engineers are mainly concerned with developing something that will work and leave the ethical wrangling to others.

I am not against new technology. It saves countless lives, and enables couples to become parents. We just need to be prepared for a host of new questions for which sometimes there are no easy answers.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

No one ever gets an abortion whose only reason is that they do not want to go through pregnant and would object to alternatives. They want the baby gone. Only way anyone would object to this based on the fact that the baby would not die upon being removed from their uterus is..well..people who wanted the baby dead. How can you say otherwise? If a woman just didn't want to be pregnant or had health conditions that prevented safe pregnancy but she did not object to the baby living on with an artificial womb, then this would not bother her.

 

It does not matter. This has been created for premature babies, to save their lives. To prevent women from being allowed to save the lives on their children all so that others can have the right to kill their children is not ok. As it is, in most of this country, if someone kills an unborn baby through assault or murder or whatever, there is no crime against that child. They are not charged with the death of that child. All because of "abortion rights." Because of abortion rights, someone else can chose to kill an unborn child and that child was not considered real, so the killer will only be charged with whatever harm they caused the mother.  Not ok.

 

Janeway, I don't like abortion either. I have sat across from many women during the years I worked at a community clinic who wrung their hands, cried their eyes out and agonized over this decision. I don't think any of them wanted to kill a baby. They were so desperate for a variety of reasons, abusive relationship with the father, no financial resources, shame, fear of what family and relatives will say/do, in the middle of college, and many more. Others have abortions alone, don't want anyone else to know, perhaps don't know where to go in their initial panic to seek out information and are subsequently also alone with their pain.

There are a few who do use abortion as birth control but from my experience of working there for several years, the majority of women do not make this decision lightly.

 

[Anne in CA]

Good for the preemies, but I wonder if it will be used as another way to discredit mothers.

 

Not that I enjoy pregnancy, but is that another part of mother/womanhood for "them" to take away? 

 

Will babies get pre-birth RAD or something?

This is a real issue in the world we live in. Women are being devalued at a terrifying rate, IMO. I am really worried about the world my dd's are maturing into. 

[MercyA]

Most abortions are not about not wanting to be pregnant but rather about killing the baby. THAT is what will tick people off. 

 

Janeway, I am one of the most unapologetically pro-life people on this board. I think I understand what you were getting at, but you might want to look at the research on why women abort. Knowledge is power, as they say.  :)

 

In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-choice organization; formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood) surveyed 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the country. 957 of the women provided their main reason for having an abortion. You can find the data from those surveys here.

 

Florida is the only state (to my knowledge) that records a reason for every abortion performed. Here is their 2015 data.

Edited April 26, 2017 by MercyA

[HTRMom]

Are there really people who would decline inventing or using technology to save the life of a baby because it could imply that other same-age babies/fetuses are people? I have to let you die so that nobody gets any ideas about defending other lives? We should keep 22 weeks as non-viable (terminal) so that those lives are still fair political game?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gardenmom5]

Are there really people who would decline inventing or using technology to save the life of a baby because it could imply that other same-age babies/fetuses are people? I have to let you die so that nobody gets any ideas about defending other lives? We should keep 22 weeks as non-viable (terminal) so that those lives are still fair political game?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

it's the same conundrum about filing murder/assault charges on someone who causes a woman to miscarry or her unborn child to die.  the argument against is used that it would be used against those who perform legal abortions. whether they were assaulting the woman and the baby was lost as a consequence - or they were assaulting to deliberately to cause the death of the unborn child.  (which happens)

 

but seriously - guys who put abortifacient drugs in their gf's drinks because they don't want a kid (but the gf does) - do need to have charges filed against them.  (sometimes they do get charged.  with what - depends upon the jurisdiction.)  but even if it's "just" reckless driving causing an accident - there should be a charge to recognize that life has value.