A WOMB WITH A VIEW

[Gian]

I gather that with surrogacy, an egg can be fertilised inside a woman then transferred to another who can give birth.

Re abortion

If a woman were to have an abortion at say 11 weeks gestation, would it in theory be possible to "transfer" the child to another womb rather than killing him? 

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

Edited June 16 by Gian

[TheVat]

The crucial roles of the umbilicus and placenta (requiring them to come along with the fetus), and the difficulty of separating them without harm and then somehow attaching them to another uterine wall (with attendant compatibility and host endocrine issues) would seem to be beyond present medical science.   Uterine transplants were recently achieved, but not with embryos or feti in them, and that again would seem to be beyond present technique.

[Gian]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

The crucial roles of the umbilicus and placenta (requiring them to come along with the fetus), and the difficulty of separating them without harm and then somehow attaching them to another uterine wall (with attendant compatibility and host endocrine issues) would seem to be beyond present medical science.   Uterine transplants were recently achieved, but not with embryos or feti in them, and that again would seem to be beyond present technique.

Thanks. Well hopefully that will change

GIAN🙂XXX

[TheVat]

Wouldn't better access to reproductive care and contraception be a simpler solution?  We could do that now, if the owners of aging pale penises would step out of the way.  

 

[zapatos]

I imagine that since it is legal to compel a woman in a red state to carry a fetus that was forced upon her (e.g. rape), there is no sound reason we cannot also compel women from red states to carry a fetus that has been aborted in blue states.

[CharonY]

On 6/16/2024 at 2:24 AM, Gian said:

I gather that with surrogacy, an egg can be fertilised inside a woman then transferred to another who can give birth.

Re abortion

If a woman were to have an abortion at say 11 weeks gestation, would it in theory be possible to "transfer" the child to another womb rather than killing him? 

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

That is not how things work. Fertilization occurs outside a womb and then is introduced into an uterus. It would be madness to even try to extract a fertilized egg from an uterus.

At 11 weeks the fetus is about 3-4 cm in size. So even if implantation was possible (which it isn't), precisely extracting them (without damage) would be extremely difficult. But again, you cannot just plop a fetus into another body. The placenta is crucial in mediating the immune system, otherwise a foreign body would simply get rejected.

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I imagine that since it is legal to compel a woman in a red state to carry a fetus that was forced upon her (e.g. rape), there is no sound reason we cannot also compel women from red states to carry a fetus that has been aborted in blue states.

Since sanity apparently is not requirement anymore, this might be considered a good argument. After all, some folks consider women to be little more than wombs with sandwich-making capabilities. Usually the same folks are also surprised why women do not throw themselves at them.

[Peterkin]

I should have read all the previous responses!

On 6/16/2024 at 3:43 PM, Gian said:

Thanks. Well hopefully that will change

Not in this century!

Edited June 19 by Peterkin

[Endy0816]

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

That is not how things work. Fertilization occurs outside a womb and then is introduced into an uterus. It would be madness to even try to extract a fertilized egg from an uterus.

At 11 weeks the fetus is about 3-4 cm in size. So even if implantation was possible (which it isn't), precisely extracting them (without damage) would be extremely difficult. But again, you cannot just plop a fetus into another body. The placenta is crucial in mediating the immune system, otherwise a foreign body would simply get rejected.

Do you think an entirely artificial womb could possibly work instead?

 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Do you think an entirely artificial womb could possibly work instead?

 

In the future, perhaps. I know that there are attempts at that with some encouraging results, but I think most successes were time limited and involved early stages or extreme premature extractions. Development from fertilized egg to full gestation has not been demonstrated yet. And extracting a fetus intact is rather disruptive (involves opening the uterus, hooking up ECMO and so on).

I.e. even if the technology matures, it would be major surgery requiring a rather large set of circumstances to make it necessary. E.g. extreme danger/complication of pregnancy to the mother but strong desire to keep the child. 

[MigL]

10 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Do you think an entirely artificial womb could possibly work instead?

Premature babies are surviving after being born/removed  earlier and earlier, so this technology is quickly advancing, and may be viable.
My nephew's baby daughter was born  almost 4 months premature due to her mother's emergency surgery for a brain infection, and was so small, she comfortably fit in her father's cupped hand at birth.
She is now a happy, inquisitive, healthy 2 year old with no complications; hopefully her inquisitiveness develops into an interest in science.
( her mom is healthy, but still on meds to prevent seizures, and is in the process of getting her Driver's license back )

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Premature babies are surviving after being born/removed  earlier and earlier, so this technology is quickly advancing, and may be viable.
My nephew's baby daughter was born  almost 4 months premature due to her mother's emergency surgery for a brain infection, and was so small, she comfortably fit in her father's cupped hand at birth.
She is now a happy, inquisitive, healthy 2 year old with no complications; hopefully her inquisitiveness develops into an interest in science.
( her mom is healthy, but still on meds to prevent seizures, and is in the process of getting her Driver's license back )

Oh yes, I believe that by some estimates we are only a decade or so out for a prototype that could work as a an artificial womb. Though often the issues are in the details. That being said, i do not really see any reasonable relation to abortion, as outlined by OP.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Oh yes, I believe that by some estimates we are only a decade or so out for a prototype that could work as a an artificial womb. Though often the issues are in the details. That being said, i do not really see any reasonable relation to abortion, as outlined by OP.

Just so. It will be available to couples of considerable financial means who desperately want a baby and can't carry one to term.

Why would a woman who didn't want a foetus in the first place want to keep it alive artificially? If it were kept alive, whose child would it be? Presumably, you wouldn't try to foist it on a mother who doesn't want to be a mother (and might, depending on the state be in prison), so you would either have to find adoptive parents or make it a ward of the state until the age of maturity. Which states are willing to take on the expense of incubating all the unwanted foetuses artificially and then also raising the children? What if a woman wanted to terminate her pregnancy because one or more parents have a genetic defect? Does the state take responsibility for a child with serious medical problems? 

You can force it to be born - but - then what?  

Edited June 20 by Peterkin

[StringJunky]

On 6/16/2024 at 9:24 AM, Gian said:

I gather that with surrogacy, an egg can be fertilised inside a woman then transferred to another who can give birth.

Re abortion

If a woman were to have an abortion at say 11 weeks gestation, would it in theory be possible to "transfer" the child to another womb rather than killing him? 

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

Are you in favour of legislatively forcing that woman to transfer the foetus rather than aborting it?

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You can force it to be born - but - then what?

I think OP's premise never made much sense. It is fairly obvious (I think) that at least structurally, the pro-life movement cares little for children. There have been zero commitment in their cause to improve children's life and the entire focus has been on the use of women's bodies. The hypocrisy is quite apparent when conservative pro-life movement cut prenatal  funding (not to mention support for children after birth), but apparently are happy to fund fake pregnancy help centers, which do not provide medical are. 

All that being said, even if an artificial womb existed- it would be expensive. As such, the very same pro-lifers are very unlikely to support it. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think OP's premise never made much sense. It is fairly obvious (I think) that at least structurally, the pro-life movement cares little for children. There have been zero commitment in their cause to improve children's life and the entire focus has been on the use of women's bodies. The hypocrisy is quite apparent when conservative pro-life movement cut prenatal  funding (not to mention support for children after birth), but apparently are happy to fund fake pregnancy help centers, which do not provide medical are. 

All that being said, even if an artificial womb existed- it would be expensive. As such, the very same pro-lifers are very unlikely to support it. 

They are just a bunch of virtual signalers that don't give shit. 

Edited June 20 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

They are just a bunch of virtual signalers that don't give shit. 

Oops, I've turned them into quantum objects.  

[Peterkin]

21 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think OP's premise never made much sense.

I hoped he might attempt to defend it anyway. A long-shot, I admit. They're not terrific at follow-through.

[iNow]

They’re just a shit stirrer (colloquially a muck raker)

[Gian]

On 6/20/2024 at 1:52 AM, Peterkin said:

You can force it to be born - but - then what?  

Adoption of course.

Maybe the legal adoption of unwanted children before they're born could be introduced.

In a large hospital near where I live, girls go into the maternity unit for abortions.

However, I don't know if it's on the same floor but certainly in the same building there's the Southwest Regional Fertility Clinic, which is for young couples who are having difficulty conceiving a child.

Same building: Abortions... and Fertility treatments. A rather Orwellian irony?

On 6/19/2024 at 8:03 PM, MigL said:

Premature babies are surviving after being born/removed  earlier and earlier, so this technology is quickly advancing, and may be viable.
My nephew's baby daughter was born  almost 4 months premature... She is now a happy, inquisitive, healthy 2 year old with no complications; hopefully her inquisitiveness develops into an interest in science.

Wow! thanks for your story, that's encouraging🙂

On 6/20/2024 at 3:07 AM, StringJunky said:

Are you in favour of legislatively forcing that woman to transfer the foetus rather than aborting it?

That's not the issue I raised here. I just wanted to know if it was theoretically possible to transfer a child from one womb to another.

Or maybe a child can be born as soon as a mother knows she's carrying him?

I guess even if he's just a cluster of cells it's just a question of maintaining temperature, with blood oxygen and nutritional supply, so maybe that's a future possibility.

Perhaps one day women may be able to have children without the aggro of a 9 month pregnancy.

cheerz

GIAN🙂

Edited June 28 by Gian

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, Gian said:

Adoption of course.

Maybe the legal adoption of unwanted children before they're born could be introduced.

In a large hospital near where I live, girls go into the maternity unit for abortions.

However, I don't know if it's on the same floor but certainly in the same building there's the Southwest Regional Fertility Clinic, which is for young couples who are having difficulty conceiving a child.

Same building: Abortions... and Fertility treatments. A rather Orwellian irony?

Wow! thanks for your story, that's encouraging🙂

That's not the issue I raised here. I just wanted to know if it was theoretically possible to transfer a child from one womb to another.

Or maybe a child can be born as soon as a mother knows she's carrying him?

I guess even if he's just a cluster of cells it's just a question of maintaining temperature, with blood oxygen and nutritional supply, so maybe that's a future possibility.

Perhaps one day women may be able to have children without the aggro of a 9 month pregnancy.

cheerz

GIAN🙂

OK. Cheers.

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, Gian said:

Adoption of course.

The numbers don't match. Very few people - especially in the rabidly 'pro-life' states - are looking for a baby of a different ethnic group, and nobody wants defective babies who will require medical and educational help. The conservatives who most fervently advocate against birth control are least forthcoming with the necessary financial and social support. Are you willing to take on the life-long responsibility for even one person born with foetal alcohol or Down syndrome?

6 hours ago, Gian said:

Maybe the legal adoption of unwanted children before they're born could be introduced.

It already exists, in practice, for couples prosperous enough. But most people who attend fertility clinics are desperate to have their own biological child. You may see all newborns as interchangeable, but most people don't. 

The logistics of in vitro incubation are prohibitive.

 

[Gian]

The worst thing about abortion and birth control -which are both consequences of secularism (NOT atheism) and commercialism is that they're sooo boring.

Until about 150y ago, I guess birth control wasn't needed much (it was there, but not much) because in order to have 3 or 4 surviving children women had to conceive all their childbearing years.

(In the 17thC, King James VII & II fathered 27 children. Only 8 grew up, and only 4 reached old age)

If women did that now the Earth's population would be 150 billion in 20y, so a major population problem.

In the 1970s it was said that by now 2024 people would be living on other planets. We're not, and for all our science & tech modern life is all sex and shopping (yawn.)

No abortion or contraception, and we'd be having this conversation in a pub on Mars.

Birth control stunts progress

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, Gian said:

The worst thing about abortion and birth control -which are both consequences of secularism (NOT atheism) and commercialism is that they're sooo boring.

Absolutely NOT the worst thing about abortion and birth control!

15 minutes ago, Gian said:

Until about 150y ago, I guess birth control wasn't needed much (it was there, but not much) because in order to have 3 or 4 surviving children women had to conceive all their childbearing years.

Simplistic overgeneralization. Birth control has always been needed, because not all births are wanted.

16 minutes ago, Gian said:

If women did that now the Earth's population would be 150 billion in 20y, so a major population problem.

Shine some light on this with calculations, please, because it seems like you pulled this from someplace dark.

18 minutes ago, Gian said:

In the 1970s it was said that by now 2024 people would be living on other planets. We're not, and for all our science & tech modern life is all sex and shopping (yawn.)

And in the 20s it was said that by now people would have flying cars. Reality has that affect on science fiction.

20 minutes ago, Gian said:

No abortion or contraception, and we'd be having this conversation in a pub on Mars.

Specious argument. We also could have spent our space exploration funds on taking care of so many people.

21 minutes ago, Gian said:

Birth control stunts progress

Great example of logic failing us when applied outside maths and philosophy.

 

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, Gian said:

Until about 150y ago, I guess birth control wasn't needed much (it was there, but not much) because in order to have 3 or 4 surviving children women had to conceive all their childbearing years.

Guess you don't care much about people suffering, just so there are too many doing it.

[Gian]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:08 PM, Peterkin said:

Guess you don't care much about people suffering, just so there are too many doing it.

I didn't say make giving birth compulsory lol. I just wish the human family was doing something a bit more interesting than PlayStation games

On 6/28/2024 at 8:53 PM, Phi for All said:

And in the 20s it was said that by now people would have flying cars. Reality has that affect on science fiction.

 

Spelling: effect, not "affect."

So do you think space exploration is something which should happen (I can't imagine anyone interested in science saying otherwise) and if so why isn't it happening and how do we make it happen?

Cheerz

GIAN🙂