Abortion and Ectogenesis

[The Other Michael]

There was an interesting article in today's San Francisco Chronicle entitled Ectogenesis: Development of Artificial Wombs Technology's threat to abortion rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/24/IN273768.DTL) .

The article makes it sound like effective ectogenesis is only 5-10 years away.

As it points out, much of the abortion laws pivot upon viability of the fetus. If affordable artificial wombs were readily available (I see affordable and readily available as being big stumbling blocks) could abortion still be justified?

Another thought that occurs to me is presuming the above conditions, what are we going to do with millions upon millions of infants that would suddenly be available (and needing) adoption?

Would the people who might outlaw abortion also have to then be morally responsible for all of those children?

I don't see those as being the only aspects of the issue - just the first that come to mind.

cheers,
Michael

[Gothic_J]

Id much rather use the darling abortions for stem cell research. they were aborted cuz they were not wanted to come to term - placing them in an environment where they do causes the same problems.

much more useful just to slice and dice the cells and learn more about us.

[Gothic_J]

on the other hand, if a family wants another kid, I like the idea of artifical wombs, world wide. why put your lovely gf/wife through a birth trauma?

looks freaking painful.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
There was an interesting article in today's San Francisco Chronicle entitled Ectogenesis: Development of Artificial Wombs Technology's threat to abortion rights (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/08/24/IN273768.DTL) .

The article makes it sound like effective ectogenesis is only 5-10 years away.

As it points out, much of the abortion laws pivot upon viability of the fetus. If affordable artificial wombs were readily available (I see affordable and readily available as being big stumbling blocks) could abortion still be justified?

I don't think it could, based on public opinion, sadly. It would destroy people's, particularly women's, ability to control their reproduction. Basically, the only way to be 100% sure of controlling one's reproduction therafter would be to not have sex unless you were totally ready to have a child 9 months later. I'd hate to go back to the Middle Ages...

It is my opinion that further restrictions on abortion should not be in place until further advances in contraceptives and vastly more importantly, better education about and access to contraception, is available. However, even then, I don't see how any method of contraception will ever be totally fool-proof and then we come back to not being able to control your reproduction. Maybe they'll make a "morning after pill" that we could/should ingest after every single round of sex?
Originally posted by The Other Michael

Another thought that occurs to me is presuming the above conditions, what are we going to do with millions upon millions of infants that would suddenly be available (and needing) adoption? This is scary, too. I am much more a quality over quantity person and, for instance, my ideal is that we could maintain our rather wasteful standard of living, because it is quality, and decrease the birth rate so that that wouldn't destroy the earth. Same with children. What is better about having more children? Isn't it better, for the children and adults, to take better care of the children that are "wanted" and already being produced?
Originally posted by The Other Michael

Would the people who might outlaw abortion also have to then be morally responsible for all of those children?
I absolutely believe this. The increase in babies needing adoption would be a direct result of their advocacy, therefore they should take responsibility for the results.

[Doubting Didymus]

I've never understood the viability thing. If killing a foetus is wrong, its wrong whether artificial wombs are floating around just as much as if they are not.

Luckily, its not wrong to kill something that isn't self aware. Ding.

[Adrammalech]

If this gets off the ground, this coupled with cloning technology could make human assexual reproduction, and where's the fun in that? I mean if this artificial womb can hold a just conceived cell, the next step is a totally outside the human body conception, gestation, and deliverence of a human. Although it would allow homosexual couples to procreate thus dismantling the argument that homosexuals can't marry because "marriage=procreation"

Well it seems the day for my genetically engineered army of darkness is at hand....


Luckily, its not wrong to kill something that isn't self aware. Ding.

Although we are going to have to define where self-awareness begins.

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by Adrammalech
Although we are going to have to define where self-awareness begins.

No we dont. Clear black and white distinctions are only for lawyers. The real world is filled with an infinite spectrum of grey, and we're just going to have to damn well get used to it.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
No we dont. Clear black and white distinctions are only for lawyers. The real world is filled with an infinite spectrum of grey, and we're just going to have to damn well get used to it.

Well, but if we are taking about the legality and illegality of abortion, it will come down to lawyers, so it's best ot anticipate in advance that it will have to be defined to within an inch of its life, don't you think?

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
Another thought that occurs to me is presuming the above conditions, what are we going to do with millions upon millions of infants that would suddenly be available (and needing) adoption?

Two words: Romanian orphanages. *shudder*

[brighid]

I also shudder at the idea of artifical wombs used to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Ugggghhh ... there are too many childrens without homes as it is and too few people to adopt. Adopt the children that are already born.

Brighid

[dk]

I'm surprised this thread ignored the larger issue. An artificial womb would prove a fetus is autonomous, hence viable from conception.

[Jillian]

Wouldn't you still need to come up with a surgical technique which allows for removal of an intact conceptus which is no more invasive than a standard D&C abortion, though? It's no good having an artificial womb unless you can remove the conceptus from where it is and implant it somewhere else - if you can't do that, this ends up having very little practical impact on the abortion debate, as far as I can see.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Jillian
Wouldn't you still need to come up with a surgical technique which allows for removal of an intact conceptus which is no more invasive than a standard D&C abortion, though? It's no good having an artificial womb unless you can remove the conceptus from where it is and implant it somewhere else - if you can't do that, this ends up having very little practical impact on the abortion debate, as far as I can see.

I didn't know that was a problem. How do they remove eggs from women for other uses and could they not do the same here?

[Jillian]

Originally posted by cheetah
I didn't know that was a problem. How do they remove eggs from women for other uses and could they not do the same here?

Well, first of all, removing ova is a surgical procedure requiring incision into the abdomen. This is quite different from an abortion, which is an outpatient procedure requiring no anesthesia or incisions.

Secondly, I'm not even aware of a technique which would allow for intact removal of an embryo from a uterus, and to then be able to turn around and re-implant it in an artifical uterus sounds pretty science-fictiony to me. So, unless there is a way found to do this, I can't see how this would have any bearing on abortion at all.

[Jinto]

Actually, such a development might actually be good for the abortion debate. Since, if we are to presume that artificial womb technology both exists and is reasonably practical, then being sterilized at an early age would have no bearing on one's ability to conceive children if so desired. Since sterilization procedures are usually more reliable than reversible contraceptive methods, the existence of such technology would provide a net increase in the ability of persons to control their reproductive ability. Plus, all babies would be wanted, thus solving the abortion problem.

Of course, this assumes that people are rational enough to have themselves sterilized at the earliest possible opportunity, and arguments based on the assumption that people are rational tend to be flawed, so this should probably be taken with a truckload of salt.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by dk
I'm surprised this thread ignored the larger issue. An artificial womb would prove a fetus is autonomous, hence viable from conception.
How does 'development in an artificial womb' equate to "autonomous"?

[brighid]

Secondly, I'm not even aware of a technique which would allow for intact removal of an embryo from a uterus, and to then be able to turn around and re-implant it in an artifical uterus sounds pretty science-fictiony to me. So, unless there is a way found to do this, I can't see how this would have any bearing on abortion at all.

I think these are very good points. The embryo in utero is pretty fragile and even in-utero surgery is very risky to both mother and fetus. I don't know how the embryo could be safely detached from the placenta (at least at this phase in technological growth) without causing serious risk the it's health (and that of the mother.)

How would the embryo or fetus be removed, and more importantly when? It would require an invasive surgery, more invasive then abortion to remove the embryo. Are we going to force women to undergo life-threatening surgery that carries the risk of harming future fertility to save an embryo? Will she be made to carry the fetus to a point in term where it can be more safely removed? What risk does that carry to the fetus' health?

I have recently read (in the Wall Street Journal) an article about the increase of genetic defects in test tube babies vs. the home grown variety. Science is beginning to understand the importance of the in-utero environment or primordial soup if you will, one we have not be able to adequately duplicate or surpass.

I also think growing all babies outside of the human womb is also quite disturbing. Pregnancy can be dangerous, but a woman should have the choice of taking said risk instead of having it imposed on her, or even taken from her. Pregnancy can also be an incredible experience that shouldn't be turned over, in whole to science.

The obvious choice is to provide adequate sexual and reproductive education to all males and females, along with adequate contraceptive measures, excellent pre and post natal care for mother and baby, as well as universal availability to abortion.

Brighid

[cheetah]

Originally posted by brighid

Are we going to force women to undergo life-threatening surgery that carries the risk of harming future fertility to save an embryo? Will she be made to carry the fetus to a point in term where it can be more safely removed?


brighid,
These are excellent questions.

[brighid]

These are excellent questions.

Thank you cheetah. I see this idea wrought full of problems that seem rather terrible and yes, more terrible then the idea of terminating an unwanted or diseased pregnancy.

Can you imagine being forced to undergo a surgery to remove a embryo/fetus from your body? Abortion is traumatic enough, but I don't see how this is much different then a forced abortion/pregnancy.

Would these women be imprisoned until the time the fetus was viable for removal to prevent an illegal abortion? Who would take responsibility of the woman and/or fetus died during the removal process? Who is liable if the woman is permanently damaged or disabled because of this surgery? Could the fetus, once grown, sue those that removed it for punitive damages caused by the trauma and or defects caused by such a procedure?

Who would care for these fetus' once they became full-term? Do we only enforce removal of the fetus if there is a couple waiting for adoption or do we place the children in an already overburdened, poorly funded and often times damaging and dangerous foster care system?

The logical implications of this are simply awful.

Brighid

[Doubting Didymus]

Originally posted by dk
I'm surprised this thread ignored the larger issue. An artificial womb would prove a fetus is autonomous, hence viable from conception.

You must have overlooked my short post dealing more or less with that precise issue. External viability is not a factor in deciding on the morality of murder, so it should be ignored. The fact that a foetus is not a being is the issue, so the artificial wombs are meaningless to the abortion debate (or should be, at least).

[The Other Michael]

I think the article addressed some of the questions that have been raised. For one, it mentions the idea that if removal of the fetus was no more invasive than an abortion procedure, there would be no additional risk to the woman.

It went to say that people might use that to justify laws requiring that the fetus be brought to term in the artificial womb (no additional potential harm to the woman).

It is a short article and doesn't take long to read.

cheers,
Michael

[Roland98]

Originally posted by The Other Michael
I think the article addressed some of the questions that have been raised. For one, it mentions the idea that if removal of the fetus was no more invasive than an abortion procedure, there would be no additional risk to the woman.

Here's the quote from the article:


The woman's right to privacy would arguably not be invaded because removing the fetus to implant in an artificial womb need not be any more invasive than the abortion she was originally seeking.

No, it wouldn't be more invasive; but certainly that in no way correlates to the safety/viability of the transplanted fetus. I also am wondering how they would accomplish that. Here's what's been done to date, apparently:

In Japan, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara, a professor of obstetrics at Juntendo University, has created an artificial womb. He has successfully delivered goats from this artificial womb after just three weeks of gestation. Kuwabara says that, with enough funding, his ectogenetic chamber could be ready to use on a human fetus within five years.

Sounds like he's putting the cart before the horse. Human pregnancies are different from goats; how many women do you think know they're pregnant at three weeks of gestation? That's only time enough for the very earliest pregnancy test. And there's no data on the outcomes; simply that he "successfully delivered goats" using this artificial womb. How many goats, out of how many attempts? Any harm to any of the female goats? Any harm to any of the goats delivered this way? I think there are just way, way too many unknowns to even think about this in a 5-year time frame for humans.


It went to say that people might use that to justify laws requiring that the fetus be brought to term in the artificial womb (no additional potential harm to the woman).


I don't think the only issue is potential harm to the woman. IMO, there are way too many variables in the artificial womb itself. We don't even know everything regarding hormones etc. involved during a natural pregnancy--what if the doses they're using cause some serious harm in the future?

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by brighid
I think these are very good points. The embryo in utero is pretty fragile and even in-utero surgery is very risky to both mother and fetus. I don't know how the embryo could be safely detached from the placenta (at least at this phase in technological growth) without causing serious risk the it's health (and that of the mother.)

How would the embryo or fetus be removed, and more importantly when? It would require an invasive surgery, more invasive then abortion to remove the embryo. Are we going to force women to undergo life-threatening surgery that carries the risk of harming future fertility to save an embryo? Will she be made to carry the fetus to a point in term where it can be more safely removed? What risk does that carry to the fetus' health?

I have recently read (in the Wall Street Journal) an article about the increase of genetic defects in test tube babies vs. the home grown variety. Science is beginning to understand the importance of the in-utero environment or primordial soup if you will, one we have not be able to adequately duplicate or surpass.

I also think growing all babies outside of the human womb is also quite disturbing. Pregnancy can be dangerous, but a woman should have the choice of taking said risk instead of having it imposed on her, or even taken from her. Pregnancy can also be an incredible experience that shouldn't be turned over, in whole to science.

The obvious choice is to provide adequate sexual and reproductive education to all males and females, along with adequate contraceptive measures, excellent pre and post natal care for mother and baby, as well as universal availability to abortion.

Brighid

well, I wouldnt want a government edict saying all babies will be done in the lab. if you want one, order one. but Id like to have the option open of having lab babies grown in the lab for all 9 months - like, you and your mate provde the material, and the business maintains it's growth, adding the right chemicals, making the enivronment fine. clone torsos might be an option, I dunno. it would make a femme's life easier, not carrying a 20lb sprog for nine months, and it also skips the nastiness at the end.

I agree with your last paragraph, of course, but Id also like availablility of babies grown outside the womb, as seen above, and genetic modification, as the tech comes along.