Ectogenesis (artificial wombs) - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Philosopher · 11-23-2005, 09:39 PM

I did a search and couldn't find any results for ectogenesis. Artificial wombs seemed to have been briefly discussed, but not in any great length by themselves.

There are some predictions that artificial wombs could be developed within the next 20 years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...5908%2C00.html

Quote:

Britain

The Times August 30, 2005

From foetus to full term - without a mother's touch
By Ainsley Newson

ARTIFICIAL wombs, to bring a foetus of a human being to full term outside a woman’s body, could become a reality within 20 years, scientists have predicted.
This could present great advantages in the case of very premature babies, which could be nurtured to full pregnancy term in artificial wombs, thereby reducing the risk of long-term developmental problems.

Such technology might also appeal to those who cannot have children naturally, such as women with a damaged uterus or no uterus at all, or to gay couples. The need for surrogate mothers could disappear.

Experiments with human embryos, mice and goats have already had some success. But the technology raises significant ethical challenges and should not proceed without full ethical debate, Frida Simonstein, of Ben Gurion University in Israel, said.

She told a weekend conference in Barcelona on ethics and emerging medical technologies that these problems were not insurmountable.

“Society now expects better outcomes for premature babies. Society also demands improvement in IVF effectiveness. Yet society should be equally aware that these demands require research that leads to the development of an artificial womb.

“We must start discussing this topic now while we have still enough time to decide what we may want, and why.”

In 2002 Hung-Ching Liu, at Cornell University, in the United States, announced that her team had successfully grown a sample of cells from the lining of a human uterus and had used tissue engineering technologies to shape them like a womb.

When a fertilised human egg was introduced into the womb, it implanted into the uterus wall as it would in a natural pregnancy. The experiment was ceased at six days’ gestation, because of legal limits on human embryo experimentation.

Japanese scientists brought goat foetuses to full term using so-called “uterine tanks” after removing them mid-pregancy from their mother’s womb.

In further womb research by Dr Liu’s team, mouse embryos were grown nearly to term in artificial wombs but, as in the Japanese experiments, the newborn animals did not survive.

Artificial wombs are not yet safe for human pregnancies. But if, as expected, the technology can one day be applied in human beings, scientific advantages may result.

But Richard Ashcroft, reader in medical ethics at Imperial College London, fears a “foetal rescue act” to force drug or alcohol-addicted mothers to have their foetuses surgically removed. “I couldn’t think of anything worse,” he said.

It is also feared that scientists involved in cloning could continue their experiments without the need for surrogate mothers.

There is a danger too that some women who want babies but cannot face pregnancy or childbirth could take advantage of the artificial wombs — one step beyond being “too posh to push”. If they see their babies growing in a tank, would they bond with their newborns, or view them as commodities? Dr Ashcroft said: “Is creating children with artificial wombs having children at all, or is it a kind of manufacturing of children? It is deeply dangerous.”

The issue will add fresh fuel to the abortion debate.

If in the future it cost about the same to transplant an embryo/foetus into an artificial womb as an abortion, with about the same risks, what would the impact of this be (for the abortion debate)?

It wouldn't make any difference to those foetuses that have severe developmental abnormalities (missing major organs) and are destined to die anyway, but what about healthy foetuses?

It would be possible to get rid of the unwanted parasite without killing it.

What if the foetus is diagnosed with a condition that isn't necessarily life-threatening, such as trisomy 21 (down syndrome)?

I don't think we shouldn't force women to look after unwanted children, but what would we do with the large numbers of orphans that may result from this technology?

Also this technology would allow women who can't or have great difficulties carrying to term to have healthy children.

Surrogate mothers wouldn't be needed.

Because the development of the foetus wouldn't be affected by the substances a woman puts into her body, or by stress, it may be safer use ectogenesis to have a child. Would this affect insurance?

When used in combination with freezing ova, women could safely have children much later in life.

Those are just some of the implications. I'm looking forward to reading your comments.

pan6467 · 11-24-2005, 09:00 AM

As long as they don't put one in me and expect me to pass the kid like a kidney stone.... (Sorry my warped sense of humor.)

No, there would be a benefit for those who are of extreme military mind. It would be like a Sci-fi come true.

Have Males (destroy the female or send them elsewhere) born outside of the womb so there is no human contact, no 9 months of feeling conected to other humans. then raise thyem from birth to adulthood in totally 100% controlled environments where you teach them to kill, have no conscience and to have no feelings for anything or anyone and they would have no fear of death with a possibility of not recognizing pain or fatigue because of their environ and trainings.

A truly great military could be built that way.......... course until that happens we here in the US have the Marines for that.

You could have wars and your citizens would never know because noone's "kid" was going off to war.

In all seriousness, the closer we get to playing God, the further we get away from him and nature. Plus, the costs not just monetarily or spiritually but what it does to society as a whole..... is IMHO wrong. I am one who believes we learn our instinctive morals and values inside the womb. Take that away and we will be nothing more than man made machines.

11-24-2005, 09:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	As long as they don't put one in me and expect me to pass the kid like a kidney stone.... (Sorry my warped sense of humor.) No, there would be a benefit for those who are of extreme military mind. It would be like a Sci-fi come true. Have Males (destroy the female or send them elsewhere) born outside of the womb so there is no human contact, no 9 months of feeling conected to other humans. then raise thyem from birth to adulthood in totally 100% controlled environments where you teach them to kill, have no conscience and to have no feelings for anything or anyone and they would have no fear of death with a possibility of not recognizing pain or fatigue because of their environ and trainings. A truly great military could be built that way.......... course until that happens we here in the US have the Marines for that. You could have wars and your citizens would never know because noone's "kid" was going off to war. In all seriousness, the closer we get to playing God, the further we get away from him and nature. Plus, the costs not just monetarily or spiritually but what it does to society as a whole..... is IMHO wrong. I am one who believes we learn our instinctive morals and values inside the womb. Take that away and we will be nothing more than man made machines. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 11-24-2005 at 09:03 AM..