Scientists Create Artificial Womb That Could Help Prematurely Born Babies

howamidifferent

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

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant

I think this could be a good thing to help under developed babies continue to grow and thrive. Some nonsense in their about forcing women having abortions to put the fetus into one of these but someone will always scaremonger.

What say you after hours?

bobmalooka

howamidifferent wrote: »

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

I think this could be a good thing to help under developed babies continue to grow and thrive. Some nonsense in their about forcing women having abortions to put the fetus into one of these but someone will always scaremonger.

What say you after hours?

Has it any other uses?

Asking for a friend

ScumLord

Those pictures just remind me of sous vide cooking.

howamidifferent

bobmalooka wrote: »

Has it any other uses?

Asking for a friend

As ScumLord says above you can use it for cooking also. :pac:

Your Face

I don't know - Donald Trump?

gctest50

So if you got this :

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/28/521428903/device-mimicking-female-reproductive-cycle-could-aid-research

and wired it on to that yoke

= unlimited supply of soldiers

watch all that get developed really quickly

hungry hypno toad

Your Face wrote: »

I don't know - Donald Trump?

He won, get over it.

skankkuvhima

Could you transplant a fetus into one instead of aborting it?

gctest50

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Could you transplant a fetus into one instead of aborting it?

Screw that

Clone army is where the money is

brb ...... pcr multipler is up to temp.

razorblunt

This is how The Matrix started.

LordSutch

Timely invention for the Mammoth resurrection project.

ScumLord

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Could you transplant a fetus into one instead of aborting it?

Probably not, but why would you want to? I can't see any advantage to it. If an abortion is required on medical grounds being in a plastic bag probably wouldn't help. If the abortion is for personal reasons the child would end up under state care and could face a life of hardship.

xLisaBx

Might be nice for those who have had their uterus removed but still want a baby

jjbrien

Kinda reminds me of that scene in the island where they grow the clones in sacks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_J5kBgJ50

RDM_83 again

ScumLord wrote: »

Probably not, but why would you want to? I can't see any advantage to it. If an abortion is required on medical grounds being in a plastic bag probably wouldn't help. If the abortion is for personal reasons the child would end up under state care and could face a life of hardship.

I think these type of advances in medical technology are both inevitable and will cause some pretty major philosophical problems for those that are strongly pro-choice. Actually had a thread on this in A&A few years back.

Say your aborting a fetus at say 20-24 weeks*, once the fetus is removed from the mother why does she have the right to terminate its life (and fetus is definitely alive probably not sentient though), its not the same as a removal of a limb as its a separate organism, at a very minimum logically the father should have equal rights in terms of what happens after this point**, if you consider that at this point you are not having an abortion with the side effect that the fetus dies, your deliberately killing the fetus it could no longer be framed simply be framed as being Pro-Choice in relation to the mothers biological integrity it becomes a different matter.



*And no don't reply that the majority of abortions at this time occur due to medical reasons unless you have evidence of this, I can dig out at least one UK survey that shows its mainly social reasons at the late stage

** Whats interesting here is that if the father wants the fetus to live I don't see why there would be an ethical reason why he shouldn't be allowed to claim guardianship of the fetus/child and begin claiming child support from the mother that had the abortion. A father can't get a "financial/paper abortion" now even though financial impacts are considered valid grounds for abortion in many jurisdictions, why would it change if roles are reversed.

suicide_circus

This is the DEVIL

ScumLord

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Say your aborting a fetus at say 20-24 weeks*, once the fetus is removed from the mother why does she have the right to terminate its life

I can appreciate that, it would give a father the chance to raise the child without expecting the woman to carry it to term for him. It could be a workaround. At the same time it's the woman's genetic code that contributed to the child, she would still be the child biological mother. Should that child have access to the biological mother for medical records?

I think it's a very different thing knowing that child would be out there, the mother may still feel responsible for it, I don't think it's always the case that the woman doesn't want a child, they may just be making a logical decision not to have one at a particular time. Taking the fetus out of her is still sort of taking that choice away from her. She may still end up caring for the child whether she likes it or not. What if the father decides after a year that this parenthood stuff is harder than he thought and wants child support from the mother?

I suppose in many ways this technology would bring about equality because the mother could end up with a child they never asked for just like men do today.

What if we ended up in a more puritanical society where the state could decide to take fetuses out of women that attempted abortions? Then we'd all end up responsible for children we can't afford.

Ubbquittious

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think these type of advances in medical technology are both inevitable and will cause some pretty major philosophical problems for those that are strongly pro-choice. Actually had a thread on this in A&A few years back.

Say your aborting a fetus at say 20-24 weeks*, once the fetus is removed from the mother why does she have the right to terminate its life (and fetus is definitely alive probably not sentient though), its not the same as a removal of a limb as its a separate organism, at a very minimum logically the father should have equal rights in terms of what happens after this point**, if you consider that at this point you are not having an abortion with the side effect that the fetus dies, your deliberately killing the fetus it could no longer be framed simply be framed as being Pro-Choice in relation to the mothers biological integrity it becomes a different matter.



*And no don't reply that the majority of abortions at this time occur due to medical reasons unless you have evidence of this, I can dig out at least one UK survey that shows its mainly social reasons at the late stage

** Whats interesting here is that if the father wants the fetus to live I don't see why there would be an ethical reason why he shouldn't be allowed to claim guardianship of the fetus/child and begin claiming child support from the mother that had the abortion. A father can't get a "financial/paper abortion" now even though financial impacts are considered valid grounds for abortion in many jurisdictions, why would it change if roles are reversed.

Maybe it will become the thing to do. Instead of bothering with the whole pregnancy and pushing thing it will be fashionable to transplant the foetus into a plastic bag after a few weeks or a few months.

There might be no such thing as abortion then, just people who don't bother to collect their plastic bags once they have finished growing.

ScumLord

Ubbquittious wrote: »

There might be no such thing as abortion then, just people who don't bother to collect their plastic bags once they have finished growing.

Which means they come under the care of the state. We'll end up producing children nobody wants.

silverharp

ScumLord wrote: »

I can appreciate that, it would give a father the chance to raise the child without expecting the woman to carry it to term for him. It could be a workaround. At the same time it's the woman's genetic code that contributed to the child, she would still be the child biological mother. Should that child have access to the biological mother for medical records?

I think it's a very different thing knowing that child would be out there, the mother may still feel responsible for it, I don't think it's always the case that the woman doesn't want a child, they may just be making a logical decision not to have one at a particular time. Taking the fetus out of her is still sort of taking that choice away from her. She may still end up caring for the child whether she likes it or not. What if the father decides after a year that this parenthood stuff is harder than he thought and wants child support from the mother?

I suppose in many ways this technology would bring about equality because the mother could end up with a child they never asked for just like men do today.

What if we ended up in a more puritanical society where the state could decide to take fetuses out of women that attempted abortions? Then we'd all end up responsible for children we can't afford.

I don't see the huge cost to society, there are generally more people looking to adopt. Once society is capable of taking on guardian rights , that is as far abortion can go. Its generally the reasoning why most countries wouldn't allow an abortion in the 39th week so no difference in principle between 39 and 22 only technology

Outlaw Pete

Too posh to push carry.

Ubbquittious

ScumLord wrote: »

Which means they come under the care of the state. We'll end up producing children nobody wants.

There is a demand for children. Twould be my idea of hell looking after something that needs constant nappies and screetches all the time but some people are dieing for that kind of lifestyle.

jjbrien

ScumLord wrote: »

Which means they come under the care of the state. We'll end up producing children nobody wants.

Since the new maternity hospital will be owned by the Caholic Church can you see them allowing a fetus to grow in a plastic bag? interesting dilemma for them.

On a postive note if a woman is unable to carry a baby as brining it to term would kill her this would be an option

ScumLord

Ubbquittious wrote: »

There is a demand for children.

So there's basically a market for unwanted children? I don't know how I'd feel about that, it would be open for abuse when people become a commodity.

I don't know how long a market like that would last, I'm assuming people who get one baby aren't going to be repeat customers for a few years at least. I don't know what the numbers are like, but I'd be very worried that it would end up creating baby factories and brown envelopes changing hands.

RDM_83 again

jjbrien wrote: »

Since the new maternity hospital will be owned by the Caholic Church can you see them allowing a fetus to grow in a plastic bag? interesting dilemma for them.

On a postive note if a woman is unable to carry a baby as brining it to term would kill her this would be an option

If conception happened naturally is there a theological reason why they would be against this?particularly since I am guessing at least for the first period of the technology it would be only useful for more developed fetus's.
The Catholic Church is actually pretty intellectually consistent on these type of issues, many do not like the underlying absolutes they have but if you work within those parameters the positions tend to make sense.
e.g they also oppose IVF

Ubbquittious

ScumLord wrote: »

So there's basically a market for unwanted children? I don't know how I'd feel about that, it would be open for abuse when people become a commodity.

I don't know how long a market like that would last, I'm assuming people who get one baby aren't going to be repeat customers for a few years at least. I don't know what the numbers are like, but I'd be very worried that it would end up creating baby factories and brown envelopes changing hands.

There is a market but the "price" you pay isn't usually denominated in Euros but putting up with a crew of social workers digging through your life and the essence of your being for a certain number of months.

This is the price you must pay to society in order to get a child that isn't your own.

Beyondgone

Ubbquittious wrote: »

There is a market but the "price" you pay isn't usually denominated in Euros but putting up with a crew of social workers digging through your life and the essence of your being for a certain number of months.

This is the price you must pay to society in order to get a child that isn't your own.

Unless you fostered Grace. Then you did very little of that ^. Because "connections".

Ubbquittious

Beyondgone wrote: »

Unless you fostered Grace. Then you did very little of that ^. Because "connections".

Don't worry anyone applying from now on will be punished in the form of longer and more invasive harassment from social workers to compensate. This case is like the "Setanta" of the adoption system.

Beyondgone

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Don't worry anyone applying from now on will be punished in the form of longer and more invasive harassment from social workers to compensate. This case is like the "Setanta" of the adoption system.

Talsu - the figt that keeps on viging.

Murrisk

ScumLord wrote: »

Probably not, but why would you want to? I can't see any advantage to it. If an abortion is required on medical grounds being in a plastic bag probably wouldn't help. If the abortion is for personal reasons the child would end up under state care and could face a life of hardship.

It's not a bad alternative to abortion if it could be guaranteed that baby would be offered for adoption immediately on birth. The problem is that the woman would still have to carry the fetus until the pregnancy is showing and many are not going to want to do that.

skankkuvhima

Murrisk wrote: »

The problem is that the woman would still have to carry the fetus until the pregnancy is showing and many are not going to want to do that.

Let's presume that the fetus could be transplanted at the same time as the abortion would have been carried out. I can see many fathers welcoming this option rather than a child they wanted be aborted plus the mother is minus one fetus, win win?

eviltwin

skankkuvhima wrote: »

Let's presume that the fetus could be transplanted at the same time as the abortion would have been carried out. I can see many fathers welcoming this option rather than a child they wanted be aborted plus the mother is minus one fetus, win win?

No because I'd imagine the procedure involved in this is a lot riskier and invasive than an abortion.

cbyrd

My little bud was born last week at 34 weeks gestation. I'm in the middle of iv's, oxygen tubes, heart and sats monitoring, jaundice and countless blood tests. If there was a way that he could have been kept in a womb like place I'm all for it. Very hard to watch someone so very tiny and helpless being medically treated. Although what the nurses do in scbu is amazing.

farmchoice

my boys were born at 25 weeks, both weighed less then 2 pounds, one died.
this has massive potential and could be a huge step forward.

at present babies born before 24 weeks dont receive the same intervention to keep them alive as those born after 24 weeks and there are many many very good reasons for this.

this invention should it prove to be sucssuful is unlikely to push back that date anytime soon.

it really has nothing to do with the abortion debate.