Welcome to Gaia! ::

Howdy Everyone. Making another topic is so much fun around here, isn't it? xd

Here, I present to you an imaginary yet probably revolutionary invention: it is an incubation contraption.

Imagine such a device would imitate a woman's womb. It would be a place for a developing embryo/fetus to incubate into term. It would of course occur outside of a woman's body! Any woman who desired not incubating the embryo/fetus inside of her can have it done in a machine. Any woman who did not care about the fate of her developing unborn could just take it out of her body and someone who cared could allow it to develop fully and safely inside of a machine. (Oh, technology these days) wink

anyway, the implications of such a machine's existance would have a profound effect on the abortion debates.

What are YOUR thoughts on such a machine? Do you think it could bridge the gaps between the pro-life and pro-choice positions? Or make it worse?

you will hear mine in a seperate post smile

I think an incubation machine COULD possibly bridge the gaps between pro-life and pro-choice. an incubation machine could allow the woman to have complete control over her body, and the unwanted developing child could be salvaged and allowed into term. Pro-choicers would celebrate over the preservation of women's rights, and the pro-lifers would be just as happy that the embryo/fetus can finally be seperated into an "entity" (I say this word loosly, of course), thus supporting development into term.

But is it too good to be true?

There's certainly the possibilities.

Because machines don't have that human touch, maybe concerns about how "unnatural" the process of raising a kid in a machine would be raised. Or the possibilities of the kid being "disadvantaged" because of being raised in such an "alien" ecosystem. but supporters for an incubation machine would espouse how the child gets uniform, quality elements to aid in it's development. For example, nutrition needs will be always met fully, and teratogens (agents which harm the child and can result in birth defects) would be eliminated. Also, technology could also exist in preventing tragic deformities from occuring. The child could thus begin life with a very healthy start.

Although I don't think many women would desire in aborting an embryo/fetus inasmuch as they really want to preserve their rights and bodily integrity, some women would really mind to have their genetics passed on. This is a very important and touchy concern if incubation devices were to be invented. I, for one (as my beliefs outlining this paragraph isn't going to be popular)- but I only agree to this if the rape victim desires abortion. I do not believe a rapist's genetics should be forced to be passed on. It's not justice, but serves to the rapist's privilege. Still, I think aborting an embryo/fetus at the earliest stage possible would be a more humane solution rather than aborting it at a later stage in development in all cases. Also, if serious deformities still exist, it wouldn't make sense to develop a baby only for it to die within the first days or year of it's life. So maybe an incubation device won't eliminate ALL abortions, but it could feasibly be a way to reduce quite a bit of them. Theoretically speaking.

But, if the unwanted were allowed to be developed up to birth, there is still a problem of "where the unwanted kids get to go." That is a concern that will also need to be addressed if this new technology exists. Current systems do not adequately address the care of unwanted kids now, imagine how much worse it would be if the numbers of unwanted kids increase if those systems wern't adjusted or changed.

Pushing aside the abortion debate a little, the incubation device may be pretty darn popular amongst women in general. women would not be required to alter their body forever in order to have children, plus the incubation device may be even more effective in developing healthier, stronger, and smarter kids. And it would free women even more to pursue careers. But people skeptical of the benefits of an incubation device may claim that woman who would use it are "irresponsible, lazy mothers" for not wanting to raise kids the "natural" way. Or, that incubation devices may raise a whole generation of "automatons", "machine-like humans". Or perhaps this nifty contraption would be seen by others as just one factor contributing to our ever-increasing "addiction" to "conveenience".

But... I would imagine that there would still be women out there who would continue to choose to have a natural pregnancy, just like there are women who refuse to take medication while in labor even though medication exists.

Personally, I don't like the idea. It would be wonderful for people who may not be able to have children without a serious risk of death, but I think it would get out of hand. Today we are involving too many machines in our world. There are some things that we just need to do ourselves. I think that this machine is going too far.

Personally, I find your position a little stubborn.

I think it would be a lovely compromise. And that is what government is about, right? Compromise. Pro-choicers don't get forced into carrying a pregnancy, and pro-lifers get their fetuses. Everyone's happy.

I think that if this were to happen, it would be reasonable to expect each woman who did not want the baby to put it into this machine--as long as she did not have to pay for it. But that's just my opinion.

(Hey, this was my idea. blaugh )

Wow, I didn't think about that earlier.

It's certainly true that when a technology is in it's infancy, it's extremely expensive. I could imagine as such that at first, richer women would be able to use the technology. The downside to using a technology in its infancy however is that there's still much to perfect. your first wave of babies being incubated may have some unintentional problems from the use of early technology of the incubation device.

But advances in technology is very fast. I could imagine that any bugs, errors, problems that the machine presents could be solved. As the technology of the incubator is being perfected, the price will drop. The price will drop so fast that the incubator could be used by the common person. Compare it to other technologies such as the computer, the cd player, and the dvd player that, in it's own infancy costed an arm and a leg... now they're so commonplace that every home has one.

But I'm figuring that once the technology becomes cheap and commonplace, It would be affordable enough for middle class and poor women to use. And that even still, the possibility of the government financial support allowing use of the incubation device could be based on a sliding scale of income (so the poor women wouldn't be excluded).

I understand your concerns that technology can be more intrusive in our lives, rather than beneficial. However, I have to ask why you would rather see a woman being forced to incubate an unwanted embryo/fetus inside her if she had the choice to have it out of her, yet the embryo/fetus would be allowed to develop elsewhere.

Also, I have to ask about your feelings about test tube babies, cesarian sections, different fertilization methods and other "unnatural" methods of pregnancies. Do you feel that it has done more to harm people, or free people to have more choices and safety? Do you feel that all of those current advents are "out of hand"?

I agree with Diadema. I don't like the idea because it is dehumanizing us in general and I think that if this invention was created, it would be in a time when technology has completely taken over our lives. I don't want this to happen. I don't want people to be incapable of doing nothing without technology.

Interesting idea, Grip.

Personally, I find no problem with this idea. For me, being pro-life doesn't have to do with making sure we're not dehumanizing someone. It's about the fact that it deserves a chance to live. I'm pro-life, not pro-the mother having the baby in natural birth.

The difference between this situation, and IVF, is that the babies wouldn't be destroyed. In IVF, the frozen embryos can be thrown away any time, but in this, the baby would be growing, just as it would in the mother, and as long as it has a chance to live, which is what I think every human deserves, this idea would work.

I must ask, where did this idea spawn from?