How would human incubation chambers change society?

Question

For growth of baby's?

Answer 1

We can now "grow" a fetus exouterine for the first three months, technically, certainly longer but that is not allowed.  And, we can now save "premies" from approximately the current point of viability of 24 weeks.  So, there's only three months in the middle that remain uterine dependent.  Again, technically, we probably could do as you suggest already.  How will that change society is considered in bioethics.  As a nurse, I have heard about how exouterine incubation would allow fetuses to be more medically protected.  For example, we already do heart surgery and such on fetuses while they are within their mother's uteruses.  In exouterine gestation, many such medical interventions would be possible and would be an advantage to unborns.  And, fetuses would be protected from their mothers' substance abuses.  But, any notion whatsoever that medical science has the slightest clue yet about all that goes into the gestation of human life is ludicrous.  We have to learn a lot more. The interaction between fetus and mother is vital on more important levels than "medical".  Exouterine gestation would potentially produce monsters, in my opinion, humans born without benefit of all the human connectedness with another human.  There's other stuff, too, that is considered "Eastern" in the medical community related to electromagnetic fields or qi or chi or whatever that basically is about our measureable energy fields and how a fetus' neurological development may be (duh) dependent upon in certain ways his or her mother's EM or nervous system activity.  As for how exouterine gestation would otherwise affect society would be related to equalization, certainly, of gestation as being less "maternal" and more "parent".  It would be fascinating to observe one's child developing and might enhance bonding, especially fathers' bonding.

Answer 2

Provided that medical science will be able to do this, when a woman becomes pregnant against her wishes, she can have the fetus extracted from her body and placed in this chamber to grow until it is adopted.

Answer 3

That'd be freaking awesome. Have you SEEN these stretch marks? GOD.

You hit a bit of a soft spot. Sigh.

Answer 4

The technology for an extrauterine artificial "incubation chamber" of the embryo/fetus from the time of in vitro fert. to full term is something so terribly complex, that's it's about on the same order of complexity as building a machine for time travel.

The womb took nature hundreds of thousands of years to develop, but despite modern advances in medicine, we simply pale in comparison to the job that God or Nature has done in creating the human being.

There is no artificial device remotely as complex or brilliant as the human body.  The uterus, despite some absurd opinions to the contrary, is an exceptionally complicated organ.  The notion of replacing the womb with an "artificial chamber for the incubation of the parasite" is a machination of modern Feminism which defies sound scientific principles and demonstrates and profound lack of understanding of the complexity of human physiology.  We'll be able to create "artifical wombs" around the same time that we can create "artificial brains."

In the mind of a modern Feminist, the womb is about as easy to replace of human hip, but this is a baseless premise.  The uterus is profoundly more complicated than any osseous or synovial structure and failure to recognise this is laughable, frankly.

The advantages of an artificial womb would be in the self-serving interest of the modern Feminist so that she doesn't have to bear the burden of carrying a foetus to full term (in the interest of artifically advancing her career despite underqualification).

Modern Feminism simply lacks a fundamental respect and understanding of human physiology, and for this reason its influence must be marginalized in the interest of society.

Answer 5

It could make childbearing in countries that could afford the technology, unnecessary.

This would also mean that abortions would effectively become obsolete since it's an inanimate object used.

However in terms of reproductive rights it would be interesting to see what would happen if a zygote was created then the parents decided they didn't want it anymore. Would the pro-choicers still claim that it is justified since they say a zygote has no right to life?

I personally never saw much consistency in that argument to begin with since I believe that nothing has a right to life but still... could be an issue

Answer 6

I think there a lot going on between the mother-to-be and the fetus that science does not as yet fully understand, never mind provide substitutions for.  For me, it all sounds too much like an episode of the Twilight Zone.