Before the first actual heart transplant, many people in the Bible Belt (where I grew up) believed that the soul resided in the heart (there are about a thousand Bible versus that support that belief). Finally, after a few heart tranplants, most people realize the physical heart is irrelevant to person-hood. Here is another advance that could take place in the distant future... When Joe's body fails, and Bill's brain has been damaged, doctors may be able to transplant Joe's brain into Bill's body. At that point we will be able to confirm that Joe's person-hood inhabits Bill's former body, demonstrating that the body really is just a life-support system for the mind. The author of the article you cited (David Warmflash?) also writes about artificial intelligence. If science creates a machine that thinks with the complexity of the human brain, eventually we will be able to upload a "snapshot" of Joe's mind (thoughts, memories, and all) into a bio-mechanical "container" where it can function, or perhaps be preserved for download into a newly cloned brain. If they can perfect an artificial womb, then cloning will not be far behind. What would that say about the relative importance of the body versus the activated mind?
For a start that is from "the Daily Fail" and if their record on climate change science is anything to go by then it is a wonder they got the researchers name right It is not just the lungs that are immature - it is the skin which tears when touched, it is the blood vessels that rupture in the brain causing "strokes" it is the immature immune system that opens them to sepsis , it is the immature gut that necessitates intravenous feeding - which itself has multiple problems meanwhile that gut is at risk of a complication called necrotising fasciitis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth
From this article: "Currently UK law bans laboratories for growing embryos for longer than 14 days because after two weeks, twins can no longer form, and so it is deemed that an individual has started to develop." It would appear technology is already pushing the boundaries of pro-life mythological reasoning. When an artificial womb exists, and genetically identical cloned humans are created, will the pro-life advocates finally realize that the moment of creating a unique DNA pattern has nothing to do with the moment a new person exists?
The "market will pay for it""? How does that work? You mean the fetuses will be sold to the highest bidder...? SOMEBODY has to pay for the children who result from this idiocy....it's possible thousands wouldn't be adopted (paid for) so what happens to the UNadopted ones??? Who pays for them? ...and that should have nothing to do with the rights of women to have abortions....
NO, the "father" has no say and no rights that overrule the woman's... , he is NOT the pregnant one......did you want him to have the right to force the woman to give birth OR ABORT on his say so?
What exactly are you disputing? Everything is in dispute if anything is in dispute? I'm not sure I'm getting it. I offered a newspaper article (for simplicity's sake) that contained actual statements and descriptions by actual scientists from a real university that is doing real research on the subject. The actual research if you prefer: http://labblog.uofmhealth.org/healt...holds-promise-for-extremely-premature-infants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4076781/ - - - Updated - - - My guess is that they will argue it is not "natural". But who knows.
People pay for in-vitro, neonatal care, and premature delivery care. Artificial wombs help with delivering better care.
No. I'm not sure you've discovered enough of my own thoughts on any of these subjects to be anything but angry that you are confused. But, I don't exactly care either.
That article is fascinating because just imagine the advancements if they had no ethical restrictions. They are just dabbling around the edges. Just imagine if they could take the science head on. That is basically what the researchers are saying when they are excitedly discussing what even a few days or even a week would do for their research. They are wanting to take it head on.
Uh, WHO is doing this "put the fetus in an artificial womb" and for what purpose are they doing it? You are all over the place.....why are you babbling on about artificial wombs? In respect to what??? Stopping abortion? Giving infertile couples a baby ? What??? And if it's to "save " unwanted babies SOMEBODY has to pay for the children who result from this idiocy....it's possible thousands wouldn't be adopted (paid for) so what happens to the UNadopted ones??? Who pays for them? ...and that should have nothing to do with the rights of women to have abortions.... Maybe I could "discover" your thoughts if you actually posted them clearly and didn't dither all over...
The male reproductive system was designed (by God or nature) to impregnate as many women as possible. It would be "natural" for men to create offspring at every opportunity, so it is not "natural" for society to apply restrictions to that natural process, is it? Every time a man passes up an opportunity to impregnate a woman, the potential child (the unique DNA combination) that might have been formed by that union is lost. That is the only complaint they can really have against abortion (until a new mind is activated).
Indeed. Many years ago there were people who did not want anybody attempting a heart transplant (because that would prove that the soul does NOT really reside in the heart). I suspect pro-life advocates interfere with research in these areas because the research might disprove some of their deeply held religious beliefs, or interfere with their ability to use pregnancy to control women.
I'm not religious at all so religious arguments aren't persuasive to me at all. But did you notice at the bottom of the article what was quoted? :: Josephine Quintavalle, Director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core), said: “The natural place for a human being to be is not in a petri dish and is not in a laboratory. “We’ve always said no to these experiments. Pro life means you protect human life - there’s no protection being in a petri dish being experimented on.” I'm not sure where I stand on it. Pro-Life arguments can be powerful if considered genuinely. Should the ethics be disregarded or reconsidered as researchers suggest? I'm not sure but my beliefs have typically caused me to reconsider the ethics in favor of deeper understanding. It typically results in the knowledge to form better choices and decisions, and used to improve the quality of life.
I'd say this confusion came about because of what I said about viability. Now try to follow me: As medical advancements in preemie care improve, viability will be earlier and earlier in term, which will shrink the time that a woman can choose abortion (so long as it remains law that a woman can't choose an abortion after viability). Sandra Day O'Connor made this point when she said something to the effect that Roe v Wade is self-defeating or working against itself because viability could at some point be from conception. I'm not going to look up the quote for you. Also, I responded to someone who said viability is 20 weeks in Texas. Viability law since 1992, has indeed been a state matter based on what they can prove. The state would have to be challenged in the Supreme Court to be decided it is an undue burden. I then said viability was case by case. This is actually true. Viability isn't defined as a time. It is defined as likelihood of survival including artificial means. Your specific response to this is "law says viability is 23 weeks" and that "science will not fast forward gestation". (There may have also been a lot of exclamation points and questions marks.) I offered an example of an artificial womb as an example of how science might be able to change how state viability laws could continue to change. When this will happen, I don’t know. When will an artificial womb become reality? I have no idea. Current researchers say within 5 years for preemie care. An artificial womb from conception is a different matter because of ethics restrictions. If ethics restrictions didn't exist, I'd say it could be much sooner than you might imagine. You ask how much an artificial womb would cost? I have no idea. You ask who would pay for the artificial womb. I said the market. The market already pays for in-vitro, neonatal care, and preemie care. Do you have any more questions? http://labblog.uofmhealth.org/healt...holds-promise-for-extremely-premature-infants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4076781/ If my political persuasion did happen to be Pro-Life, you have been doing an awful job convincing me to be Pro-Choice. I prefer to persuade rather than defeat...but everyone has their own style.
You are talking about two different things, developing fetuses in a lab and natural human gestation development which cannot be hurried...fetuses have developed at the same pace forever and will continue to do so. If you want to base something(whatever your point is) on Science Fiction of the Future where at the instant of conception you have a fully formed viable fetus , well, that's just silly speculation.. and has nothing to do with abortion. There doesn't seem to be a POINT to your ramblings in regards to abortion and , once again, this is the abortion forum.
Mrs Quintavalle is firmly pro life, so her opinion is very biased http://www.socialtrendsinstitute.org/experts/all/josephine-quintavalle Pro life arguments are purely opinion and have no scientific basis. Should ethics be disregarded? Certainly they should, if they don't stand up to scrutiny. http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13574
I'm still unsure if you read what I wrote...more likely, twisting the discussion in order to defeat. First of all, "human" is not "natural". Nature is the phenomena of the physical world including plants and animals, as opposed to humans. So it is no wonder to me why I am confusing you. You aren't understanding. Secondly, viablility has quite a lot to do with abortion discussions since law in the US is based on viability. I suggested in an earlier post that Roe v Wade be overturned to end these foolish discussion points it has created in the US. Thirdly, this is my thread. You could show a little more courtesy. If you're not interested, you are more than welcome to not participate.
Viability will not change. What don't you get about that? Learn about gestation and how a fetus develops. Do you want a 10 week fetus to be "born"? Will it survive and grow after "birth"? Is your point to limit abortion to before 10 weeks? Did you have a position? Why didn't you answer my questions directed at your comments to help further the discussion? You have never said how all these removed fetuses in laboratory wombs will be supported. Who pays? You never answered who will pay for this "solution to something" that you are proposing?
I posted my position on this thread. You fail to read. You prefer to defeat. You get more enjoyment that way. I am a Pro-Choice Atheist. I have read extensively on the fetus. I even offered links to you to read actual research by actual researchers producing actual scientific advancements is being conducted. Viability very well could change. I will leave that up to medical science research to find out if it will. "What don't I get about that" is meant to offend. Ironic since you were whining in another abortion thread about how the person said things that were meant to offend. I answered them as straight forward as I could figure, since they were such stupid questions filled with commas, question marks, and exclamation points.
I'm not sure ethical Pro-Life argumetns are purely opinion. If you were to say they are based more on philosophy, I would agree. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider how, or whether or not science experiments should be conducted on fetuses. I did say that I tend to fall on the side of science. I do indeed know what current viability is considered to be, thanks. I offered a link earlier that describes current research that could change the time.
If abortion is made illegal, then anti choicers should have to pay for it. You could allow the woman to advertise needing a sponsor for her using the artificial uterus and the sponsor would have to adopt the child. If no sponsor is found in a certain time frame, then she gets to abort.
What you have read is speculation and science fiction. 'What you need to do is get out and volunteer to work in a NICU. It is one thing to speculate on viability it is another entirely to see a baby that is smaller than your hand struggling to live where every time someone touches it the skin tears and bruises Remember these babies are from WANTED pregnancies Nearly all terminations after viability are for foetal abnormality usually incompatible wth life.
Sounds reasonable until you realize that advertising she doesn't want the kid will bring the freaks out to harass her.....that would put a damper on it.
