So can trans-human technology solve the Abortion debate and would you support the invention of an artificial uterus?

Sorry to resurrect a mostly dead topic, but I think it warrants further discussion~. Questions that linger in my mind are things like 'would this warrant archaic notions of eugenics once more', allowing scientists to 'get rid of' or promote certain traits, such as cleft lips, left handedness, and perhaps other things such as sexual orientation or gender identity? It's fairly unrealistic to think that humanity would ever completely fall back on technology to power its reproduction, but such technology would be quite useful for couples and individuals unable to conceive.

Well I am glad you resurrected post, I thought it deserved more attention. I think in the short term your worries would be reality but in the long term rarer traits become more desirable and people would be paying top dollar for say left handedness. We already done an experiment on fruit flies and observed that we the thing that's considered desirable becomes common after a while becomes undesirable.

And what of those who are unable to afford expensive procedures? Would they be sterilized against their will and then be disallowed children due to finance?

well, that is difficult to say. odds are it will be very expensive at first but as the technology gets easier to make and the population dies down to a more reasonable number I would assume everyone that wants to have a child will be able to have one. Most ethical questions you ask would only be temporary problems that in theory solve themselves much like all other technological advances up to this point.

Touche. However, the initial implementation and transitional period is always an important period to consider when making sweeping changes, as you propose, as if it goes poorly, then a project will typically never be seen to completion, am I right? The masses are impatient and wouldn't hear of their reproductive rights being trampled on.

Anyway, my counterpoint to this is as follows - Given that pregnancy is a prohibitively painful and time-consuming procedure, I fail to see that the population would have any reason to die down as that part of the equation is removed.

well things like the inflation of cost and regulation over how many children one can have can make the difference in that.

My only regret is that I most likely will not live to see such a world.

Well, have all those who do not want to take the risk of EVER getting pregnant under casual sex have their womb taken out.Then when the time comes they can use the artificial uterus when they are married.



Other than that, allow the virgins-till-married to keep their uteruses. And if they don't...

It has been proven that children who experience no human contact after birth become listless and sickly. I wonder what a technological uterus would do to them?

those are valid concerns but assuming they would have to hire people to take care of the child until it was adopted would that change your answer?

I'm not sure. It seems that there is no good answer. If every viable fetus were saved, the population would be out of control. I try to live by the laws of natural balance. How many can we feed? Now if intersteller colonization were to become viable at the same time I'm sure it would be a great idea. We'd need lots of people then.

I was assuming that this would replace natural human pregnancy all together so unplanned pregnancy wouldn't happen. All children when born would receive sterility surgery to make sure this is the only way for humans to continue to populate the world effectively making abortion obsolete and allow anyone who wants a child to simply adopt one from a business that could specially order the child from a company that artificially grows them.

Very high brow. I don't think you have fully accounted for the nature of humanity.

So then let human pop grow "out of control." More and more people would be glad to live anyway.

Natural balance? What in the world crap nonsense is that? How about natural increase. That ought to be natural enough.

why not?

Anything I can or could say would fall on deaf ears, it's not worth my time or effort to type them all out. Just, "HELL NO" should suffice.

well I thought the answer, "No, this is not a fair deal and I am going to either explain why or offer a better solution to either make this deal work or invent a new deal." would fit your answer better.

Fine, you asked for it. We already have a better solution, it is legal and there is an entire splinter-off of Government dedicated to it. It is called... ADOPTION. It is legal within all 50 States, and there is no penalty whatsoever to the woman or the man who decides to drop off their unwanted child to any hospital, fire-station or any other Government facility, no questions asked and no judgment passed.

What this here proposes is entirely unacceptable and as I said, again, I am not going to waste my time or my effort in explaining every little reason why this because ANY human being worth that title, should be able to deduce for themselves why that is. But for just one example, subjecting little girls to hysterectomies before they reach puberty over this just because boys and men can't keep their unprotected dicks in their pants, and other girls and women can't keep their legs closed or take birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, is UNACCEPTABLE. And so is turning over the creation of human life to a Government-run Science Bureaucracy that will only impose God-only-knows what trash legislation on it - and that is not even before the fact that it is, just like abortion, an ABOMINATION!

Adoption isn't a perfect solution because it doesn't stop the overpopulation problem nor does it ease the burden on the tax payers like my solution does. It seems like your main problem is with the whole philosophy of trans-humanism or the philosophy that we can use science to redefine what it means to be human by eliminating human problems that has plagued humanity for it's entire existence. Still your concerns are valid and I appreciate your honesty in answering.

Well, I'm sorry you both think and feel that way. Frankly, I'd rather not give control over my reproduction to a system of Government that can't even manage itself and keep itself off of debt as a means to function, which is about to collapse like a house of cards in a breeze. A system which endeavors to control every sphere of human activity, and a system which also endeavors to "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." by killing off 6.5 Billion people (and who are completely unabashed to say so outright, such as Bill Gates and his call to do just that through vaccines no less). A system that wants to REMOVE humanity from people, to create a serf population of stupid slaves while only the super rich "elite" get to live life free to do whatever they wish on a whim and in absolute control. Who get to be free from the poisons they're already lacing our water and foods with even now...

And if you don't believe that's exactly the goal and what's being aimed for even now, I invite you to do a little research. In short, I don't want my life or anyone else's life to be controlled by the Beast, much less the creation of human beings which belongs only to God.