|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 6:12 am
For all those that are against abortion, why not create a machine that will allow for a fetus to grow in? These machines could be run off of charitable donations of those opposed to abortion and still give women the choice not to carry the fetus to term. The children could then be raised in orphanages as most anti-abortion people would recommend for those that don't want to keep these children.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 7:01 am
I for it, and I seriously doubt many infants would stay in orphanages, there are too many couples who want children who can't have babies of their own.
The main draw-back I see is the amount of older children who are in such institutions that will not get the opportunity to take advantage of the adoption process, because people looking to adopt will have the chance at getting a baby.
There are problems with everything though, and there are good arguments against something like this as well. As far as I know there is no machine that is capable of bringing a fetus to term, as there is more subtle needs that a developing baby needs besides nourishment and a protective environment. It would be cool if they succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 7:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 7:05 am
it's really more of a cultural thing. it's the idea that it's ok to run around and make children at will that is the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 8:37 am
I do agree with that to an extent. Many people's issue is the idea that abortion is a form of birth control. Some people think it's ok to, and others don't.
Schools are teaching that abortion is safe enough if you don't want to take your pills or use condoms. They tell our kids that a fetus is like a tumor, or growth, instead of teaching that it is a potential consequence and responsibility of engaging in sexual activity. They normally neglect to tell people how harmful abortion is to a woman's body, they just say that it's safer to have a doctor do it. They don't teach the positive and beneficial effects pregnancy has for a woman's body in the long haul, they make pregnancy sound like all hell for no reason, and they seem to explain a baby is as bad if not worse than a parasite.
I think that if schools were really worried about the kids that they teach, they would throw their, "the kids are just going to do it anyway" attitude out the window, and try to teach kids how to be responsible. They should teach kids that they have a choice to say they want to wait, and they should teach kids that there are consequences and risks to every decision made. Of course, there will be some who do it anyway, but more of them would weigh the risks against the benefits before they made their decisions. All kids get in school anymore is the skills to be good sheep, and do what the rest of the flock do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:42 am
-fox of the city- it's really more of a cultural thing. it's the idea that it's ok to run around and make children at will that is the problem. What about in cases of rape? Or in situations where its dangerous for the mother to carry the child to term?
This idea sounds a bit to far out of the realm of possibility with our current level of technology. But as soon as sci-fi becomes reality then sure! ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:53 am
Renkon Root This idea sounds a bit to far out of the realm of possibility with our current level of technology. But as soon as sci-fi becomes reality then sure! It just makes me wonder if those actually wanting to prevent abortions have thought of this and why they aren't working for something like this. They've had what 30+ years since Roe v. Wade to come up with this alternative. It's certainly within the realm of possibility and it would be within the realm of US government medical research spending regulations I would think. I mean we can preserve a fetus for like 5+ years by freezing it if I remember my research on stem cell research correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:11 am
rmcdra It just makes me wonder if those actually wanting to prevent abortions have thought of this and why they aren't working for something like this. They've had what 30+ years since Roe v. Wade to come up with this alternative. Some fundamentalists might think of it as "unnatural" because they're not gown inside human mothers. I actually think this is a plus in favor of the idea, but then again, I also thought the destopia ideas presented in "Brave New World" were fantastic.
*shrug*
I digress. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:16 am
Renkon Root rmcdra It just makes me wonder if those actually wanting to prevent abortions have thought of this and why they aren't working for something like this. They've had what 30+ years since Roe v. Wade to come up with this alternative. Some fundamentalists might think of it as "unnatural" because they're not gown inside human mothers. I actually think this is a plus in favor of the idea, but then again, I also thought the destopia ideas presented in "Brave New World" were fantastic.
*shrug*
I digress. ... could kick your a** !! Well they are also concerned about the life of the child. If they are *so* concerned about the life of a embryo this could be a viable solution and alternative to abortion. As for it being unnatural, ask them how much they love plastic. Plastic is very unnatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:53 am
I would donate.
The only problem I see with it is the possibility of the population shooting up due to people using it as birth control.
But I doubt it would be much of a problem since it sounds a lot more inconvenient to the couple than taking a pill or using a condom.
It would probably be really expensive though to fully develop a fetus though, let alone multiple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:56 am
brainnsoup The only problem I see with it is the possibility of the population shooting up due to people using it as birth control. You could add a clause in the contract tat says that any parent or parents that want to have their fetus put in the tubes instead of carrying it to term must pay a fee of some sort. I'm sure acceptations could be made in the cases of economical hardship and what not. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:10 pm
Renkon Root brainnsoup The only problem I see with it is the possibility of the population shooting up due to people using it as birth control. You could add a clause in the contract tat says that any parent or parents that want to have their fetus put in the tubes instead of carrying it to term must pay a fee of some sort. I'm sure acceptations could be made in the cases of economical hardship and what not. ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:20 pm
brainnsoup Renkon Root brainnsoup The only problem I see with it is the possibility of the population shooting up due to people using it as birth control. You could add a clause in the contract tat says that any parent or parents that want to have their fetus put in the tubes instead of carrying it to term must pay a fee of some sort. I'm sure acceptations could be made in the cases of economical hardship and what not. ... could kick your a** !! There would definitely need to be more research done on this but I think most of the issues can be overcome. Concerning the cost, we'd want the cost to the person seeking the procedure to be close to the price of an abortion with financial aid assistance available as Renkon Root suggested. As for post care, it could probably be funded by the the orphanages they would go to after growing to term. The overpopulation thing is going to be the real kink but giving the baby up for adoption is often a proposed solution by anti-abortion advocates for unwanted pregnancies. This would be giving them just what they want and they could use the money and time they would normally spend fighting abortion to caring for those children they so wanted to save.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:33 pm
why arent all those against abortion using condoms?
Last time I checked, the church was against abortion and using BC.
what the hell do they want us to do? suppress our natural instincts? or have tons of kids?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 12:38 pm
MingLeChat what the hell do they want us to do? suppress our natural instincts? or have tons of kids? Precisely.
Remember: "Every sperm is sacred." ... could kick your a** !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
