Amazon.com Widgets

Are motherless births (i.E. Growing a newborn from a lab) a good idea?

Asked by: ramramgeorge
  • This resolves the abortion debate

    If you can grow newborns from a lab then a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant anymore doesn't have to end the life of her unborn child in order to end the pregnancy. Since abortion is a protected right because the woman has a right to bodily autonomy this new technology would mean we can ban abortion without violating her bodily autonomy. While I am pro-choice now because of bodily autonomy I would become pro-life if this technology was available as there would be no more justification for abortion when the woman can have the baby removed and the baby can be kept alive. After removing the baby she should be able to sign papers putting the baby up for adoption before the baby is even born if that is what she wants. Then she would only be responsible for paying for the removal of the baby from her body (just like now), further costs would be picked up by the government or by the adoptive family.

  • It depends on the situation.

    If the newborn is intended to help infertile or gay couples have children and therefore fulfill their filial duty to have offspring, then yes, it is a great idea. Technology can fill this void that is preventing them from satisfying this duty towards their parents and ancestors. With that said, if couples who are perfectly capable of conceiving do this, I do not see any merit in it at all. If the babies are bred for scientific experiment or similar purposes, that is downright immoral.

  • This can solve so many problems

    Think about it: if a gay couple wanted a child; nowadays they would have to wait months and pay thousands to adopt one. With this technology there will no longer be a need for that as it will likley be the cheaper and easier to just grow a child from and egg.

    I find that this will immensly solve the problem with birthrates in developed countries as well. Cureently much of the west has a 1.6 - 2.3 child/women birth rate. Since you need 2.11 children for stagnation; you can simply raise enough children to ensure stagnation. Or growth if you really need it.

    The only problem i see is who will raise these children? Parents are not possible because (as evident of now) many people - enough to create a sub replacement birthrate - dont seem interested in having children. However, if the state raises them then that opens up the door to abuse and ideological indoctrination. Corporations too.

    Of course we could just ditch the whole useage of this to solve birthrates and let migrants take the jobs but that seems to open up many, many problems.

  • Many Issues Could Occur

    The child could face problems throughout its life. Health problems could occur, but social problems will almost definitely happen. The child could get bullied for this, and how would the child, especially when he or she is a small child, explain this to his of her piers? It would be very difficult. On top of it, there are already seven billion people on earth, and in many cases that is proving to be enough to cause problems. In thirty-five years, that number is predicted to rise to ten billion. We don't need more people. It is hard enough to sustain the number we have.

  • It depends on the situation.

    If the newborn is intended to help infertile or gay couples have children and therefore fulfill their filial duty to have offspring, then yes, it is a great idea. Technology can fill this void that is preventing them from satisfying this duty towards their parents and ancestors. With that said, if couples who are perfectly capable of conceiving do this, I do not see any merit in it at all. If the babies are bred for scientific experiment or similar purposes, that is downright immoral.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.