Posted on 04/21/2008 1:06:16 PM PDT by julieee
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A new report indicates artificial reproduction could take place with a capsule inside a woman's body rather than using traditional treatment at a fertility clinic. Pro-life groups are concerned that the "progress" in fertility treatment continues to commodify human life.
The Invocell technique involves the mixing of eggs and sperm in a pill-like container that is placed inside a woman's vagina for three days.
Full Story at http://www.lifenews.com/bio2414.html
How strange.
To me, actually, it makes sense—this is IVF (embryo culture) done not in a test tube in a lab, but right in the woman’s body, which is the proper temp for incubation. . .
I wonder when someone will create an artificial womb? Or you can just rent a womb from a migrant.
Yea, well, if people don't have their own babies, their line of genes die out.
I don’t think I would fit in a capsule that small
Man there sure is a pill for everything these days. What’s next? A pill that will make me rich? Geez.
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a pharmacist...
I want my rib back.
We got a pill for that.
Not you, entirely, just your essence.
I’m sure they do lol.
Each living being's, to itself.
Adoption is an extremely kind gesture, in man and animal, in a functionally cruel world.
Religion may blot out the importance of one's genes to oneself, but no one can deny that the urge to protect it, is the most powerful basic instinct.
Yes, life is nasty.
There already is, but only the rich can afford it... one usually costs more than an arm and a leg.
“One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don’t do anything at all” -Jefferson Airplane
Isn’t this really just another way of sperm “delivery”, time-shifted for optimum conditions? IVF TiVo-style?
Sing along with me: “In the year 2525...”
Yes, I know—but this would make it easier. You just go to your local womb rental center, get a “pill” and insert. 9 months later, out pops the baby and you get your $50K (or whatever).
“Yea, well, if people don’t have their own babies, their line of genes die out.”
First of all, so what?
Second, you can make a case that if a woman can’t have babies, than perhaps their lineage should end.
When a living being does not reproduce, its biological lineage does indeed end. Are you surprised/saddened by the obvious?
As to the first question, it may be trivial to you and me, but reproduction is nature’s choice for biological immortality. Is there a real need to make effort to wonder why reproduction is such a powerful instinct in all living beings? Isn’t it obvious too?
As I mentioned earlier, religion may be able to mask these two natural truths, but they don’t stop being true just because of that.
Did I say that, or did you just go ahead and assume?
My replies on this thread are evidently indicative of my support for technology helping couples conceive.
Their desperation to have a child is not greed- it's fulfilling life's most basic instinct.
“biological lineage does indeed end”
who cares?
Yes, but adopting the American babies is legally challenging and expensive, with a mother who might come back and take it.
And adopting older children within the US is discouraged if you’re not a color match.
If you’re alive today, it’s because all your ancestors cared.
This article looks like invitro fertilization, except INSIDE the mother. Cheaper, maybe safer. Not a bad thing.
I am not against fertility technology. I have a sister who is the result of this.
I made no assumptions.
Do people have children for the purposes of ancestry, or because they want children?
Those who have suppressed these urges successfully, despite being capable of reproducing, have willfully given themselves a Darwin Award.
The ones who have desired, but are unable to reproduce, well, those are the ones with whom life has gotten cruel. Harsh, but true. Adoption may be able to satisfy their innate urges to be a parent, to the offspring of another; the act being the ultimate of possible kindness, but it still does nothing to make untrue the fact that their line of genes die out with them.
So what?? Are you really that out of touch with basic human drives?
The only mark most people can ever hope to make on this world is a genetic legacy, IOW their offspring.
People will do some extreme things to matter even if it only means 'continuing on' through minute traces of one's DNA.
Why do you think most everyone ponders at some point the basic questions of "Why am I here?" or "Does any of this mean anything?"
Because we all want to believe that we are not meaningless.
So of course people want to have offspring, who represent possible greatness, or at least avoidance of our mistakes.
Well since I only have one arm and one leg left (spent the others on gas for my car) I think I’ll have to pass. Bummer for me.
I guess I am out of touch. I don’t desire any of that stuff. I am not looking to make a mark of leave a genetic footprint.
I do not worry about “mattering”, and I won’t use my DNA to matter. And I think people have children because they want to be parents, not for a genetic legacy.
Interesting discussion. Is making me think. I think it is nice that people who were unable to reproduce can now do so.
It doesn’t always come to that, though. I understand that the market price for some of the get-rich-pills is specified simply as “Immortal $oul”. I could not yet find that in the exchange rate table.
Yes you do.
Otherwise you wouldn't post here.
Everyone wants to matter.
Selfish, and mean.
So, we see this person's choice as one of an utter loser, without thinking for once that his decision to do so may have been an alternative to violent suicide, for things that bothered him, which we don't know about- and by avoiding that, his personal victory.
I’m really not that ambitious. I just think it is a fun website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.