Gawker attacks life saving technology because abortion

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/g...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A new breakthrough in medical technology could enable prematurely born infants to survive outside of the womb, greatly improving their chances of survival and reducing risks for mothers unable to reach full term. Naturally, some feminists are upset by the prospects it offers and have tied its development to the end of abortion rights.

The technology, which was unveiled in April, allowed for eight premature lambs to spend four weeks of development in an artificial womb called the Biobag. The lambs survived and have been developing normally.

One would think that such a lifesaving technology, which can potentially save the lives of the 30,000 prematurely born babies each year, would be hailed as a net positive. Not so, argue feminists at Gizmodo who claim that the medical advancement “could also complicate—and even jeopardize—the right to an abortion.”

Speaking to Gizmodo, Harvard Law School bioethicist Glenn Cohen said that the constitutional treatment of abortion was pegged to the viability of a fetus’ survival. “This has the potential to really disrupt things, first by asking the question of whether a fetus could be considered ‘viable’ at the time of abortion if you could place it in an artificial womb.”

“It could wind up being that you only have the right to an abortion up until you can put [a fetus] in the artificial womb,” Cohen told Gizmodo. “It’s terrifying.”
Gizmodo’s Kristen V. Brown takes issue with the possibilities offered by the technology, as a fetus can now be transplanted into an artificial womb instead of being aborted. The technology, if it works on humans, could improve the chances of survival for countless prematurely born infants and drastically reduce the risks to mothers with preexisting medical conditions that make it dangerous for them to give birth. In other words, the artificial womb will make medically necessary late term abortions unnecessary.

“Developing technology also tests the rhetoric surrounding the right to choose,” wrote Brown. “A woman’s right to control her own body is a common legal and ethical argument made in favor of abortion. Under that logic, though, the law could simply compel a woman to put her fetus into an external womb, giving her back control of her own body but still forcing her into parenthood.”

Instead, it’s now a question of whether its existence would deprive a woman of her rights to control her body. In reality, most late-term abortions happen due to medical reasons.

The scientists behind the artificial womb intend to create a version that will work for premature babies born as early as 23 weeks, and hope to test it on human babies within the next five years.
Click to expand...
 
  • Horrifying
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Loxiozzz, Elysian and 17 others
Click to expand...
Ehhh, I don't really see the harm here.
It's Gizmodo. These people aren't scientists, hell, they're barely writers, and they're arguing with a Harvard Law bioethicist.
What's the potential for harm? Are research scientists going to say "oh shit guys, the TMZ of tech nerd shit has decided we might be crossing a line here, better pack it in"?
It's shitty that they're attacking it, but scientific advancement will go ahead regardless of the hot take of the week by some English major with a grudge.
It's exciting stuff, cool to learn about it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Loxiozzz, Elysian and 26 others
I owe my life to an incubator, I was so premature I would've died without access to one.

That was 1978, if extending fetal and newborn vitality was going to be some issue they'd try to illegalize abortion on, they would have TRIED it by now, don't ya think?

Here's to the fragile snowflakes of 2017 who can't survive outside their womb of properly-vetted groupthink. Remember, every live baby is an assault on your right to not have one! Somehow.....
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Dynamite Ninja, Scratch This Nut and 35 others
TowinKarz said:
I owe my life to an incubator, I was so premature I would've died without access to one.

That was 1978, if extending fetal and newborn vitality was going to be some issue they'd try to illegalize abortion on, they would have TRIED it by now, don't ya think?

Here's to the fragile snowflakes of 2017 who can't survive outside their womb of properly-vetted groupthink. Remember, every live baby is an assault on your right to not have one! Somehow.....
Click to expand...

Same here. I would rather ban abortion than let parents needlessly loose their children, or have the children suffer from all the problems a premature birth gives.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Scratch This Nut, Doseferatu and 6 others
Gizmodo writers are about as talented and knowledgeable as Cracked writers. Both just rely on people being stupid enough to think that they know what they are talking about.

Since every scientific achievement is sexist ( i.e. shirtgate), racist, ableist ect... You have to wonder if they'd all be more comfortable in the dark ages. At least then there was no science. I don't understand what these people want or what it is that they actually do find free of ists and isms. Because everything triggers them to some degree.

Somebody should run a computer simulation where they take all of the ideals of these backwards thinking "progressive" loons and see how long it takes for Sim USA to collapse under it's own retardation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Sargent PoopyFace, Functional Animal and 3 others
That still wouldn't get the message through to them.

They are knee-jerk idealogues, the kind of person that spends the last five minutes of a collapsing regime shooting everyone they can because clearly the people, not the system, is what failed them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, Marvin and From The Uncanny Valley
“It’s terrifying.”
maxresdefault.jpg

Glenn Cohen's face is terrifying. That's the most punchable-looking individual I've seen in a while.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Elim Garak, Dynamite Ninja, Scratch This Nut and 17 others
If I'm not mistaken, most abortions take place pretty early into the pregnancy, when the fetus is underdeveloped and has no chance of surviving outside the womb- even with an artificial incubator. If I'm not mistaken, it sounds like this artificial womb can only support babies who have reached a certain point of development and are already 6 or so months old. So I don't see how this could impact abortion rights, considering that late-term abortions are a rarity that are usually done for medical reasons. In fact, don't most pro-choice activists stress that when defending abortion?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mrs Paul, Dynamite Ninja, Scratch This Nut and 20 others
Cosmos said:
If I'm not mistaken, most abortions take place pretty early into the pregnancy, when the fetus is underdeveloped and has no chance of surviving outside the womb- even with an artificial incubator. If I'm not mistaken, it sounds like this artificial womb can only support babies who have reached a certain point of development and are already 6 or so months old. So I don't see how this could impact abortion rights, considering that late-term abortions are a rarity that are usually done for medical reasons. In fact, don't most pro-choice activists stress that when defending abortion?
Click to expand...
Yeah, people need to remember that 98% of abortions occur while the "baby" is still a cluster of undifferentiated cells that has no brain, feeling, or precious soul. I don't see that this situation is likely to make late-term abortion a more controversial subject than it already is.
 
  • Agree
  • Dislike
  • Disagree
Reactions: Scratch This Nut, Dynamite Ninja, Elysian and 13 others
From a pro choice perspective, this is a great invention. The end goal would be to let women evict a fetus at any point during pregnancy; to revoke consent to use of their organs if they choose.

(Abortion is an alternative to pregnancy, not an alternative to parenthood)

This advancement removes the barriers to doing that late in a pregnancy. It means that laws based on whether a fetus is viable or not, are no longer meaningful- you can kick someone out right up to the end and it's up to the medical establishment to handle their viability.

It's a secondary option to a human womb.

Giving up parental rights/adoption then becomes the real question, abortion can't be argued as "murder" if it's during a time when this is available. There's no law preventing you from ceding parental rights to an adoptive family.

Amazing stuff, science.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dynamite Ninja, Scratch This Nut, Elysian and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back