Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Is the potential to grow human beings in incubators for 9 months like the baby lamb, something you would fully support? Is this going against your idea of God/Nature? Do you think this innovation would solve a lot of problems or create more of them? Thoughts?
100% against it. Have you ever heard of a term ""The road to hell is paved with good intentions""? I can give you so many examples where people were advertising and pushing something that looks Awesome on paper, something that they claimed would change the world for better and ones people ate the bait, years later it turned out to be a catastrophically Horrific idea, that benefited ONLY people at the very top of human pyramid. The problem is, 99% of population won't be able to afford such treatment (by design), meaning that Again, only top 1% who already at the top, would get their ""Elite Class"" Even Higher. They will be deliberately designing The best, The most strongest, The most smartest, The most handsome/beautiful boys (men when they grow up) and girls (women when they grow up) that would be sitting at the Very Top tear of humanity (Hollywood, politics, corporations, influencers, music industry etc...) With this technology Top 1% will become permanent gate keepers of ALL the wealth, ALL the power and ALL the fame, while they be abusing and using The rest of 99% of humanity for their pleasure and entertainment for ages to come.
Other than the just disturbing implications of this, I am 100% on board with what you've said. I can't remember the movie, but it starred Matt Damon/Jodie Foster, where the elite left the planet and were raising their babies and created their own world in space or something and left everyone else behind on the rotting earth to fend for themselves. I think about this any time anyone asks, if I think I'll go to Mars one day. Look at who's going on these rockets now...it's only the elite. Who do you think the government has plans to save in bunkers and such if an asteroid or whatever hits, it's not you making less than 6 million or not having made a massive health/technological contribution to the planet. They won't even bother telling you it's coming. I could talk on about genetically engineering "perfect" children, and the government using so called "health chips," to deny you jobs, or status, or to create segments of society where certain people aren't' allowed, but you sound like you get it so....great comment.
Ohh I know exactly what you mean and as always before they do something crazy, they have to get consent from majority of non-thinking population with their fancy pictures and heavenly promises. So when people finally wake up (which is always, Always way waaay too late) they can point finger at us and blame us, because no abusive person ever admits that it is they who are abusive, in fact they claim that they are the actual victim and people who they hurting are their true abusers (reverse psychology)
I think it would be terrible for the child and by extension for the future of the human race. It think it would be traumatizing. I have to believe that from the moment of conception until the baby exits the mother's body is perhaps the most important formative period of their life where their entire body and brain develop the senses and spirit that will shape them for the rest of their lives. To be surrounded, protected and nurtured by their mother's womb has to be a critical part of their development. Take that away and replace it with a machine and I think it would be dehumanizing for not only the child but for the entire human race.
The problem with medical science is there has to an experimental phase before something can become a standard. With organ transplants the idea was the benefit of living was better than dying by not having the organ such as with heart transplant. At this point could we prove the embryo would die or at least not be born to take such a risk? Medical scientist don’t know how to reimplant an embryo such as the case with an ectopic pregnancy as one example. So along with concerns that others have mentioned I have my doubts that it’s a good idea.
this just seems like it goes against nature but then again so does the society we live in now. I’m against it on the notion that it will not benefit me unless my baby is premature and even then, the hospitals already have equipment in place to help. This machine is nonsense.
The LGBTQ community might benefit from paying big pharma to make a baby for them with this dome.
Opinion
21Opinion
Yes. The baby would develop physically but without a mother there would be so much lost. A mother might sing to her baby, talk to her baby, rock in a chair while pregnant… all this would be lost with a test tube baby. These are things that give an unborn baby comfort and a sense of love. A new born can recognize he mothers voice and that voice gives the new born comfort.
Did you not see the dad talking to the fetus in the video...they've thought of that.
I’m sorry… science cannot create a better mother. I talked to my children when in their mothers belly they didn’t recognize me… it’s constant mom talking, singing, humming with the rocking motion of movement plus a heart beat all combined in a package called mom
Once again… I scientist cannot create a better mom.
This is totally against mother nature. I do not support this. A fetus learns so much from its time in gestation, emotions, it's mother heart beat, familiar sounds etc. Babies need love, nurturing, comfort how can a machine do this? We aren't robots. Babies come naturally or not at all.
If the baby doesn't have a mother he or she may just have to learn to do with out it. Your right thou its hard to see how this would effect a human with a far more complex brain in need of all of theses thing.
But not at all is a very cruel standard to hold babies to. We are not spartans.
Read dune.. It reminds me too much of Axlotl Tanks... Creepy. 100% against it. Read the following, it gives a summary of it.
https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Axlotl_Tank
My baby will grow in my stomach not in some weird lab mashine. That's not natrual at all.. and can not be healthy. I will do it God's way.
Beautiful answer 👍🏻
@TonyMetal___86 ☺️👍🏻
I'm not for this lab baby thing, but what if you were infertile? I think this is one of their missions to be able to give those infertile moms/couples the opportunity to be able to be a first hand part of seeing their baby grow without having to rely on someone else or to have to adopt as an only option to raising a baby. Would you legally oppose anyone doing this, or other people can do whatever they want?
I'm not gonna Play God. But I would never do it and I would advice anyone not to do it. But people have free will.
I am sure your baby will greatly appreciate having his/her mother for those first 9 months.
I would be for it. I am scared of giving birth because the whole experience is full of nausea and pain but birth specifically is terrifying. Giving birth also makes a woman age faster which is horrible, I wish women wouldn't give birth but rather just simply impregnate a man and be done with it. But sadly that is not possible same like that machine will be used for humans. Surrogates are hella expencive so better prepare ourselves for the worst part of our life
If you don't give birth as your body is designed you will likely have other more serous issues.
Your body is designed to give birth and indeed needs the experience to develop naturally.
I'm good with my small tits. I don't need to be preggo cuz of that. Its normal for a woman to not give birth, no serious effects from not giving birth
This reminds me of the show KyleXY. A cloned boy was grown in an incubator for about 15 years and came out with all of these mental superpowers and was a genius because his brain was so developed.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/nulliparous#health-impact
Nature is pretty cruel.
They did in the the sci-fi movie "I Am Mother". To be fair, if the resulting people turn out as pretty as Clara Rugaard then it is worth considering.
I think it has potential to be a great option for those who cannot carry themselves and want to.
Wow that’s crazy. I’m sure some women would appreciate it though. Not everyone likes being pregnant and carrying a baby for months.
I've had some family members that have had terrible pregnancies to the point where they had to be put on bed rest. Pregnancy can be a nightmare but not sure I'm ready to drink this level of Kool-Aid just yet in lab babies.
Depends. In a poluted world, it would be beneficial for our survival as species; but those babies would not be healthy as a naturally formed baby.
Sounds super dystopian. I could foresee a future where everyone is sterilized and only a select few are permitted to reproduce.
That's the plan
@jamesgoldman, If I was an evil person with nearly unlimited resources and influence I would first need to program the population through social and media conditioning. Let them watch crazy dystopian movies under the assumption that things could never get that bad. Run my own half baked “conspiracy theories” and publicize those so people associate Conspiracy Theories with stupid nonsense. Next I would reduce the population to manageable levels through disease, sterilization through drugs, preferably willingly, horrible diets that result in obesity, early death and poor quality of life, demonize the family unit and healthy relationships with heavy propaganda through government funded programs and schools. Global disarmament would need to be accomplished and so would condensing the remaining people into large cities and poverty. Let crime run rampant until the population begs for an authoritarian solution, which I would humbly give them.
Good thing that’s just a silly conspiracy.
Nail. On. The. Head. Remember old Darwin and the ideas of the perfect human being. Hitler with his idea of the Master Superior Race (which ironically looked nothing like him, go fig), remember not too long ago, the idea of genetically being able to manufacture your child's looks and potentially weed out any genetic disease. There will be a lot of fighting on the way to this ultimate conclusion, but put out some propaganda about over population, lack of resources, crime rates rising, a world where disease no longer is a problem, pay off the poor people for their silence because the rich elites will already be on board with this, and you've got a green light.
Why pay the poor when you can just cull the majority
I am against it. Soon they will be disposable people as they are just grown with minimum effort. Its sad and dehumanizing but it will happen.
Against. I wouldn’t want a soulless child in my family. My family wouldn’t want me to have a soulless child.
I think the old fashioned way would be best.
pers would be for. if in the future we can have healthy babies without ever getting pregnant that would super cool
Those 9-months are crucial for bonding with your child. This is pretty much like pre-ordering Call of Duty and picking it up from GameStop….. and then having to feed and change its diapers every hour.
I don’t want kids myself. But, let’s say I do, this is a lot better than giving birth.
Do you know if you don't give birth your risking numerous other serous medical problems developing. Your body evolved to go thou pregnancy and give birth, indeed you will be the very first woman in your family line ever to not go thou this process.
@sasha0426
If you didn't care what other people said you wouldn't mention it here.
FYI: I have no idea whom you are, don't care, and even if I did I'm already married with children.
@sasha0426
Because I come to forms like this to Ask & Answer questions as I enjoy the intellectual challenge and sharing information. I would have presumed you were here for the same reason, but apparently you like giving information but get offended if anyone tries to talk about it.
@sasha0426
If she says it to me or on a public form like this, she clearly is asking to talk about it. Otherwise she would keep her own month shut as everyone else does about the things they don't want to talk about.
This is a Public discussion form, and that is the topic of the discussion.
@sasha0426
I do get the impression we are going in circles now as I already told you why I replied. With the beleive you were inviting conversation by stating publicly a position on such a forum rather than keeping it to yourself as a normal person would should they not wish to discuss it.
Given that you are as original deduced actually offended by such conversation, and stating your position publicly for other, unknown to me reasons. I don't know why we are still talking about talking...
I am not trying to offend you I was trying to have a rational discussion which apparently your not interested in.
@monorprise I thought you were full of shit at first. But god damn, there is a connection apparently.
www.health.com/.../reproductive-history-health-risks
@love_conquers_lust exactly why I don’t want kids. I already had issues with my thyroid. I refuse to go down that road. Plus, I’m not mentally fit to raise kids anyway.
@sasha0426 There’s also some risks WITH having kids. They don’t attempt to identify underlying causes in that article. I do know that cancers risk, or just risk in general, involves frequency and severity. So, for ovarian cancer or or uteral cancer, it related both to the number of exposed cells, size of thise cells, and source of exposure. Anything that causes a malignant mutation in DNA. We’re all at risk for that, all the time. That’s why they want a cure for it so badly. It’s not just breast, ovarian, uteral, testicular, whatever. It’s all of them.
Like, obesity is a general increased cancer risk because of increased surface area exposure to radiation sources, number of cells, intensity of radiation sources, or mutations during cellular meiosis or mitosis. They millennials are at the highest risk of cancer than any generation, because we’re the fattest at the highest rate per capita, not my personal problem but still. Tall guys, is my problem, technically have an increased cancer risk because of height. This is why I call girls inadvertently cruel sometimes.
Also, consider that evolution is driven by mutation. Both to defend against and sometimes resulting in beneficial ones. Pike carcinomas and benigns tumors. When I think about it like that and how complex it is, it’s not really something to be feared, it’s something that needs understanding. That’s why genetic sequencing is so hot right now and why tgere is so much genetic research. People want to control their own “goo that comprises yoo”.
I hate, I hate not being able to edit.
If that’s the only way you can have a child with then I see no problem. How is it any different than in vitro fertilization and a surrogate uterus?
100% against it. It's just not natural and it will be some sort of defects in the baby I feel.
I don’t have a child that needs that so I’m against it
I don't have anything against it but i prefer it the natural way, in a woman's womb!
I wouldn’t be against it if it had good clinical trials.
@Bobbybopeep
If they successfully did this with animals, then the biggest concerns with humans would be long term as a result of the Nero-effect of not developing in the presence of a mother, hearing everything she hears and feeling everything she feels.
This could have long term consequence for the babies entire life. So I would recommend waiting until a statistically relevant number of people have gone thou their entire life.
@monorprise eh. No risk no rari. Right?
If I waited until then it wouldn’t happen in my lifetime. I would say a comfortable trial would just to see developments up to 16 in comparison. That seems fine. I would even be up to human trial up to 10 years old
So the kid can be born with a bunch of problems and potentially die? Nah.
This can already happen, and does happen in wombs across the world. Pretty sure part of the goal of this is to weed those out and create genetically superior children.
This has been happening for years. They can 3D print them too.
playing God isn't a good idea
Doctors already do this. It's too late to make statements like this because we are so far beyond this as a society now and we're continuing to let it happen nearly unchecked in the name of technology and science....
Does that mean that men don't need women?
Well, I was thinking that
For. No more excuse for abortive women.
Incubator and parentator
against
Against.
