Why can't there be a way to remove a living fetus from a woman without killing it?

[allogenis96]

Every woman that gets abortion does so because they don't want to mother a child they didn't plan for, abortion though involves killing the human fetus. Out of sentimental reasoning, imagine if the state took tax payer money and funded researchers to come up with a surgical procedure that can remove a living fetus from the womb without killing it, putting said fetus into an appropriately sized tube or container of some kind of liquid with warm water and given sustenance until it becomes a fully grown newborn baby. If this became possible I'd like to know why this would fail? If you want the fetus out and not be a mother why would it matter if the fetus is alive?

[BeMuse]

It's more about biomedical ethics. First, do no harm… Don’t be evil. There is already an enormous amount of work that has been put into the artificial womb in multiple countries. They will likely enter the market somewhere for human trials within the next 5-10 years, but it will start with premature babies that would have likely died if no intervention was taken. Those mothers actually want their kids though and it would be an extreme loss for the parents if a miscarriage occurred. The kids will also be later in gestation, just not fully developed so it will be a shorter less challenging task in the early versions. We already have adoption for mothers that don't want their kids and are not dead set on killing their own children… The bottom line is women that get abortions want their child dead. That is a reflection of their ethics.

In biomedical science, it’s not generally considered ethical to clone humans or to raise humans into the world that aren’t born into a family that wants them. We’re not manufacturing humans in a factory… So to just take the embryo and put it in some warehouse devoid of human connection and birth it onto a sterile manufacturing floor is considered inhuman. That’s dystopian on a level of The Matrix. Without human connection, the kid would likely have many psychological issues and grow up to be a social deviant. If on the other hand you are using technology like a life raft to save a child that is wanted by the family that seems ethically good. You are not only saving a life, you are generally saving three because the parents would have their life torn apart by the loss. The question you have to ask yourself is what are the ethics of a woman that would kill their child and not even consider the feelings of the father. Some people are evil. Some people sacrifice children. Not everyone is morally good.

[BeMuse]

It's an ethical dilemma in medicine. Do you harm the child by killing it, or do you harm the child by raising it in a factory to be detached from the concept of family and community like a toaster oven. Both are bad from an good spirited ethical point of view of do no harm. Either way you would end up doing harm to a human either physical or psychological. A lot of people don’t want to deal with that ethical dilemma and are just hands off on the issue. They turn a blind eye to people that are obviously doing harm and say it’s their choice, even if I personally would not make the same choice… A lot of people in medicine do not want to be involved when it comes to abortions. If there is a willing and able foster family to raise the child then there is an easy solution with an artificial womb and the adopting family, but there will not be enough families that are willing to take on the responsibility to be good parents to a child that is not their own. Thus why being a sexually responsible adult is encouraged and birth control is widely available. Yet we still have an endless line or irresponsible adults that want to kill their children. :/

[jshm2]

There is - artificial wombs have been around for a few years. But they cost millions and the success rate is low. Hence the cost to success ratio is too low for it to be a viable option outside the lab.

But that is only the start of the problem as the social, legal and moral costs come into play after that.

[Agape93]

That would require surgery, and that's invasive and expensive.

[CloudMassacre]

Because there’s more people than ever before and there’ll be massive climate migration over the next 50 years as the equator (approximately 3 billion people) reaches Lethal Wet Bulb Temperature along with receding coastlines and water scarcity

[slatyb]

Who would support those children?

We don't perform elective abortions after 24-, weeks. Before 24-weeks a fetus is not conscious in any way.