Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Viability of premature human infants has hardly improved in the past 40 years.

In 1969, the limit was set at 24 weeks because that was about the earliest an infant could be born and have a reasonable chance of survival with medical intervention.

The medical limit is now about 21 weeks, with heroic measures, and a chance of permanent impairment of the infant.

God didn't want babies being born that early.

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

 Frazzled wrote:

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

Will we also invent artificial morning sickness?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It may be possible to invent an artificial womb, of course.

Now you understand.

Will we also invent artificial morning sickness?

You do know the cure for morning sickness...right?

I would have no problem providing this civic duty to cure morning sickness.

The bioethical considerations of artificial wombs are certainly interesting to discuss as a hypothetical future technology.

They don't yet exist, so altering the current concept of "viable" based upon potential future advancements isn't something I think we ought to do, but it is interesting to think about.

Some definitions of "viable" turn upon whether or not any technological advancements could keep the child alive (with a 50% success rate). Artificial wombs obviously have implications for this. Does this mean that every single fetus becomes "viable?" What if a family that chooses to use an artificial womb decides to terminate at, say, 10 weeks, far before the time when natural viability would occur? Should the artificial womb be treated as different, legally, than a mother's womb?

It's interesting to think about, but for the present day is restrained to the realm of philosophy.

We already have something of an legal/ethical framework in that area from the positions on stem cells, and cryonically preserved gametes and embryos.