Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6441)	2/24/2001 7:53:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Yeah, improved contraception for sure. Maybe some things we haven't even though of yet. Maybe babies will develop entirely outside the woman so it will no longer be "inconvenient" to carry them. I thought of this to but the problem is that I imagine many pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant and would want abortions now would not want to have the baby continuing to live. It might be a minority but I have read something from a woman arguing for an abortion instead of adoption because she couldn't bear knowing that her child is out there somewhere but that she wouldn't raise it. Other women might not want whatever surgery would be necessary to transfer the fetus from their womb to some artificial womb. (The surgery would almost certainly be more involved then an abortion as you would have to keep the child intact). And of course the woman would not want to pay for the possibly very expensive procedure or the maintenance of the child until it is ready to live outside the artificial womb. Perhaps some sort of pre-natal adoption could be arranged. Tim