And its comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14194422

You know it's the actual science because they use the word "lamb" instead of "baby sheep"

I think this graph tells you everything you need to know. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=baby+sheep%2Cl...

And also hopefully reduce the need for abortion. Women would be able to "donate" the foetus to be raised in one of these bags and then adopted.

(Eventually, I realise this technology is not there yet).

The science fiction author Lois McMaster Bujold has this technology in her "Vorkosigan universe" books, depicted as sufficiently advanced that it is safer for the fetus than natural pregnancy. She presents such technology, should it exist, as a moral imperative for the health and safety of both the mother and the child in wanted pregnancies, as well as an alternative to abortion.

I must praise these books, they're very good!

I;m pro choice and think this tech is great.

All the pro-life people i know that have seen it though think it's a disturbing, godless or unnatural...

I would suspect that's an anomaly with the sample of pro-life people that you know.

I'm pro-life and in the circles where I travel, this is being hailed.

Yeah, take a fetus out of a living being and stick it in a plastic bag to incubate. How could anyone possibly think that's weird or unnatural?

And? "Unnatural" describes our entire existence - living in houses, eating food we raised, wearing clothes, taking medicines.

To be honest, 'nature' is that thing that constantly tries to kill us. I think its hilarious that folks pursue 'natural' foods and lifestyles, thinking its somehow better.

Birds nests and termite mounds. Ants invented farming and animal domestication (and slavery) before humans evolved as a species (certain strains of fungus have gone extinct in nature and only still remain because of their cultivation. Hermit crabs. And a few years ago (can't remember where at the moment) it was shown animals self-medicate when sick by instinctually eating certain plants they would otherwise not consume.

You're not in traffic. You are traffic.

Either nothing is Natural or everything is.

Those are all habits that developed organically over centuries based on our desire to live and lead happy, fulfilling lifestyles.

This is a brand-new procedure that just a couple years ago would be written about in a sci-fi novel. Perhaps you can understand how someone might think it's a little strange.

We have no clue as to how various chemicals released by the mother affect the newborn psychologically. Would probably not be able to predict the effects for over 10-20 years.

I'm worried we might end up with sociopathic kids. It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.

> It's been shown in many animals that the mother does not bond with the newborn without oxytocin release from childbirth.

1. Citation needed.

2. Not relevant to humans unless you are also going to assert that fathers and adopted mothers fail to bond.

I would describe my stance as reluctantly pro-choice. I think anything that reduces the number of abortions is a good thing.

Although if confronted with the two options (abortion, bag fetus), I'm sure pro-lifers would always choose the latter.

You would hope pro-choice people would as well.

How far do we take it though. If they manage to move the tech back to close to conception

Is there an obligation to bag and try to save every single fertilized egg?

That is true. I guess one constraint would be the effectiveness of pregnancy testing i.e. how early can it detect conception?

I'm pro-life, hail this as well.

...because adoption is such a riotous success these days?

...because there are thousands of women who for various reasons cannot have children of their own and would definitely prefer a child created like this rather than adopting a child that potentially comes with a lot of life baggage.

- This yields a child without lots of life baggage? The medical repercussions of gestating in-vitro are not known (and given the complexity of the system, it's all but certain that there will be side-effects). There's a large body of evidence linking in-utero gestation conditions to all manner of pathologies, physical and mental (if such a distinction can even be made). Note that it's not just a question of fetuses being exposed to positively harmful conditions (smoking, cortisol, disease, etc) -- an impoverished sensory environment can be linked to changes in perception at birth.

- Why should the safeguards against child-abuse that are present for contemporary adoption be lifted for cases of adoption ex vitro? What, are abusive parents suddenly going to refrain from abusing in vitro babies?

I don't see how this line of reasoning holds up. It's little more than shoe-horning the present debate into the abortion debate.

And what of what might be best for the child?

Eh, lets consult the oracle? Seriously- one never knows, because its the future- so asking the question is kind of pointless.

We can have a jolly good guess regarding whether people would like to have been carried inside their mother versus gestating inside a plastic bag.

Why would being inside your mother for nine months, which you have no recollection of, be more important than the following years of developing an emotional bond? It's not even about making such children lack the body contact with parents since that only happens after the baby is born.

Anecdotal, but I'd have no feelings about being grown in a bag. I'd be rather happy to know my mother didn't have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy.

I feel that strong feelings towards these things are a product of culture. Some did some good, like saying the pregnancy is a blessing to make it easier for women to pull through. But with developments like the one described in the article, these cultural norms stop being useful and can be safely dropped.

I think most people would vote for being born and having a nice childhood. Also the bag removes the artificial limitations on brain size that is female hip. Finally, i have seen many woman, who would love to have children, but at the same time are so bound to this sick ideal of being thin and eternally beautiful, they "train" away there children.

I think being born from a bag, is preferabl to not being born at all, any time.

This is ridiculous. Your anecdotal stories about a few thin women isn't harming the general population's fecundity, or even those womens'.

Stampeding over the edge cases, so much fun, until the edge cases trample you.

I would imagine 99.999% of the time adoption is better than being dead.

I would imagine the exact opposite.

Shit life vs a (sentient) life that never begins? Sign me up for the latter.

...because raising a child is such an easy process, it would be terrible if you had to start with one with "life baggage" instead of just being totally helpless, completely unable to be reasoned with or in control of it's basic bodily functions?

I know media like to present adoption as a common horror show but what is the success rate for adoption, vs biological parenthood, vs single parent, vs within-family adoption, vs raised by proxy (i.e. nanny and later in life boarding school).

And what exactly is wrong with women choosing to have an abortion? Not every child is adopted. Our planet is grossly overpopulated. Abortions are more humane.

Why don't we wait to see if the child is adopted? They might be a really cute baby. If say, by the age of 3 they aren't adopted, then we abort?

I'm joking, of course. Just wanted to apply some of your cold logic. By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. You are offering an opinion.

A few decades ago, when I used to enjoy wasting more time debating, I always liked to throw in "someday you'll be able to grow a child outside of the womb" to get people think a little more. I'm glad to see we're here.

The pro-life/pro-choice argument is two different polarized groups, who's minds are unlikely to change. Personally, I wouldn't have the debate on HN.

"By the way, our planet isn't overpopulated either. "

What number would it have to reach before you concede it is?

First, tell me the number where the world became overpopulated? 5 billion? 3 billion?

You can calculate a number from the resource (over)usage.

Some will, of course, claim that we consume too much – but at that point, it's a matter of opinion. I call it overpopulation for the current level of technology.

That's right. Overpopulation is a function of technology, etc. More people are coming out of poverty, and according to Bill Gates there will be almost no poor countries by 2035:

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/21/bill-gates-they-will-be-no-po...

If we can't figure out how to generate electricity by means other than coal, for example, we will have a problem. However, technology is increasing rapidly and increasing the quality of life for the majority of people is happening on a large scale.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-middle-class-is-explod...

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/13/middle-c...

Cringe. Here's how this plays out:

I get a knock on the door... "Hello, it's me your long lost child..."

"Wait, what? I thought we aborted you?"

"Nope! Mom secretly put me in a bag and I was raised by Mormons. Would you like me to tell you about Joseph Smith?"

"Oh cool, yeah... this is exactly the outcome I hoped for when I paid for her to get an abortion 20 years ago... come on in!"

The great thing about it is that it's a start. If it even begins to be used regularly to gestate fetuses for 25% of the gestation period, eventually techniques and technology will improve to use it for 30% then 40% and on and on.

Foothold technologies like this generally improve over time.