IVF CEO says conceiving naturally is for those with 'genetic privilege'



The CEO of an in vitro fertilization company says sex is for fun and IVF is for conceiving babies.

Noor Siddiqui is the founder of Orchid, a company that screens embryos for those using IVF services and looks for possible genetic defects and disease.

Siddiqui recently equated the idea of using IVF screening to providing the maximum amount of love to a child, meaning that if parents choose not to use IVF, they are subjecting their offspring to untold risks.

'I didn't want to quote that to you because I thought it was so ridiculous, but go on.'

Siddiqui gave an interview to the New York Times podcast "Interesting Times with Ross Douthat," where the host saved his best question for last. After reciting a poem that describes the magic of a man and woman creating life, Douthat asked Siddiqui about the idea that she wants to take that magic away.

"You're imagining a future where that just goes away. And I'm wondering if you think anything would actually be lost if that goes away," Douthat asked.

In response, Siddiqui recalled her own quote: "Sex is for fun; Orchid and embryo screening is for babies."

Douthat immediately replied, "I didn't want to quote that to you because I thought it was so ridiculous, but go on."

The CEO claimed that because most sexual encounters do not result in a pregnancy, "it's actually not so strange of a concept" that IVF becomes the predominant way to conceive.

"But when you get a baby, most people get it from having sex," Douthat argued. "It is linked inextricably to having sex with your spouse. And you are saying it's time to sever that for the sake, I concede, of potential medical benefits."

While one might consider that Siddiqui is simply providing a service to those who cannot conceive naturally, the CEO made it clear that she believes those who do not use IVF are rolling the dice on their child's health.

RELATED: Lila Rosa challenges Christian support for IVF, debunks one of the most common arguments

"I think that if you have enormous genetic privilege and, for you to roll the dice and to get a outcome that isn't going to lead to disease is in the cards for you, then of course, go ahead and roll the dice," Siddiqui told the host.

The 29-year-old claimed "the vast majority of parents" will not want to "roll the dice," before stating that IVF screenings are actually the highest form of love a parent can give a child.

Parents are "going to see it as taking the maximum amount of care, the maximum amount of love, in the same way that they plan their nursery plan, their home plan, their preschool," she said.

Siddiqui then turned in vitro around on naturally conceiving parents and said it would be "denigrating and dismissive" to IVF parents to say that babies conceived through IVF are somehow "inferior to babies that are made the old-fashioned way."

RELATED: Surrogacy: Inside the industry that rents women’s bodies

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey took a hard stance on the issue and said embryo screening is not a moral or ethical option.

"When technology takes us from what's natural to what's possible, we have the obligation to ask: But is it moral? Is it ethical? Is it biblical?" Stuckey told Blaze News. "The answer here is: no, no, and no. Embryos are human, and like all humans they have an inherent right to life."

Siddiqui said in a 2024 interview with Mercury that she has "always known" that she wanted to conceive through IVF, despite neither her nor her husband having any fertility issues.

In the interview, she argued it was actually "unethical" to stigmatize the embryo screenings and argued it is not "playing God" to get a cast for a broken leg or to have chemotherapy for cancer. Therefore, she is not interrupting "God's plan" with her services.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Birth is the only ‘gender reveal’ you need



There are no surprises anymore.

In our day and age, we seem focused on making our lives as predictable as possible.

Every single day for nine months, I wondered who it was.

We can flatten the roller coaster otherwise known as life. We can know the weather tomorrow or the day after. We can know what’s going to kill us with blood tests, scans involving complex probabilities, and a catalog of family history. Someday soon we might even be able to know just exactly how many years we have left with 99.9% accuracy.

Of course, it’s easier to plan that way. And I’m sure we’d all agree one of the major benefits of technology is that it often lets us eliminate unpleasant surprises: Nobody ever wished for a more “interesting” medical checkup or airplane flight.

Suprised by joy

The danger is that in our eagerness for certainty and control, we end up eliminating the good surprises as well. Surprises that make you smile, rather than shudder: opening a thoughtfully wrapped gift, finding out you got the promotion, learning that a girl you’ve been thinking about has been thinking about you too.

Remember that youthful feeling? It’s youthful because it takes a certain optimism and playfulness to embrace surprise — especially when it would be easier to just cut to the chase.

The greatest, most meaningful surprise I’ve experienced has been as a new father.

The waiting game

You wait nine long months, planning for the future as best you can. Then one day you rush to the hospital. More waiting as your wife goes through labor, as you do whatever you can — if anything — to help her through it.

Then, in one incredible moment, you find out if you have a son or a daughter. There’s nothing like that surprise.

Today, not many “wait to find out,” as we say. Most parents are anxious to know if it’s a boy or a girl, so as soon as they are able to do the test and find out, they do the test and find out.

I get it. I really do. It’s the most exciting thing in the world knowing that you are going to be a parent, and you just want to know if it’s a boy or a girl. Who is that little person growing inside?

It’s hard to wait all that time, refusing to know when you could so very easily know. All you have to do is call your doctor, and in a few seconds he can tell you.

That way you can buy the right clothes and paint the nursery the right color. And honestly, that little moment on the phone is its own little surprise.

RELATED: Baby wars: Trump voter birth rate outpacing Democrat voters in record numbers

Photos by Paul Hennessy/Anadolu via Getty Images, Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Mystery meet

But waiting is better. It really is. We always wait with our kids, and I have to say that nothing in life compares to that one incredible moment. It’s when they arrive. When they leave the protected world of their mother’s womb and join us in ours.

We see them for the first time, in flesh and blood, and we know who they are, or at least one thing about who they are. “It’s a girl!” Or, “It’s a boy!”

Waiting was hardest with our first. There was already so much we were excited about, anxious about, confused about, and generally worried about, that holding off and not learning whether or not we were having a boy or a girl was pretty tough.

Every single day for nine months, I wondered who it was. But I waited and only found out I had a son, in one heart-shaking breath, two seconds before I held him.

God knows

With our second, it was easier. We thought it was going to be a boy. Our first was a boy, it was all we knew, and for some reason we just swore it was going to be the same. We had a feeling.

We felt wrong; it wasn’t a boy, and learning that it wasn’t early one November morning after our car broke down on the way to the hospital was a shock no smaller than that of a few years prior when we found out we had a son.

It’s the waiting and knowing that the answer is known, but not by you. Knowing that someone is in there — and we don’t know if it’s a boy or a girl, but we are going to know soon — is a nine-month tease unlike anything else we experience.

It’s a tension that builds, a question that keeps being asked. And then, finally, it’s answered in one euphoric moment and no matter the answer, it’s a good one, and you just can’t believe it.

The greatest surprise in life is the surprise of life. Babies — they are life. New, beautiful, fresh, pure, innocent life. They are our future. In reality and symbol. And so we wait all those months, and when finally we have an answer to our question, we hold them and look at their little watery eyes and ask them quietly, knowing that they can’t possibly respond, “Who are you going to be?”

There are still surprises left in life.

American fertility rate hits all-time low as Dems clamor for foreign replacements



A study published last year in the Lancet revealed that fertility rates have declined in all countries and territories since 1950 and that "human civilization is rapidly converging on a sustained low-fertility reality."

The fertility rate references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime if she were to experience the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

In 1950, the global fertility rate was 4.84. In 2021, it was 2.23. By the end of this century, it is expected to drop to 1.59 globally — a rate that Britain, Europe, and a number of Asian countries such as South Korea have long been well below.

This trend is catastrophic, especially for those hoping to bequeath their nations to native-born persons as opposed to imported multitudes and for those keen more broadly to stave off a global population collapse. After all, the fertility rate necessary for a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without requiring replacement by foreign nationals is 2.1.

The United States set a fertility record last year — in the wrong direction.

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal that U.S. fertility rates dropped to an all-time low in 2024, with 1.599 children being born per woman. By way of comparison, the latest reported fertility rates in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, and China are 1.5, 1.44, 1.26, and 1.01, respectively.

The data released on Thursday indicates that birth rates — the number of births per 1,000 females — dropped for women aged 15-34 between 2023 and 2024 while rising for women aged 40-44, signaling that some women are delaying having kids.

'The number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024.'

RELATED: Baby wars: Trump voter birth rate outpacing Democrat voters in record numbers

TanyaJoy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

"U.S. birth certificate data show that, from 2023 to 2024, the number of births increased by 1%, while the [general fertility rate] declined 1%," the CDC stated. "From 2007 (the most recent high) to 2023, the number of births has declined 16%; the GFR is down 22% from 2007 to 2024."

Last year, there were only 3.62 million births registered in the United States — 429,880 fewer births than reported in the U.S. in 2000 and 370,452 fewer births than in 2010, and only 1.5 million more than the known number of illegal aliens who stole over the southern border into the homeland last year.

The U.S. has been on a downward trend for centuries, interrupted only by the mid-20th-century baby boom which saw a fertility rate of 3.7 at its zenith.

The new record was set under the Biden administration, which championed the slaughter of the unborn and the effective sterilization of vulnerable populations while enabling millions of foreign nationals to steal into the country — a demographic substitution that one Democrat referred to as a "replenishment" of the population and critics have long referred to as the "great replacement."

The Trump administration has taken a different tack, not only protecting children from sterilization at the hands of gender ideologues and tackling chemicals linked to infertility, but promoting pro-natalist and pro-family policies.

Vice President JD Vance said in his address to pro-life advocates at the 52nd annual March of Life in January, "I want more babies in the United States of America; I want more happy children in our country; and I want beautiful young men and young women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them."

RELATED: Netflix rebooting 'Captain Planet' to push pagan climate propaganda on new generation of kids

ullstein bild via Getty Images

With this aim, the Trump administration got Trump accounts — the baby bonus program that has the federal government contribute $1,000 to each qualifying child after the birth — passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and has taken steps to reduce the cost of in vitro fertilization.

'They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth.'

Such policy efforts, the impact of which are not immediately clear but have not produced great results abroad, have enraged the likes of failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said earlier this year of conservatives' supposed plan for America: "It's all in there. Return to the family, the nuclear family, return to being a Christian nation, return to, you know, producing a lot of children."

"[It's] sort of odd because the people who produce the most children in our country are immigrants, and they want to deport them," Clinton added.

Clinton is hardly the only Democrat who figures that immigration is the answer to low American birth rates.

Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, suggested while stumping for Kamala Harris last year that "America is not having enough babies to keep our populations up, so we need immigrants that have been vetted to do work."

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) said in 2022 that the answer to declining birth rates was amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens.

"We're short of workers; we have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to," Schumer said. "The only way we're going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants — the Dreamers and all of them — 'cause our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here."

Elon Musk, among those who have raised the alarm about the risk of population collapse, claimed last year in an interview with Tucker Carlson that the "civilizational suicide" under way in the West was caused in part by climate alarmism.

"The environmental movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti-human," Musk told Tucker Carlson in an interview. "They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth — that earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here."

Morgan Stanley analysts told investors in 2021 that the "movement to not have children owing to fears over climate change is growing and impacting fertility rates quicker than any preceding trend in the field of fertility decline."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Self-evident truths aren’t so self-evident any more



In preparation for a recent doctor's appointment, I had to go online and complete a patient intake form. One of the questions asked for the patient's sex. In the past, I was given two choices — without necessary clarification. On this form, which is apparently standard these days, I saw this:

MALE
FEMALE
(Sex Assigned at Birth)

This kind of lunacy has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, ostensibly in the name of something called "safetyism" (i.e., to err on the side of not hurting anyone's delicate feelings).

God’s plan for the world is self-evident, and it requires us to put on our work boots and be His hands and feet.

America’s founders, perhaps inadvertently, caught on to this whole idea of “that which is obvious” when composing the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Back in their day, everyone was on board with certain statements — for example, “All men are created equal.”

Our founders were merely stating the facts, and they were asking men and women of good will to sign on — along with the 56 representatives of the 13 original colonies who put their “official” John Hancocks on the document. These men, along with every patriot living in America at the time, pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor,” putting their blood and treasure on the line in the unknown and dangerous fight ahead.

Yet nearly 250 years later, many Americans can’t even perceive these truths, let alone fight for them.

How did this change?

Could it be that failing to believe in nature and nature's God — another of these self-evident truths of yesteryear — has removed any common basis by which truth can be self-evident? If you no longer believe in objective truth — or the God who defines it — then you’re free to invent your own reality, your own “truth,” and your own “gods.”

This shift helps explain how a baby in the womb can be dismissed as a mere “blob of tissue” and terminated at any point in pregnancy — even after birth in some places. It’s how a grown man can claim to be a woman, compete against girls in sports, and expect the rest of us to cheer him on as if biology had nothing to say about it.

It might also explain why many will champion open borders and still say they are good citizens of America. Never mind that a nation without borders is no nation at all — another self-evident truth.

Christians have a unique responsibility in this cultural moment. Like Queen Esther, we were “born for such a time as this.” We are not meant to sit this one out.

Unfortunately, some Christians sit on the sidelines, arguing that getting involved culturally or politically will “spoil their witness,” that they have been put on this Earth just to “preach the gospel.”

RELATED: Embodied truth: God's timeless design silences woke gender delusion

F. Boettcher/ZU_09 via Getty Images

And some among the “faithful” who have unashamedly joined the prevailing winds of an off-course culture are quick to point to passages like “judge not lest you be judged” to show that making waves in culture is un-Christian.

However, those who adopt this line of thinking are completely oblivious to what is happening out in the open and therefore act with political immaturity. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, beckons believers to get involved in their world. They have to get their hands dirty and their hair messy in the righteous fight that encourages and supports building God’s kingdom on Earth.

God’s plan for the world is self-evident, and it requires us to put on our work boots and be His hands and feet.

This is the “mission” that we were “assigned at birth.”

Editor's note: A version of this article appeared originally at American Thinker.

Trump And Vance Should Immediately Push A Populist, Family-Friendly Agenda

Trump and Vance need to make dramatic populist moves now while GOP voters' appetite for economic libertarianism has dwindled.

Deliver us from the 'natural birth' fallacy



What is the opposite of “natural?”

The obvious answer is “artificial.” The obvious answer is not the correct one.

I worry that the rhetoric around 'natural birth' has gone too far by neglecting the question of prudence, the possibility of good doctors, and the reality of the dangers of childbirth.

“Artificial” come from the Latin artificialis/artificium: "handicraft." It is defined by that which is made or produced by human beings. “Art,” as expression through a medium, shares the same etymology.

Art and nature

I recently attended a lecture by Oxford philosopher Dr. Jan Bentz entitled “Objective Beauty in a Subjective World: Introduction to the Philosophical Question of Beauty.” Bentz began with the same question but argued in favor of the classical worldview — held by Plato, Aristotle, and later Aquinas — that art, properly understood, is a continuation of nature, rather than its opposition. Nature, to the ancients, was not the wilderness per se, but God’s imagination: logos. So, Dr. Bentz argues, the opposite of nature is in fact the opposite of logos: It is chaos.

Good art, he went on to say, corresponds to nature by reflecting its material and spiritual reality. Beautiful art must have three components: integritas (wholeness), consonantia (proportion), and claritas (clarity). By these standards, we can judge beauty.

Good art is not capricious or random in its execution, as we so often see in modern art galleries. Truly good artists must be trained (brought out of chaos through order) to imitate nature through their chosen media. Furthermore, good artists are made better by interdisciplinary study. The art forms, in the classical worldview, are not discrete mechanisms of autonomous expression but varied modes with a unified purpose: discovering and articulating truth.

Just prior to the lecture, I’d been chatting with my girlfriends about one conflict in the ongoing mommy wars: “natural” birth versus medically assisted birth, which is coded in the discourse as “unnatural” or artificial. A dear friend has just been through a very difficult experience: an early cesarean section after placenta previa followed by several days in the NICU with her little warrior.

False dichotomy

It struck me during the lecture that perhaps the home-birth vs. hospital debate is mired in the same false dichotomy as the modern art world, which emphasizes non-relational autonomy and prioritizes ideas over technique.

Many home-birth advocates imagine that any form of medical intervention necessarily disrupts the “natural” process of birth, which requires only instinct to facilitate.

But if we consider medicine as an art form, as it was for Hippocrates, then the practice itself is not “unnatural” but rather a continuation of nature, as evidenced by the original Hippocratic oath.

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master’s children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.
With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child. Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.
I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.
Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.
Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast. If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate!

If medicine is so practiced, with reverence for the body and nature, and the determination to restore it to wholeness in proportion to whatever condition it presents with clarity, then it is indeed the art of medicine and is not only not unnatural, but a beautiful cooperation with nature. The act of helping other people is arguably the most natural part of the human experience, in the sense that God created us for one another, to live in harmony and cooperate with His will in community.

Something less than art

Growing skepticism toward the medical community, however, has been earned. I gave birth to all my children at home with an excellent team of midwives. I began my journey as a home-birth mom during 2020, when nurses, doctors, and hospital administrators were behaving in such a way as to inspire distrust, peddling falsehoods about the COVID vaccines, making care inaccessible and inconvenient, and violating HIPAA as a matter of course.

In obstetrics specifically, the cause for mistrust goes back farther. The standardization of abortion — the willful destruction of human life — made the art of medicine something less than art, because such an act fundamentally violates nature. The “cascade of interventions,” as well as the administration of medications with financial gain in mind, is also frequently cited by home-birth or free-birth advocates as a reason they avoid hospitals. Many of us know women who have had terrible outcomes because of medical abuse or neglect. This represents, in many cases, a failure to respond proportionally to the patient and an essentially hubristic approach that too frequently results in more damage than necessary.

A good doctor is hard to find. Still, I worry that the rhetoric around “natural birth” has gone too far by neglecting the question of prudence, the possibility of good doctors, and the reality of the dangers of childbirth. The hubristic, radical autonomy implicit to the exponents of the “free birth” movement is not a proper “return to nature,” as they have branded themselves, but a fetishization of chaos made plausible by the betrayals of modern medicine. Ironically, this is a true betrayal of nature, despite the crunchy exterior.

Perhaps the conflict is necessary to bring to light the shortcomings of both sides and to help women make prudential decisions about where to give birth. I fear that the highly politicized battles, one-upsmanship, and snide condescension on both sides may encourage the opposite. Either way, I think the question of art adds a new dimension to the discussion that might help.

At The Heart Of Kate Cox’s Abortion Lawsuit Is A Disrespect For Texas Voters

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-19-at-6.37.42 AM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Screenshot-2023-12-19-at-6.37.42%5Cu202fAM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]Although her baby has a small chance at survival, the people of Texas voted to protect all children, even those with tragic diagnoses.

By Pretending Surrogacy Is A Right, Adults Deny The Rights Of Children

The reproductive industry commodifies and destroys embryonic human beings while denying children the natural right to a mother and father.
My VBAC Birth Story | Ep 903
play icon

My VBAC Birth Story | Ep 903

US regulators may soon approve human trials of artificial wombs



Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are convening Tuesday and Wednesday for closed-door meetings to discuss the prospect of approving artificial wombs for use in human trials. The FDA's Pediatric Advisory Committee will chiefly address what kind of data scientists will have to produce in the trials and what sort of regulations may be needed.

The unnatural process by which a creature is grown inside a fluid-filled pod, as opposed to inside a symbiotic mother, has been pitched by companies like Vitara Biomedical as a means of increasing survival and improving outcomes for premature babies.

While some scientists are excited by the prospect of potentially helping struggling babies, critics have noted the technology will inevitably result in legal and ethical quandaries.

Nevertheless, Nature reported that researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia — a hospital that apparently offers medical sex-change interventions to children as young as 8 — are ready to move on from performing artificial womb experiments involving lambs. The lamb CHOP researchers are specifically seeking approval for the first human clinical trials of their extra-uterine environment for newborn development, or EXTEND.

This early technology would not yet entirely eliminate the mother from the equation. Rather than growing a human being from conception to birth, as was horrifyingly depicted in the science fiction film "The Matrix," the CHOP researchers "hope that simulating some elements of a natural womb will increase survival and improve outcomes for extremely premature babies. In humans, that's anything earlier than 28 weeks of gestation — less than 70% of the way to full term, which is typically between 37 and 40 weeks," according to Nature.

Bloomberg reported that premature lambs kept inside the fake womb for up to four weeks were able to develop normally.

Scientists at the University of Toronto executed similar experiments but instead on fetal pigs, having concluded that "there are several questions that remain with regards to the feasibility of translating [fetal sheep] results to human subjects."

Alan Flake, a fetal surgeon at CHOP who has taken the lead on the effort to dehumanize pregnancy, predicted in a 2017 video, "If it’s as successful as we think it can be, ultimately, the majority of pregnancies that are predicted at-risk for extreme prematurity would be delivered early onto our system rather than being delivered premature onto a ventilator."

Recreating the Womb: New Hope for Premature Babiesyoutu.be

A number of CHOP researchers have since joined Vitara Biomedical, a startup that has raised $100 million to develop EXTEND, thanks in large part to First Spark Ventures, a venture capital firm co-founded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

To transition a baby from its mother to the pod, doctors would perform a C-section, albeit of a more complicated variety.

To ensure the baby remains in a "fetus-like state," such that the digestive system does not activate and fluid doesn't drain from its lungs, the surgeons must jab tubes into the baby's umbilical blood vessels then immediately dunk it into a so-called "biobag" filled with a sterile fluid that mimics that found in a real amniotic sack.

The tubes that had been inserted into the baby's umbilical blood vessels would provide it with nutrition, while a so-called membrane oxygenator would provide the baby with oxygen.

George Mychaliska, a pediatric fetal surgeon and researcher at the University of Michigan, told Bloomberg, "It makes sense that if you recreate the fetal environment, babies’ survival rate will increase and, hopefully, their long-term morbidities or health consequences will be diminished."

Nature indicated that there may be implications for abortion and its legality, particularly since fake wombs might make it such that fetal viability extends far earlier than currently recognized.

Earlier this year, pro-abortion radicals noted in Wired that while so-called ectogenesis would "enable people with wombs to reproduce as easily as cisgender men do: without risks to their physical health, their economic safety, or their bodily autonomy," the technology "could significantly weaken abortion policies worldwide."

The article's authors, Rosalind Moran and Jolie Zhou, bemoaned the possibility that without recourse to the "my body, my choice," argument, it may no longer be socially acceptable or legal for women to slaughter their unborn babies.

"Successful ectogenesis would render the fetus viable at a very early stage, possibly even from conception. If ectogenesis—even partial ectogenesis—becomes available, it would then be possible for an unwanted fetus to be transferred into an artificial womb to continue developing without harming a woman’s bodily autonomy, depending on how the fetus is removed," the two pro-abortion radicals wrote. "In this way, women would be able to end their pregnancy without resorting to traditional abortion. Given this option, if a woman chooses traditional abortion regardless, the abortion will appear more like an intentional killing."

Just as the new technology might prove lifesaving, to Zhou and Moran's dismay, it could alternatively expose the unborn grown in scientists' glorified Ziploc bags to various abuses on account of inevitable legal loopholes.

Chloe Romanis, a biolawyer at Durham Law School in the United Kingdom, told Nature that the babies grown in the fake wombs will not be fetuses in the conventional sense.

"The name we give to these new unprecedented patients has implications for rights that the law and society affords," said Romanis.

The FDA advisory meeting takes place at a time in American medicine when it appears many are keen to separate babies from their mothers or, at the very least, pregnancy from women.

In June, the American Medical Association published a peer-reviewed paper in its Journal of Ethics floating the suggestion that there's no moral reason why taxpayers should not subsidize the provision of wombs from dead or living women to transvestites so that they can carry babies.

Could artificial wombs help save premature babies?youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!