Apples and oranges. Before organ transplants, people simply died. They had no option to do something like choose to kill someone to resolve their condition. Yeah, it might be nice if babies didn't need the womb of the self centered to mature in, but it doesn't exist and isn't being researched AFAIK. It also has nothing at all to do with the so-called "choice" issue. If you cede the "choice" of life and death decision, what's to keep the woman from choosing termination of her child over your decanting tech, simply for convenience? If you can deny that choice, why not the choice to carry to term?
I am sorry you are not open to a new idea that solves your opposition. Unless of course your opposition realy rests with ‘self centered’ rather than preserving life of the unborn.
You say apples and oranges and then change the point of why I made that comparison to begin with. The point I was trying to make about organ transplants was that one day they were considered undoable but now are doable.
I would imagine that in those days, people said the same thing about those transplants that you are saying now about the idea I brought up in my initial comment.
It doesn’t exist but maybe it should be researched and developed. That is what happens when a new idea is brought into play, right? Are you jut against this possability 100% or what?