# Artificial Womb-the end of motherhood?



## Knittin' in the Shade (Feb 14, 2003)

This whole idea frightens the heck out of me. Talk about making women completely *unimportant*







But, in light of the recent abortion discussions here, I'm intersted to see what y'all think about how this might affect the "abortion debate."

http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/...cultural_1.asp


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

First off that is hardly an unbiased source. Second off I don't think they know Jack about what they are talking about. Until we get to the point where an implanted embryo could be removed from a mother and transferred somewhere else and still live this would have absolutely no effect on abortion.

As far as the end of the family, it's obvious that they have vastly different beliefs on what makes a family than I do.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

Great!

So now you can be conceivied in a test tube, implanted in an artifical womb, delivered by sterile white gloved hands. Fed with a bottle outfitted with an artifical nipple full of "formula"

. . . and go through your entire life without human contact or a single nurturing touch.

How isolating and depressing is a culture of death.


----------



## PurplePixiePooh (Aug 5, 2003)

Well, while some potential applications of this technology are horrific, some are wonderful. This could be a wonderful thing if applied correctly.

In cases where a woman would wish to have an abortion, the baby could be removed from her body, she could sign off her parental rights and the baby could be adopted prior to birth.
Women who cannot carry their children in their own wombs could use this instead of a surrogate if they wish and IMO it would make abortion obsolete.

OTOH, it could lead to a frighteningly sterile environment for some children. Born of an artifical womb, fed with a mechanical arm, rocked by a mechanical swing, and patted on the back to sleep by a machine. Sick and disgusting this vision is.

This kind of technology needs to be further researched and applied with much careful consideration and high standards.

I do not think that this wil move sexual activity any more than it is. People still sleep with whomever they feel like if that is their moral standard. A mechanical womb will not change that in either direction.

This one would bear keeping watch on.


----------



## Knittin' in the Shade (Feb 14, 2003)

I agree with this, for sure, but I've seen it in other places as well, it just struck a nerve with me this morning reading it at World.

Quote:

that is hardly an unbiased source
If you do a google search, there are tons of articles from other, *less* biases sources (there's really no unbiases source, is there, LOL?)

What frightens me about this is the idea that this could bring the state one step closer to replacing parents-I mean, who's to say this technology can't be used to create children the state deems acceptable,a nd then have them raised by only state-approved "parental units."

I do think that if this becomes possible in the future that it would really cause serious problems for those who are pro-abortion. I mean, if it's about having the right to decide what happens to *your* body, if the fetus can be removed and sustained elsewhere, then there's really no justification for killing a fetus, the way I see it.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

This is just a silly article.

"panicking the abortion industry"? Oh please. Fewer and fewer practitioners are doing abortions, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to teach it in medical school in this country. If there were no more reason to provide abortions, I think you'd hear no protest from ANYONE, including most present practitioners.

Cheering right-to-lifers? It sounds like the author of the article is likely an anti-abortion proponent, and he hardly sounds cheered.

Assume for a moment that ectogenesis comes to fruition for humans. If one could do a fetal transplant to an artificial womb almost as easily as providing an abortion and with no greater invasiveness, who will pay for the artificial gestation? Who will pay to raise the child? Who will care for the child? Surely not the woman who would've had an abortion but for the availability of ectogenesis. And if my guess is right, surely not the majority of the right-to-lifers. Surely not a Republican, anti-abortion but also anti-[nonwealthy]child administration.

Ectogenesis raises all sorts of issues, but I find it highly unlikely that we're looking at "A Brave New World" scenario anytime soon. Just like IVF is only an issue for the (comparatively) well-to-do (or well-insured).


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Incidentally, the individual right that is implicated in legal considerations about abortion concerns liberty generally (re Planned Parenthood v. Casey, since we're in a post-Roe v. Wade world now), but PROCREATION more generally. If you check out a number of the IVF cases, where one half of a now-divorced couple wants to make use of fertilized eggs and the other half does not want them used, the courts, to date, have (to my knowledge) always come down on the side of the parent who does NOT want to procreate. This should be instructive (though who knows how definitive) re issues concerning abortion and ectogenesis.


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

I will refer all of you to a book published in 1984 (!) by Gena Corea entitled, The Mother Machine in which the history and impact of all of these technologies are thoroughly discussed. The book is heavily footnoted, so it is a heavy read.

The fact of the matter is that men already know that they are superfulous to the reproductive act. They do not even have to be present after conception. Their job is "done" biologically speaking. Male technocrats are trying to make women superfulous also.

The most telling part of all of this was reflected in a report by Bruno Bettelheim in which he interviewed a troubled, young boy who loved tearing off the breasts off of dolls and told the doctor he wanted to take the reproductive organs out of little girls. ...

...Carried out everyday in an operating room near you.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I would support this only if it were used to make abortion unnecessary. I could see it being abused, like telling a woman that since she eats a vegan diet and sees a midwife, her baby will be better off in the artificial womb.

But, it always amazes me to see how many pro-lifers are against some of the things that would prevent abortion, like contraception, increased funding to single mothers, and now this thing.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Speaking as a woman who has done a lot of study and work in developmental biology, this is a pipe dream. It's not 5 years out, it's 20 years out, minimum.
Womb cells and amniotic fluid baths are 5% of the picture, and the easy 5% at that. They can't make a decent blood vessel from cells, the possibility of making a decent womb out of cells is so far fetched as to be laughable.

That said, I think the article was more interested in the social rammifications of the technology, rather than the technology part.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon (Oct 17, 2003)

I just cannot see how anyone could possibly think this would be a good thing in any situation, for any purpose. Playing god taken to the extreme.

MNS


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Not everyone has the same view or definition of God, and anyone who thinks this is playing God has a very different view of Deity than I do.


----------

