In loco parentis

World on the Web ^ | November 1, 2003 | Edward Veith

[carenot]

Top of Form 1 Bottom of Form 1 CULTURAL

In loco parentis Artificial wombs might end abortion, but the price would be the end of the family By Gene Edward Veith SCIENTISTS ARE REPORTEDLY WELL ON THEIR WAY to developing an artificial womb. At Cornell, womb cells have been replicated and fashioned into an out-of-body receptacle that has kept human embryos alive for several days, before the experiment—and the babies—were terminated to comply with in-vitro fertilization laws. Japanese researchers have devised chambers of amniotic fluid with nutrient pumps to nourish developing baby goats. Though some scientists doubt whether a human baby could be brought to term completely outside a mother's body—a process known technically as "ectogenesis"—others believe solving the technical difficulties is just a matter of time, possibly as little as five years.

Even though an artificial womb could make the family technologically obsolete, the prospect is panicking the abortion industry and cheering many pro-life activists.

Writing in the liberal New Republic, Sacha Zimmerman argues that the artificial womb will be, in the words of her title, "The Real Threat to Roe v. Wade." "If and when" ectogenesis is perfected, she writes, "the legal and philosophical premises underpinning Roe could be completely dismantled."

Roe vs. Wade rests on two principles: the viability of the fetus and the woman's right to privacy. As Ms. Zimmerman explains it, an artificial womb would mean that the fetus would be viable from the moment of conception. The developing baby could, at any point, survive outside the woman's body. As for the right to privacy, strangely construed by Roe vs. Wade to imply the right not to be pregnant, removing an unwanted baby and transferring him or her into an artificial womb would be no more intrusive than obtaining an abortion.

With the availability of artificial wombs, the old pro-abortion canard "I have the right to do whatever I want to with my body" would no longer apply. The life of her baby no longer need depend on her body. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the child could be removed from her womb and implanted into an artificial one for subsequent adoption.

In response, some "pro-choicers" are proving that they are, in fact, pro-death. Feminist philosopher Christine Overall, in her book Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies, insists that abortion is all about the right not to procreate, not just the right not to be pregnant. She maintains that "fetal extinction" needs to be the goal.

On the other side of the issue, many pro-life activists are hailing the technology, which they believe may turn the tide in the abortion debate. Not only would ectogenesis undo the legal foundations of Roe vs. Wade, it would convince the public—which could see the babies growing in amniotic tanks—that life begins with conception. Artificial wombs could save the lives of untold millions of babies.

Some on both sides of the debate are arguing that the artificial womb could be a solution to the whole contentious issue, a win-win proposition, as abortion would no longer be necessary.

But while the artificial womb may be beneficial in battling the holocaust of abortion, it comes with a monumental cost: the technological obsolescence of motherhood.

This may well be perceived as the ultimate medical victory. Just as medicine has cured many ailments and mitigated so much human suffering, now there will be a cure for the pains of childbearing. What woman would voluntarily choose the discomforts of pregnancy and the suffering of labor when her baby instead could simply come out of a machine?

Women would be obsolete. Their all-important power to engender and bear children would be transferred to a machine, liberating them from motherhood and handing feminists a huge victory.

The family would also be obsolete. Sex has already been divorced from procreation by birth-control technology and a popular culture that has promoted sex as entertainment sensation apart from the family. Already, sex is not even necessary for procreation, as a test tube and a petri dish can work just as well to conceive a new human life. Finish the baby up in an artificial womb, and pop it out when done. Children could be manufactured, in the numbers needed, by the state, which could raise them in specially designed schools. Who needs the family at all?

Women would be liberated from being wives and mothers. Men would be liberated from being husbands and fathers. Children would be liberated from their parents. Everyone could have sex with everyone else, according to their preferences, since sex would be liberated from both culture and biology. We would all live in a Brave New World.

Technology tends to hand us double-edged swords. Pro-family groups might use this particular sword as a weapon against mass abortion, but it can also be used to cut up the family once and for all.

[carenot]

Ping.

Your thoughts?

[farmfriend]

bttt

[longtermmemmory]

Would this mean a man could sue for custody of the fetal cells?

(interesting)

[carenot]

Thanks for the bump, farm. :)

bon, I posted an article!

[Humvee]

Could they make one big enough for adults?

[workerbee]

The whole idea gives me the heebee-jeebees. That said, I think even if this does become commonplace reality, you'll find most pro-aborts tenaciously clinging to their right to kill. The argument will merely shift to who gets to choose what to do with the "property". Most already believe giving up a baby for adoption is worse than abortion.

[carenot]

Would this mean a man could sue for custody of the fetal cells?

I don't know.
But it would be a plus.

[ladysusan]

I think that infertile people who can not conceive their own child are going to be using these wombs to create human life, possibly out of donated gametes. This means the end of adoption rather than a boon to adoption. These wombs will be a boon to reproductive technology.

Considering that most people trying to adopt infants only do so after exhausting all technological avenues to create their own biological children, I don't see this helping adoption one bit. In fact, I definitely see it lowering the demand for adoptable infants. Her eggs, his sperm, donated eggs, donated sperm, and/or some combination thereof...not the child of two unrelated strangers... that's what is going to end up in these wombs. I can already hear the GIFT people creaming their pants as I type. Hydroponic babies, what could be better...no muss, no fuss, no bother, and a genetic child at the end of it.
people like Rosie, Lisa, Calista are going to LOVE this.

And I also don't really see it affecting abortion either way in any practical sense, except perhaps to siphon of the support of people who oppose abortion simply because they are trying to adopt.


Your thoughts?

[longtermmemmory]

would this incubated baby have a belly button?

This would be the feminist wet dream because she could put a fetus on ice for a few years until she is ready.

It could also be a boon to mens rights. Women's rights groups will scream you can't force a woman to become a mother by taking custody of the fetal cells. The convers will mean that you can't force a man to become a father.

Perhaps this march of tech will also somehow work into dealing with parternity fraud.

[carenot]

And I also don't really see it affecting abortion either way in any practical sense, except perhaps to siphon of the support of people who oppose abortion simply because they are trying to adopt.

I really don't think that people that oppose abortion are all or even most hoping to adopt.

I sure ain't.

[ladysusan]

You don't, but there are those who do. Who knows how many?
I sure don't. I'm just sayin'...

[ladysusan]

It's gonna be a MESS

not funny

[longtermmemmory]

I can see mandatory DNA certification that the baby you pick up is yours. (remember the fertility clinic doctor who was using his own "dna" in order to fertilize the eggs?) I doubt these incubators will be "in the home."

If anything the incubated child should be LEGALLY treated as an adoption to establish legal clarity.

We need to prepare for this by adressing the issue of paternity fraud. In the future you could have MATERNITY fraud!

[ladysusan]

I can see the scientific establishment of parentage being an absolute necessity. Fraud of all sorts will be possible with a development like this.

[carenot]

In the future you could have MATERNITY fraud!

I have denied maternity to my 4 boys.

My husband had a lot of "women friends". :)

[MHGinTN]

The statement of the basing philosophy is incomplete, at least, inaccurate at most. With the availability of artificial wombs, the old pro-abortion canard "I have the right to do whatever I want to with my body" would no longer apply. The life of her baby no longer need depend on her body. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the child could be removed from her womb and implanted into an artificial one for subsequent adoption. What has been suppressed from conscious debate is the true democrat party belief undergirding abortion on demand ... 'it's a woman's right to choose to kill her alive unborn child' ... a woman's right to choose a dead baby. THAT is the dirty secret the Barbara Boxers, Ted Kennedys, Hatellary Clintons and Tom Harkins of democratism fight so hard to protect yet will not admit openly is their philosophy.