This will be next.
Posted on 09/13/2005 9:42:43 PM PDT by Lorianne
Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted them for 2008.
Discussion of ectogenesis — growing an embryo outside the mother's womb — may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning and genetic modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened last January. And only last week, British scientists received an official go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers with no male genetic contribution.
For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold back scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered repeatedly since Galileo's day.)
New reproductive technologies may also redefine the politics surrounding reproduction, including the issue of abortion. I welcome the prospect. It is difficult to believe that science could do a worse job with the issue than courts and fanatic rhetoric. At the very least, science may offer new methods of ending a pregnancy without destroying an embryo or fetus.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Shades of Lois McMaster Bujold...
Hmm, one criticism of her work I've always had is how eager she is to embrace that particular technology. I just wonder how you could really replicate the non-critical things that a mother's womb provides. And babies come out knowing their mother's voice. What other bonding takes place in the womb?
A more interesting spec-fic story, to me, would be about what happens after a generation of extrauterine children grow up and turn out to be psychotic or some other side effect nobody expected.
O brave new world that has such people in it...
Actually, it's more in keeping with Huxley's dystopia, "Brave New World."
I'm certain there will be almost as many holdouts as you would expect for about a generation. Then things will pick up.
Full Disclosure - I'm male, and my viewpoint is probably skewed, but I am convinced that any problems with the tech will be the first things fixed. And perhaps not by us but someone will. Then the fun will start.
Down the line, maybe. Possibly Heinlein's "Freezing Babies for a Profit".
Won't that be fun?
Yeah, it's certainly possible. Could be useful for dangerous pregnancies and stuff. I'm all for it if it shows people how evil abortion is.
But - and this is just a feeling - how many women out there won't adopt but go through expensive fertility treatments so they can have their own kid? Is an artifical-womb baby going to satisfy that craving? Intellectually they'll know it's their baby, but what about deep down?
Most adopted children turn out fine - provided that there is very early bonding with the adopting parents - even when the mothers have wanted nothing to do with them. Many psychotics and sociopaths were raised by their birth parents.
Prenatal physical care is important, but how children turn out is largely a function of genetics, and how they were dealt with outside the womb.
Most women lose any romantic notions about pregnancy when they actually go through one. Being sick to death for months, then going through painful childbirth isn't the fun part - holding your baby in your arms for the first time is the clincher. Many adopting parents feel that same way.
Not being female, I couldn't begin to tell you. I'm morally certain that a large percentage of women will accept it immediately, as soon as the technology is proven. And that number will increase, generation by generation.
I'm also morally certain that there will always be a significant number of women who will have nothing to do with it.
It's like the mush-brained "clone" argument floating around — as if we haven't had exactly that for years with regular twins. When it crops up around me, I ask "You know any twins? Are they the same person, exactly alike? What is a clone except twins born farther apart than usual." All but the most brain dead usually get it then.
One once asked "well, if one twin was born before there were chicken McNuggets, would he have liked them if his clone does?"
I stood there, slack jawed ...
That bothers me too. I can't imagine that a baby growing in an artificial environment could develop in the same way as one which is in intimate contact with a living, breathing, speaking, and mobile human mother. My intuitive reaction is that such a baby would have an abnormal emotional connection with other human beings.
In my experience, an important part of pregnancy was the physical and emotional preparation for motherhood. The physical demands, fatigue and sheer clumsiness forced me to slow down and focus more on the impending "big event" and my child's needs. I was very career driven at the time, and there were times when it was a struggle to slow down. Many mothers-to-be would jump at the chance to keep working flat out during "pregnancy" by essentially outsourcing the baby's development. I can't see how that would be of advantage to the new baby. The baby would tend to become even more of an accessory in a couple's busy life, and less an integral part of its human core.
Development of artificial gestation centers also raises the question of choice. At what point would women find themselves pressured to use artificial gestation? I can envision employers pressuring women to remain more available to work long hours and travel by using artificial gestation. Insurers might favor it for reasons of maternal health, and the beauty industry would have a field day. As a mother, this technology horrifies me.
|
It definitely has the whole ethics dimension to it, which is a big part of what was mentioned when we started up the list.
Ahh, the hoary old "Which came first, the chicken McNugget or the split monozygotic egg?" conunundrum....
Ah that tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Frankenstein...
You do realize, of course, that abortions have been performed for thousands of years? So far, very few generations have looked back in horror at it; indeed, getting people to look back in horror at what happened on 9-11 is difficult enough...
In the spirit of the thread, your ping list is ... embryonic.
This will be next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.