• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Article: Fetuses in Artificial Wombs: Medical Marvel or Misogynist Malpractice?

B

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,894
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
It's a good tool to have, if it's reliable enough.

When it is, I'd view it like I view bottle feeding: not ideal, cannot account for the subtle feedback loops that have evolved in the living interaction, but reliable enough that the average kid won't suffer for it, so women shouldn't be ashamed to use it if it works better for them.

The unknown factor affecting that reliability, in addition to the technical design, for me, is the human interaction the fetus gets in the womb : how important is it and can a more intermittent interaction (but maybe different) affect the future kid? It's known that neglected toddler can develop severe mental illnesses, even when their physical needs are covered.
 
As long as we're still able to oppress women by giving them lower pay for the same work and having the courts make sexual assault charges difficult to prosecute, I'm OK with it. :)

It would give additional factors to consider in the abortion debate, since as the technology matures the ability to transfer a fetus from a woman's womb to an artificial one would become better and that would have an impact on the timeline of when it is that a fetus becomes viable. If a 10 week old fetus can be moved into one without issues and there are various churches and other organizations that are willing to pay for the costs and raise the children then the decision of whether or not to abort becomes much more complicated.

If all the various chemicals and everything can be monitored and adjusted, then it stands to reason that eventually this would lead to strength, intelligence and all the rest being able to be optimized in a way which can't be replicated in a natural womb. This could lead to an environment where the decision to have a child natually would be akin to not enrolling your child in school. It's placing him at such a disadvantage in life that it could be considered child abuse. The addendum to that is, of course, that there's no gene for the human soul and Ethan Hawke will still be able to bang Uma Thurman - anybody who's concerned about him can relax.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
As long as we're still able to oppress women by giving them lower pay for the same work
Click to expand...
That's a fiction.
and having the courts make sexual assault charges difficult to prosecute, I'm OK with it. :)
Click to expand...
The only reason "sexual assault" is difficult to prosecute is because usually there is little to no evidence and there are those pesky things like due process and burden of proof. The only way to make them easier to prosecute would be to erode due process and relax (or reverse) burden of proof, like colleges have been doing under the Obama edict from 2011.

But at least women aren't being discriminated by cab companies. There, they are overt discriminators!
 
I don't really see any misogyny in an artificial womb.

Maybe if there are misogynistic policies connected to the technology's use?

One of Bujold's scifi worlds is a planet of gay men with such artificial creches. On the other worlds, women choose to use the AW for health and convenience. On the planet, there are no women, but that's not because of the technology. It's the men with a severely paranoid view of the purity of their essences and the way succubi drain precious bodily fluids who have difficulty dealing people of a certain plumbing.

Sure, the first kids who are born of an external incubator will be teased as Test Tube Weirdoes at school, then later it won't matter at all, then the tubies will tease the natural kids as being evolutionary hold-backs and cavemen. "Your mom has stretch marks" and so on. Shouting back that 'Well, your umbilical had a USB plug!' won't be quite as satisfying.


But it's still just people being people. Nothing to blame on the tech.
 
Derec said:
That's a fiction.
and having the courts make sexual assault charges difficult to prosecute, I'm OK with it. :)
Click to expand...
The only reason "sexual assault" is difficult to prosecute is because usually there is little to no evidence and there are those pesky things like due process and burden of proof. The only way to make them easier to prosecute would be to erode due process and relax (or reverse) burden of proof, like colleges have been doing under the Obama edict from 2011.

But at least women aren't being discriminated by cab companies. There, they are overt discriminators!
Click to expand...
Cut the line, Tom; you don't want to reel this fish in.
 
I've always wondered what the long term effects would be of something like this. Development of the fetal immune system is very closely linked to the immune system of the mother. How will this technology deal with this? Do artificial wombs need periodic blood infusions from a living mother? Or do we have the ability to create artificial antibodies that can be used to help build the fetal immune system?

That is my main fear with this technology, that we would be producing children with severely compromised immune responses.
 
“Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted?

Skies are blue inside of you,
The weather's always fine;

For
There ain't no Bottle in all the world
Like that dear little Bottle of mine.”
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Click to expand...

This is just another medical procedure developed to make the lives of rich people a little more comfortable.
 
Don't see the problem. It would probably be banned in the U.S., though.
 
Starr said:
I've always wondered what the long term effects would be of something like this. Development of the fetal immune system is very closely linked to the immune system of the mother. How will this technology deal with this? Do artificial wombs need periodic blood infusions from a living mother? Or do we have the ability to create artificial antibodies that can be used to help build the fetal immune system?

That is my main fear with this technology, that we would be producing children with severely compromised immune responses.
Click to expand...

I imagine that the development of something like this would be a long term, iterative process. For instance, they start putting premature babies born at 30-some weeks into an artificial womb instead of an incubator where they're already viable and just need some additional support to develop. Then they'd start pushing back the date it's used at, both in clinical studies and in critical cases where it's the best choice amongst bad options, and noting any anomolies and figuring out how to correct them. Decades pass by and the tech becomes better and better for earlier and earlier fetuses.

After a time, it could easily become an option for women to go through a low-risk procedure to move the baby into an artificial womb at some point in the pregnancy to avoid both the medical and cosmetic issues associated with the late stages of pregnancy. Once that starts happening and the tech continues to improve and more becomes known about all the various chemical interactions and the like, that date can get earlier and earlier and improvements continue along the way until one eventually gets to the point that there's no difference between an artificial and natural womb for the entire process. The level of knowledge required for that would also be a long ways towards what's needed in order to enhance or modify the fetus with whatever improvements the parents can afford the monthly installment payments for.

Either that or we just let the North Koreans use their citizens as guinea pigs and torture and murder thousands of innocents and then steal the results.
 
If said artificial wombs can produce healthy & physically normal children, at least as well as it can be done biologically, I don't see a problem with it.
 
Terrell said:
If said artificial wombs can produce healthy & physically normal children, at least as well as it can be done biologically, I don't see a problem with it.
Click to expand...


How would we base the costs of this process, and who gets the bill?
 
Bronzeage said:
Terrell said:
If said artificial wombs can produce healthy & physically normal children, at least as well as it can be done biologically, I don't see a problem with it.
Click to expand...


How would we base the costs of this process, and who gets the bill?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to whether or not it's a medical marvel or inherently misogynist as asked in the OP?
 
Terrell said:
Bronzeage said:
How would we base the costs of this process, and who gets the bill?
Click to expand...

How is this relevant to whether or not it's a medical marvel or inherently misogynist as asked in the OP?
Click to expand...

I did not say it was relevant. Whenever a new miraculous medical procedure is announced, the cost is seldom discussed, as if the benefits were obvious. You go with the "do no harm" principle. I'm asking what we get out of it and who is expected to pay for it?
 
Bronzeage said:
Terrell said:
How is this relevant to whether or not it's a medical marvel or inherently misogynist as asked in the OP?
Click to expand...

I did not say it was relevant. Whenever a new miraculous medical procedure is announced, the cost is seldom discussed, as if the benefits were obvious. You go with the "do no harm" principle. I'm asking what we get out of it and who is expected to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me about the cost, when my answer is specific to the OP question, and takes no position on the cost or benefit, beyond efficacy?
 
People who think this is a form of misogyny strike me as dangerously obsessed with the idea of interpreting everything to be about gender and how us men are trying to keep women down. When you think demons are out to get you, you see satanic influence everywhere; when you think the CIA is out to get you, you see patterns of conspiracy everywhere; if you think the patriarchy is out to get you, you see misogyny everywhere?

Pulling it free from that bizarre association; the technology is something that certainly appears to be a net benefit (to women, and to society at large) if it can be made to work as advertised.
 
Bronzeage said:
I'm asking what we get out of it and who is expected to pay for it?
Click to expand...
Once the kinks are worked out, i'm sure the insurance companies will love the technology.
It'll work like a mail-order pharmacy.

For every X bottles, there must be an OBGYN on the premises 24/7 (divided into shifts).
But the day to day application of nutrients, removal of wastes, recording of operation, will be performed by much cheaper technicians. Trends can be monitored by the computers, drawing the attention of the doctors for treatment before they become alarm conditions. A much higher concentration of patients to doctor's time, more closely supervised development, no smoking moms, no drinking moms, no problem prenancies (or at leas thte problems only threaten one, not two patients). Prenatal care on the moms' part is 'Decanting will be on Thursday, the 2nd, 1400. Bring a baby seat.'
No breach babies, no episiotomies, no 26-hour-labor horror stories.
 
Terrell said:
Bronzeage said:
I did not say it was relevant. Whenever a new miraculous medical procedure is announced, the cost is seldom discussed, as if the benefits were obvious. You go with the "do no harm" principle. I'm asking what we get out of it and who is expected to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me about the cost, when my answer is specific to the OP question, and takes no position on the cost or benefit, beyond efficacy?
Click to expand...

It's just a question. Answer it, or don't answer it. Your choice.

I'll assume your question is rhetorical. If you really want to discuss my interest in your thoughts and opinions, I'm open to that.
 
Bronzeage said:
Terrell said:
Why are you asking me about the cost, when my answer is specific to the OP question, and takes no position on the cost or benefit, beyond efficacy?
Click to expand...

It's just a question. Answer it, or don't answer it. Your choice.

I'll assume your question is rhetorical. If you really want to discuss my interest in your thoughts and opinions, I'm open to that.
Click to expand...

Dystopian pretty much nailed what I'm thinking, and said it way better than me. Does it do what's advertised? If it does, I don't see a problem here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom