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

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

How would we base the costs of this process, and who gets the bill?

To start out with, it would likely be an elective procedure with the patient paying the costs except in instances where there's a medical emergency which would have previously resulted in a miscarriage or a premature birth.

As it becomes a more common and accepted practice, it would likely evolve the same way that artificial insemination does. First, it was an elective procedure you pay for on your own, then insurance covers it if you have various conditions which result in problems conceiving and now there are a lot of calls to have it included in coverage for anyone who wants it. Artificial wombs would probably go down the same kind of path. First, they're a luxury, then a medical necessity for certain for various specific reasons, then just a basic service.

 

[4321lynx]

Hold on a minute everyone. All that expense because:-

women, unlike men, have to suffer through childbirth, and that this is a physical and psychological ordeal which can endanger one's life.

Isn't the correct answer that "it serves them right for being women"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Isn't the correct answer that "it serves them right for being women"?

Only if certain posters realize that an artificial womb is being used to discriminate against men.

 

[4321lynx]

Double post

 

[credoconsolans]

Sounds like a medical miracle to me, not misogynistic.

 

[4321lynx]

Fetuses in Artificial Wombs: Medical Marvel or Misogynist Malpractice?
http://www.newsweek.com/fetuses-artificial-wombs-medical-marvel-or-misogynist-malpractice-263308

Many discussions on TFT and FRDB have featured the point that women, unlike men, have to suffer through childbirth, and that this is a physical and psychological ordeal which can endanger one's life. So the possibility of a viable external incubator is fantastic news indeed.

What is your position?

Perhaps worth noting that the Newsweek article states

That was all pulled out of Huxley’s imagination with the help of LSD, but he might have accurately predicted our impending brave new future regarding birth.

The author is obviously ignorant of the fact that the book was written in 1931 and published in 1932, and LSD was first synthesized in 1938.

 

[Blahface]

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.

I say abort anyway. But this could become very complicated for abortion rights as the bodily rights argument is less of an issue. What if the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't? Could he force her to not only have the baby, but also pay child support for it?

 

[J842P]

Perhaps worth noting that the Newsweek article states

That was all pulled out of Huxley’s imagination with the help of LSD, but he might have accurately predicted our impending brave new future regarding birth.

The author is obviously ignorant of the fact that the book was written in 1931 and published in 1932, and LSD was first synthesized in 1938.

Aye. It was a clumsy allusion to his book The Doors of Perception . In that book, Huxley described his experiences with mescaline, not LSD.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh, that would be great. Finally, we'd be able to oppress women instead of constantly being oppressed by them instead.

 

[bigfield]

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.

I say abort anyway. But this could become very complicated for abortion rights as the bodily rights argument is less of an issue. What if the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't? Could he force her to not only have the baby, but also pay child support for it?

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

 

[Keith&Co.]

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

So it would be the same as asking if one can control one's blood.
Can the state compel me to donate it if i don't feel like it?

 

[bigfield]

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

So it would be the same as asking if one can control one's blood.
Can the state compel me to donate it if i don't feel like it?

I can't see why the state should be allowed to do that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if the government was run by vampires? I think they'd find a way to make that legal.

 

[Blahface]

I say abort anyway. But this could become very complicated for abortion rights as the bodily rights argument is less of an issue. What if the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't? Could he force her to not only have the baby, but also pay child support for it?

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

I agree that is it is still a violation bodily rights, but it is a much less intrusive violation and it may be enough to sway public opinion and SCOTUS against it. Also, if she is already planning to have an abortion, nobody would be forcing her to undergo extraction. She would be trying to do that herself.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree that is it is still a violation bodily rights, but it is a much less intrusive violation and it may be enough to sway public opinion and SCOTUS against it. Also, if she is already planning to have an abortion, nobody would be forcing her to undergo extraction. She would be trying to do that herself.

Ya, one of the major points of view about the abortion debate is that it's a choice between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. When it's early in the pregnancy, the choice is easy because the fetus isn't close to bring viable but as it gets closer to term, violating the woman's bodily integrity becomes the lesser of the two evils for many. If she's going to have a medical procedure anyways and the fetus can survive and prosper without her, the choice to abort it is one that could be taken away.

 

[Blahface]

I agree that is it is still a violation bodily rights, but it is a much less intrusive violation and it may be enough to sway public opinion and SCOTUS against it. Also, if she is already planning to have an abortion, nobody would be forcing her to undergo extraction. She would be trying to do that herself.

Ya, one of the major points of view about the abortion debate is that it's a choice between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. When it's early in the pregnancy, the choice is easy because the fetus isn't close to bring viable but as it gets closer to term, violating the woman's bodily integrity becomes the lesser of the two evils for many. If she's going to have a medical procedure anyways and the fetus can survive and prosper without her, the choice to abort it is one that could be taken away.

It also doesn't help that religious fundamentalists think that it counts as a human being at the moment of conception.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The viability also matters. If there's a woman who decides at 35 weeks to get an ahortion, is there a doctor who'd give her one? The kid can live fine outside of her, so it is killing a child to abort it at that point.

If viability is pushed back due to things like artificial wombs, then that same type of consideration applies earlier and earlier as well.

 

[Metaphor]

Many discussions on TFT and FRDB have featured the point that women, unlike men, have to suffer through childbirth,

Except, they don't have to. I know several child-free women who have never had a gun held to their head forcing them to get pregnant.

 

[bigfield]

Many discussions on TFT and FRDB have featured the point that women, unlike men, have to suffer through childbirth,

Except, they don't have to. I know several child-free women who have never had a gun held to their head forcing them to get pregnant.

Good point. Allow me to rephrase:

...women, unlike men, have to suffer through childbirth if they want to have a child that is their progeny, and don't want to resort to using a human surrogate.

 

[Jayjay]

I say abort anyway. But this could become very complicated for abortion rights as the bodily rights argument is less of an issue. What if the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't? Could he force her to not only have the baby, but also pay child support for it?

The embryo/fetus would still need to be removed from the woman's body, therefore it would still be an infringement of her bodily autonomy to force her to undergo the "extraction".

But what if the woman has already extracted the baby (for whatever reason)? Can she still abort when the bodily autonomy is not an issue, but the baby in question still has brains the size of a walnut?