Ectogenesis (as regards to artificial womb technology, not Ghostbusters...)

[Aelwydd]

As a change of pace around here, I thought we could discussion a topic besides YEC and evolution to argue and debate about.  Something that is completely and totally non-emotionally charged, lol.

 

What does the Hive say about artificial womb technology?  Is this something you would want for your daughters or grand daughters?  How do you think this will affect the relations between the sexes?

 

IMO, this techonology, like any, poses distinct advantages (a solution to high risk pregnancies, infertility, even the abortion debate).  But, it also poses questions about how women will be viewed, especially in very male-dominant, patriarchal societies. I am concerned about females become completely redundant and unnecessary in their view, existing perhaps only as sex slaves. 

 

I am also concerned about the ethics regarding the likely commodification of human beings, where humans may be created, genetically modified, gestated, and birthed completely apart from any familial ties.

 

Anyway -- not a heavy topic or anything.   

 

 

For more info, check out Artificial Wombs are Coming, but the Controversy is Already Here (from Motherboard).

[Bluegoat]

I think this would be far more difficult to actually accomplish than many people imagine.  It's a pretty dynamic system and a lot of the interactions between mom and baby aren't well understood, and I daresay many are still unknown.  I would be surprised if it becomes available for our kids, or even grandkids.

 

I also think it would probably be expensive, and it is interesting to contemplate how that would affect women.  There is at the moment a pretty wide divide between the perspectives of a lot of poor/working class women and well off women, and the interests of 4th wave feminism.  I wonder if it would not make soical class and wealth even more obviously significant than gender than is already the case.

 

The question of commodification of birth and infants is i think a huge one - one that already exists of course around surrogacy.  And yes - it seems that as soon as a culture can mechanize something, the work becomes something we see as less than dignified - so perhaps birth and motherhood would come to be seen as in some sense sub-human?  Only fit for the poor? 

 

But if it became cheaper to do it that way? Sort of industrial-complex birth? If that could happen, you might have the iopposite problem, where all the poor have to use tank-wombs and carry on working, while the wealthy can afford to carry their own children.  In either case though I tend to think it might cause social problems.

 

There are I think also questions about the morality of purposfully.depriving children of mothers. We really have no idea what the psychological effects might be.  On the other hand, in the case of medical problems, they could be life-saving.

 

 

[Guest]

I'm very much opposed to it as long as there are still orphans waiting for another set of parents to love them.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm very much opposed to it as long as there are still orphans waiting for another set of parents to love them.

 

That's a terrible thing to say.

 

It's no one's business whether or not someone would want a natural child. How many children do you have? Maybe you should walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

[Aelwydd]

I think this would be far more difficult to actually accomplish than many people imagine.  It's a pretty dynamic system and a lot of the interactions between mom and baby aren't well understood, and I daresay many are still unknown.  I would be surprised if it becomes available for our kids, or even grandkids.

 

I also think it would probably be expensive, and it is interesting to contemplate how that would affect women.  There is at the moment a pretty wide divide between the perspectives of a lot of poor/working class women and well off women, and the interests of 4th wave feminism.  I wonder if it would not make soical class and wealth even more obviously significant than gender than is already the case.

 

The question of commodification of birth and infants is i think a huge one - one that already exists of course around surrogacy.  And yes - it seems that as soon as a culture can mechanize something, the work becomes something we see as less than dignified - so perhaps birth and motherhood would come to be seen as in some sense sub-human?  Only fit for the poor? 

 

But if it became cheaper to do it that way? Sort of industrial-complex birth? If that could happen, you might have the iopposite problem, where all the poor have to use tank-wombs and carry on working, while the wealthy can afford to carry their own children.  In either case though I tend to think it might cause social problems.

 

There are I think also questions about the morality of purposfully.depriving children of mothers. We really have no idea what the psychological effects might be.  On the other hand, in the case of medical problems, they could be life-saving.

 

These are some of the same thoughts I've had, especially with regards to class privilege, and how this issue would become an identifying status symbol.  I agree that actually creating an artificial uterus is a tremendously complex venture, especially as scientists are still learning how mother and fetus chemically communicate, and how just the transfer of nutrients, alone, is a huge.  Not to mention how their immune systems interact, how natural immunity is shared between mother and fetus.

 

However, with the exponential leaps biological sciences are making all the time now, along with the ability of computers to manage more and more complex tasks, I think it's still not too far off into the future.

 

One of the thoughts that came to mind is, due to the fact something like this would require computerized oversight and management, how long would it be before someone hacked the system?  I can see the Lifetime move now:  "My Baby Was Hacked."  

[Slartibartfast]

I think it is interesting, my last pregnancy was difficult and dangerous, I don't feel comfortable having more after that experience.

 

I think it would be more liberating for many women who could have natural children without facing a serious situation. There are many medical conditions that can make pregnancy dangerous.

 

However, I think pregnancy is a process that is little understood by the medical community and I don't see this as something that would be viable for a good long while.

[Aelwydd]

I think it is interesting, my last pregnancy was difficult and dangerous, I don't feel comfortable having more after that experience.

 

I think it would be more liberating for many women who could have natural children without facing a serious situation. There are many medical conditions that can make pregnancy dangerous.

 

However, I think pregnancy is a process that is little understood by the medical community and I don't see this as something that would be viable for a good long while.

 

This is what it makes it at least some enticing to me as well.  I had a very difficult pregnancy with ds.  

 

However, due to the likely expense, the women most in need of it, i.e., pregnancy girls and women in developing countries, would be least able to access this technology. :(

[Aelwydd]

Here's another article from Slate, that proposes artificial gestation will happen because women have become too important to the economic landscape to waste their energy and time on reproduction. 

[Joker]

.

[momto10blessings]

I think it would be amazing if they could make it so that they could transfer babies from their mother's womb to the artificial womb. I know too many babies born during 20-30 weeks gestation who have either not made it or spent several months in the nicu hanging on by a thread.

[Guest]

I think it would be amazing if they could make it so that they could transfer babies from their mother's womb to the artificial womb. I know too many babies born during 20-30 weeks gestation who have either not made it or spent several months in the nicu hanging on by a thread.

That would indeed be excellent. If they could limit the use of them to emergency measures I'd be fine with it. Such limitations seem highly unlikely. I really worry about people using them and discarding developing babies who aren't 'ideal', with even more ease than they already do :(

 

I won't go any further on this one, but the technology makes me very uneasy on this point in particular. If they were used like neonatal incubators for even earlier preemies that would be excellent.

[Paige]

I also wish it could be used to save premature babies and to give them a safer place to mature and grow than an incubator with a respirator. As a parent of premature babies and knowing other parents of preemies or parents who lost children due to late miscarriages and prematurity, it's something I've wished we've had for a long time. I am imagining womb like incubators in the nicu where parents could watch their babies and speak to them. 

 

I am less comfortable with the idea of completely developing a child outside of a human womb. For the premature infant, there is no other choice, so I see no harm being done. For those who could be safe in a human womb, the loss of mother to child interaction concerns me. What would that do to a baby? I am not a fan of unnecessary experiments on babies! I'd be interested in how babies who grow in mothers who were declared brain dead for weeks or months before delivery fare. I'm sure the sample is so small that there's not much known and privacy concerns limit the release of information if followup has been done. It would be reassuring if those babies have no issues.

[Aelwydd]

That would indeed be excellent. If they could limit the use of them to emergency measures I'd be fine with it. Such limitations seem highly unlikely. I really worry about people using them and discarding developing babies who aren't 'ideal', with even more ease than they already do :(

 

I won't go any further on this one, but the technology makes me very uneasy on this point in particular. If they were used like neonatal incubators for even earlier preemies that would be excellent.

 

 

What about if they were available as an alternative to abortion?  

 

But, if they were available for some groups, and not others, there is the question of favoritism, agendas, etc.  Who gets to decide what is a legitimate use?

[MistyMountain]

I do not think it is a good idea. It reminds me of the movie gattaca where babies are genetically engineered to be superior and the ones that are not faced discrimination. I can see artificial wombs as creating a impersonal breeding system for genetically modified babies and only available to certain people. Humans already radically altered our planet and not for the better. I do not think artificial wombs where babies are grown from the start is something that will be positive. I can see it being used for babies that were born prematurely.

[Mergath]

I'm all for it. My cousin's baby was born very premature earlier this year and died after months in the hospital. Something like this would likely have prevented that.

 

I don't think it could make women redundant, at least not any more so than men. I mean, it carries a fetus to term, but it's not like it produces the egg in the first place, right?  

 

I also don't think most people would use something like this unless it's a medical necessity. We have a lot of the technology to treat children as perfect little engineered commodities, but no one really does that. Why? Because it's expensive, and most people aren't monsters who only see children as objects. The vast majority of people care about their children, and wouldn't want to grow them in a plastic womb without a good reason.

 

The only thing I would worry about is, if the cost comes down in the future, people would have the capability to have multiple kids at once.  There would be no biological limits to how many kids certain families could have (I'm looking at you, Duggars).  Would there be some kind of cap?  Are we going to let people line up their artificial wombs to grow fifty little babies all at once?  

[Rosie_0801]

I think it'd make a huge mess in the Family Court.

[Bluegoat]

Some very interesting posts which gave me a few thoughts.

 

The idea that we could do this in order to allow women to keep working seems to me like a really really bad one.  It would, inevitably, be proposed as a way to free women and give them choice.  In reality, I think what would happen would be quite different.  it might operate that way for a few who were very wealthy.  For the rest, it would be a way for business interests to assert more control over wage employees.  Maternity leave?  Who needs it?  Working for an employer that provides a nice baby tank farm in lieu of is your choice!  Jobs that pay enough to accomodate the time of that might be required?  Why not just hire it out?

 

Also - perhaps I read a little too much sci-fi, but I am reminded of the tanks for growing clones they had in Dune.  It turned out the processes were too complicated to make a mechanized system, so they used people instead.  Perhaps that seems a little far-fetched, but if you look at the kinds of surrogacy clinics in some places, it doesn't seem that far from the possible. 

 

I think that we need to ask, what does it mean to want to mechanize what are profoundly human activities?  Why is it that when work becomes mechanized, it ceases to be considered dignified or a "real" human activity?  When we develop technologies, we really are creating ourselves as a species - so what is it we are trying to create?

 

 

[Dmmetler]

As someone who had severe PE and HELLP syndrome, lost a baby at 22 weeks because I simply could not safely carry any longer, and who had a 2nd living child only after spending months on bedrest and in and out of the hospital in a very, very terrifying pregnancy, I'd love to see this as an option for high risk pregnancies. Especially since I have a daughter, and I don't ever want to see her go through what I went through.

 

My guess is that invivo will always be less expensive and better for a vast majority of cases than invitro, just as has been the case for other assisted fertility methods.

 

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think this would be far more difficult to actually accomplish than many people imagine.  It's a pretty dynamic system and a lot of the interactions between mom and baby aren't well understood, and I daresay many are still unknown.  I would be surprised if it becomes available for our kids, or even grandkids.

 

I also think it would probably be expensive, and it is interesting to contemplate how that would affect women.  There is at the moment a pretty wide divide between the perspectives of a lot of poor/working class women and well off women, and the interests of 4th wave feminism.  I wonder if it would not make soical class and wealth even more obviously significant than gender than is already the case.

 

The question of commodification of birth and infants is i think a huge one - one that already exists of course around surrogacy.  And yes - it seems that as soon as a culture can mechanize something, the work becomes something we see as less than dignified - so perhaps birth and motherhood would come to be seen as in some sense sub-human?  Only fit for the poor? 

 

But if it became cheaper to do it that way? Sort of industrial-complex birth? If that could happen, you might have the iopposite problem, where all the poor have to use tank-wombs and carry on working, while the wealthy can afford to carry their own children.  In either case though I tend to think it might cause social problems.

 

There are I think also questions about the morality of purposfully.depriving children of mothers. We really have no idea what the psychological effects might be.  On the other hand, in the case of medical problems, they could be life-saving.

 

This exactly.  Not only are there huge variables in the biological process, there are intangibles regarding what the effects of the mother/fetus relationship is prenatally. 

 

Here's another article from Slate, that proposes artificial gestation will happen because women have become too important to the economic landscape to waste their energy and time on reproduction. 

I didn't read the article, but the bolded made me throw up in my mouth.  The thought that reproduction is a waste of time and energy is sickening.  But, then again, we thought that about breastfeeding and many still do today. 

 

I think it would be amazing if they could make it so that they could transfer babies from their mother's womb to the artificial womb. I know too many babies born during 20-30 weeks gestation who have either not made it or spent several months in the nicu hanging on by a thread.

I think the idea is so much more palatable as a treatment for prematurity.

 

The alternative to abortion thing is freaky. Premature babies ? OK. Maybe.

 

Idk. It sounds like something out of a dystopia to me ( Brave New World, of course...bring on the soma!)

 

Technology already reflects a class divide, so I'm quite sure this would as well.

A Brave New World is what I thought.  You beat me to it.  It pains me to see the value of motherhood further degraded. 

 

Some very interesting posts which gave me a few thoughts.

 

The idea that we could do this in order to allow women to keep working seems to me like a really really bad one.  It would, inevitably, be proposed as a way to free women and give them choice.  In reality, I think what would happen would be quite different.  it might operate that way for a few who were very wealthy.  For the rest, it would be a way for business interests to assert more control over wage employees.  Maternity leave?  Who needs it?  Working for an employer that provides a nice baby tank farm in lieu of is your choice!  Jobs that pay enough to accomodate the time of that might be required?  Why not just hire it out?

 

Also - perhaps I read a little too much sci-fi, but I am reminded of the tanks for growing clones they had in Dune.  It turned out the processes were too complicated to make a mechanized system, so they used people instead.  Perhaps that seems a little far-fetched, but if you look at the kinds of surrogacy clinics in some places, it doesn't seem that far from the possible. 

 

I think that we need to ask, what does it mean to want to mechanize what are profoundly human activities?  Why is it that when work becomes mechanized, it ceases to be considered dignified or a "real" human activity?  When we develop technologies, we really are creating ourselves as a species - so what is it we are trying to create?

These were questions my teen lit group brought up when we were discussing Brave New World. 

[Katy]

I think it would be terribly difficult to accomplish and unlikely to occur in the next 10 years.

 

I think it would be fantastic if those of us who have had signifigant medical issues related to pregnancy - whether recurrent misscarriages or worse, had another option for completing their family.

 

While we plan to adopt our next out of foster care, I would never judge a family who was interested in having a baby that is genetically theirs if that's what they wanted. I think we'll soon learn genetics will control more than we think.

 

In the long-term future I bet this might become the preferred way - if they find that they can successfully control for all the epigenetic factors helpful for a child's long-term health.  Give a baby all the antioxidants and nutrients possible, prevent obesity, heart disease, and diabetes later.

[Audrey]

Some very interesting posts which gave me a few thoughts.

 

The idea that we could do this in order to allow women to keep working seems to me like a really really bad one.  It would, inevitably, be proposed as a way to free women and give them choice.  In reality, I think what would happen would be quite different.  it might operate that way for a few who were very wealthy.  For the rest, it would be a way for business interests to assert more control over wage employees.  Maternity leave?  Who needs it?  Working for an employer that provides a nice baby tank farm in lieu of is your choice!  Jobs that pay enough to accomodate the time of that might be required?  Why not just hire it out?

 

Also - perhaps I read a little too much sci-fi, but I am reminded of the tanks for growing clones they had in Dune.  It turned out the processes were too complicated to make a mechanized system, so they used people instead.  Perhaps that seems a little far-fetched, but if you look at the kinds of surrogacy clinics in some places, it doesn't seem that far from the possible. 

 

I think that we need to ask, what does it mean to want to mechanize what are profoundly human activities?  Why is it that when work becomes mechanized, it ceases to be considered dignified or a "real" human activity?  When we develop technologies, we really are creating ourselves as a species - so what is it we are trying to create?

First, maternity leave isn't for your pregnancy.  It's for the term post-pregnancy so that you have time with your infant.  So, maternity leave would still be a reasonable request.  However, many companies in a country to the south of me don't even offer paid maternity leave now, as it is.  It isn't a labour right for many women at the moment.  Artificial wombs won't impact that situation..

 

Second, I agree with you last paragraph.  I think the idea is fascinating and that the science and engineering behind making it successfully functional are equally fascinating, but I would want to give an appropriate amount of time to research and qualify the philosophical and ethical impacts of such a technology, as well as the psychological impact upon the fetus of being gestated sans the input of a human mother.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

I'm a NICU nurse, so I would love to see technology improve the outcomes for severely early preemies, by the use of an artificial environment that more closely resembles a natural environment. Ideally, I would love to see a treatment for pregnancy induced hypertension that didn't necessitate early delivery, incompetent cervixes, preterm spontaneous rupture of membranes, and infections that cause preterm labor, etc.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Several thoughts:

 

-It seems like they'd need some way to move the artifical wombs around to simulate the movement of the mother.

 

-Scientists still don't know all the nutrients in food that are necessary for good health. It would be way to easy to leave something out of the tank that they don't realize is necessary or haven't even discovered yet.

 

-This would make breastfeeding even harder for women, since they'd need to take hormones to induce lactation. Few would bother with it.

[Bluegoat]

First, maternity leave isn't for your pregnancy.  It's for the term post-pregnancy so that you have time with your infant.  So, maternity leave would still be a reasonable request.  However, many companies in a country to the south of me don't even offer paid maternity leave now, as it is.  It isn't a labour right for many women at the moment.  Artificial wombs won't impact that situation..

 

Second, I agree with you last paragraph.  I think the idea is fascinating and that the science and engineering behind making it successfully functional are equally fascinating, but I would want to give an appropriate amount of time to research and qualify the philosophical and ethical impacts of such a technology, as well as the psychological impact upon the fetus of being gestated sans the input of a human mother.

 

Maternity leaves, and things like sick leaves during pregnancy, are related to our attitudes about child-bearing and what it means to be a woman or parent.  Why are maternity leaves so crappy in some places - because of the way people understand the value of different kinds of activities, and because of who holds the power in employer/worker relations.  So - it seems ok to people to send infants to daycare - it is the parent's choice to have a child, so they should have to deal with having only one wage or sending the baby into care.  The fact that having all adults in the workforce in itself affects wages and prices so that it is a choice for only those who are in high paying jobs notwithstanding.

 

When people don't value child-rearing as much as they do paid labour, social structures and labour laws reflect that.

 

If there are artificial wombs available, I think it would be very surprising if their acceptance didn't have similar social results.  If it is no longer necessary for a woman to be pregnant, it can't be argued to be a biological necessity that the workplace needs to accomodate.  If her job might require her to slow down, or work in another area because of chemical exposure, or whatever, perhaps then her choice becomes - use an artificial womb or lose your job.