Artificial Wombs

I find this topic interesting too. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea that artificial wombs are seen in purely mechanistic terms and neglect the (for want of a better term) nurturing role of the mother, and that that ties into a more pervasive conception of women as "lesser" and "What Women Do" as less important.

However, I also don't think that there's the smallest chance of an artificial womb (in the conception-> birth sense) ever actually being created. I do think that much of the research in this area is ultimately likely to result in improved incubators for preterm infants so that survival rates increase and rates of serious disabilities go down. If we had an "artificial womb" that could sustain a 23- or 24- week baby for even two or three extra weeks that would be amazing. A full 38 week pregnancy? Not going to happen. It just isn't. Because even viewing it mechanistically it's just too massively complicated to simulate.

And I think focusing on the technology is massively counterproductive. The technology to carry out gender selection (with pretty good accuracy rates at the sperm-sorting stage, or with perfect accuracy rates at the blastocyst stage) has been around for a good while. Has that had an impact in (for example) parts of rural India or Pakistan? No. Unwanted girl babies are still disposed of by old-fashioned low-tech means (suffocation, drowning, crushed skulls, abandonment...). It's the attitudes that need to be tackled, because the technology is largely incidental -- both because it's unavailable to the vast majority of the world's population and because there are always lower-tech means to the same end. Putting energy into fighting the technology spectacularly misses the point, IMO.

That's a general rule, but even more particularly the case when the only potentially practical use for the research is the beneficial treatment-for-prem-babies option. I am not going to take against that because of a completely imaginary spectre of hordes of evil scientists with penises creating armies of little boy babies.

I agree with whoever said ^ thread. Individually, for a woman who can't carry to term etc, it would be great. Collectively for women I suspect it would be a bad thing.

The most likely outcome would be women n general encouraged to have test-tube babies as it would be cheaper, less litigious and easier than the unorganized mess of giving birth. Specifically I'm thinking about a parallel between artificial wombs and the rise of c-sections in the us for anything at all outside of the ordinary.

Got to go out now but was going to say - porto I find sakura's posts challenging to say the least! and they always give me food for thought. These issues are global though and it is useful to remember parts of the world where terrible things are endemic and ask yourself not how these things will work if applied to you and your family, but what about in rural pakistan or the parts of the world where raping babies and children is something that goes on eg thinking it's a cure for HIV

sorry that was short and not as well thought out as i'd like but have to go

Sakura, I am still very much learning about feminism, but when I look at my life, my friends, my family, my work colleagues - I just do not see this bunch of evil men who want woman to be subservient to them, who rape and just see women as objects and walking wombs....

I know that there ARE men who are like this - god, you read about them everyday on here. But not ALL men are like this.

While I agree with the posters who are concerned about replicating some of the effects of a real womb, it's also interesting to note that historically similar concerns were raised about the first heart transplant and about the first IVF babies. With the heart transplants there were worries the person's personality would get 'transfered', with the IVF babies there were worries the babies would be psychologically damaged.

I just can't believe there are so many women here who are doing the patriarchy's job for them.
Men have been obsessed, literally obsessed with creating artificial wombs, and with usurping women's biological powers from them. There are reams of literature on the subject. In the Elton John case, does anybody here think it's a coincidence that
a) women being poor benefits men and enables them to rent wombs from women and
b) it's a coincidence that they transfered an egg from one mother and implanted it in another woman so that neither woman could claim the child.[

In the UK (thankfully) if a birth mother changes her mind she gets to keep the child. Not so in the litigous US. Over there a woman can carry a baby, give birth and have no claims over it. It's fucking disgusting, is what it is, and it's where men have been driving us, and I can't believe there are women embracing it!

Do any of you honestly think women's status will improve when the one thing men need us for is gone?

What will happen in this utopian future is that men will create males. Lots and lots of males. Armies of males. Then they'll keep females to serve them:sexual service, mainly, but also to do the shit work. Females will be treated appallingly, even moreso than they are now.

IF technology usurps women's wombs it will basically then be men in the driving seat, not women. Male scientists. I hope this is clear to everyone who is arguing for artificial wombs.

Mother nature gave women power over reproduction for a reason and that reason is she knows we can handle it. Men rape babies FFS. You really want to give them power over something so important! I can't believe we're having this discussion!

For the women who are worried about pain in childbirth, not all women need to reproduce, you see. That's the main lie the patriarchy peddles. IN a non-patriarchal society I'm certain that many women would not bother, and only those who are interested in doing it out of curiosity would risk their life to bring a child into the world. Having a child is nice, but because women's options are so limited for many childbearing is the best and most pleasurable route they can take in life. If women had real economic and political power this would not be the case.
In such a society, of course, mothers and the work they do would be valued. Not put on a pedestal, but actually valued.

And what about unwanted pregnancies? How are artifical wombs going to stop men raping women? THat is the real question we need to ask here.

How are artificial wombs going to protect prostitutes, for example? Or will men do away with women altogether in the sex department and just shag other men dressed up as women (transsexuals) or immerse themselves in cyberspace?

Do women here despise the female body so much that you think it's entirely defunct and faulty? Would you have hysterectomies?

Oh who has agreed with sakura on that point?

And this constant harking back to sakura's posts is moving the discussion away from the topic and I'm finding it really interesting so that's a shame.

Hmm. So when a poster makes a sweeping statement like "Men don't even fancy women" anyone who disagrees is automatically "boring"? I don't see how that is "not taking the discussion anywhere" while posting "oh, yes, Sakura, you're so right, men don't fancy women at all" presumably would be?

(sort of in a if you don't laugh you'll cry way)

Also men drinking smoking etc can reduce sperm quality but strangely I have never seen a 6 pack of Fosters bearing that warning

Like how the RISK of TTC when you are an older woman are well known and older mothers have a special place in the heart of rags like the DM. But they have now found out that older men producing substandard sperm can lead to miscarriages etc. So when women are having miscarriage after miscarriage they ought to be looking at the man as well but strangely the doctors have only just realised this and it's not in the public consciousness at all. Strange that, isn't it.

It's funny how warnings aren't put on to one of the biggest dangers to pregnant women and their babies.

Rereading my post 8:11 about sharing food etc it occurs to me that there is a general feeling that women are too irresponsible to be trusted with something as important as growing babies. In the US they have people refusing to serve a woman an alcoholic drink, even coffee. Women are now being recommended to avoid bozze fags etc while they are TTC and some more extreme elements in the US think that as a woman might become pg at any time of her reproductive life that women of those ages shouldn't drink or anything full stop ever.

I saw a warning on a bottle of wine the other day that said avoid alcohol if you are pg or TTC and this was here in the UK.

The lists of things not to do which are so prescriptive and based not on risk assessment but on choosing the least risky path for the foetus irrespective of the impact this has on the woman. Women are told on here all the time why wouldn't you do x y and z it's only 9 months blah etc.

So given this sense that women are basically not up to the task - I think the idea of taking the job away from women starts to look appealing to the general population even here. The call would be "If it saves even ONE BABY from FAS/exposure to cigarettes/risk to foetus from DV then it's WORTH IT".

I can imagine that very easily indeed, I'm afraid to say. Frame it right and it'd be done.

A baby that came from an artificial womb would probably be psychotic.

Agree SardineQueen the fact that anybody could believe this would work, is because people see women as objects.

The attacks on Sakura are disgraceful.

Oh an I read somewhere that men are able to lactate and was a bit sceptical to say the least! Can they does anyone know? I mean apart from if they have a medical reason for it IYSWIM

I don't understand this. Bemybebe told her story and then a load of people posted, some to her and some in general, then the conversation moved on, and then Sakura came on to respond to a strong challenge that had been made to her upthread accusing her of being a comic creation. Nothing whatsoever to suggest she was negating anyone's experiences

Anyway. I think the conversation about the actual experience of the foetus of growing inside a person and hearing the heartbeat and voices and sharing meals in a way and all the rest of it is very interesting. If an artificial womb was invented what's the betting that the mechanical stuff (blood goes here, fluid here) would work really well but the babies wouldn't work properly. And it would be because the people replicating the womb has looked at it as an entity by itself rather than an integral part of the woman. So an extension of the idea that the woman is just a "vessel" and the idea that they had when they worked out how babies were made that the sperm made the baby and the woman was simply a receptacle to grow it in - the baby belonged to the man and was a product of him entirely. So thinking you can grow a baby in a jar if you get the soup of hormones right overlooks the fact that a woman is not just a jar.

Sorry, busy day.

My previous comment about the donor/deceased mother was a supplementary to your comment Eleanor about babies instinctively turning towards the person who has carried them. When that bond is broken, for whatever reason, do you feel this leaves the baby potentially damaged too?

I do think this is an interesting conversation, but I do not like the negation of a real life woman's experience and opinion earlier in this thread. I consider myself a feminist but not at the expense of showing no empathy to another human being.

MrsDistinctly, a baby growing in a surrogate womb, is still growing in a human body so still has that experience of a normal human gestation.

I think we need to define what sort of wombs we mean and where they would be kept.

In other women's bodies? Ooh, that sounds fab for them doesn't it? I don't fancy walking around with an artificial womb in me with someone else's child in it that sounds like not an awful lot of fun for me. I suppose I might do it if I were really poor and desperate and had no choice or if someone else was controlling me though....

"You can't expect to say things that are a very long way from the mainstream and not get a few wtf responses."

That's fair enough but this is the feminist board, which is a long way from the mainstream just by consistently and implacably declaring women's full humanity. This is the one space where we can discuss way out ideas and play with them and throw them around and see what gives. Sakura's right, people who come on here and say "OMG you are mad/ damaged/ crazy for discussing something that's outside my imagination" are really boring and not taking the discussion anywhere. She wasn't personally insulting anyone or trying to upset anyone by pointing that out. It would be very oafish of her to go over to a support thread and post sth like that, but this isn't a support thread is it, it's a feminist look at artificial wombs.

I think anyone who thinks there is any country in the world where men and women have a broadly similar experience of parenting, is kidding themselves. Scandinavia has some of the best conditions for women that's true, but it's still not on women's terms, it's still not equal, the pay gap hasn't bridged and rape still exists. In addition, women still don't own half the property or control half the companies or are half the judiciary or parliamentary representatives. I am always astonished by how ready women are to hand over yet more power to men on the basis that we've extracted a few rights here and there (which we can very easily lose again, btw - we have to fight bloody hard to keep the rights we've got, look at the recent onslaught on maternity rights and abortion rights just in this country, let alone anywhere else) we can rest easy and be comfortable that any piece of new technology controlled by men (because it is all controlled by men - look at the make up of all parliaments and judiciaries and medical controlling bodies if you don't believe me) will be used wholly to benefit women and has no sinister downsides at all.

Men as a class have form on how they've behaved towards women and are still behaving towards us and it is not mad to point that out and bring that experience into any discussion about handing over yet more power to them.

I don't think a donor uterus is currently a realistic prospect owing to the anti-rejection drugs that are required post-transplant, which make pregnancy far riskier even when the organ in question is not one directly involved in the pregnancy. The use of the uterus-donor's bone marrow might reduce the level of drugs required.

Growing one, or at least suitable muscle, from the user's stem cells for repair or replacement seems the only potentially achievable scenario.

Human egg cells have been made to divide as if fertilised by parthenogenesis so theoretically reproduction without a male sperm cell is possible. Also pregnancy can occur successfully outside the womb (I have only heard of one case of this) so I guess it could occur in males given the right hormonal environment & delivery by C-section, or possibly if a donor uterus was transplanted into a male. I think viable donor wombs are just around the corner, female-to-female.

I would like to think there could be a utopia where male & female were more equal if pregnancy & bf-ing could be made genderless, ie artificial wombs & artifical breastmilk, thus removing the expectation that most of the child rearing is done by females. In reality I don't know how this could ever be achieved in an acceptable way.

Sakura posts very extreme opinions so I don't see why she shouldn't be called on them. You can't expect to say things that are a very long way from the mainstream and not get a few wtf responses.

Artificial wombs are the province of science fiction right now and have been used in both worlds that might be considered feminist (or at least egalitarian) utopias and very scary totalitarian states. I imagine the outcome would be very different somewhere where women have very low status like perhaps rural China or India to places like Scandinavia where women and men have broadly similar lives and equal parenting is more expected.

I don't know any men that wish they could have been pregnant (and I have asked a few prospective dads). Personally I would have been very happy to share the experience with dh. I'm sure he would have enjoyed the puking, heartburn, waddling and general discomfort of pregnancy as well as the births. Not to say that there weren't some special things about pregnancy too, but it's not exactly a walk in the park. The act of creation is not the sole province of women in any case and wouldn't be unless we were capable of spontaneous cloning (another area Sci-Fi has explored).

Sakura is not hateful or being a comedian (unless you think that the shit men do to women the world over is funny, Nesbo?)

I'm very sorry to hear of your bereavement and the difficulties you're facing, bemybebe.

Although I can understand why the idea of an artificial womb might solve certain individual women's problems, this would be a very dangerous development indeed for women if it were to happen under current conditions (i.e. where women as a class are systematically oppressed). It's not hateful to point out that women don't control the conditions of reproduction anywhere in the world, and that what rights some women have managed to win for ourselves have been meagre and are constantly under threat. It's just factual. Just look at what is going on in the US wrt abortion, for example.

And this is the thing isn't it, feminists who dare to point out stuff that actually happens in the real world, horrific stuff that men do to women, we get accused of being hateful or mad or 'funny'. But what is actually mad is the twisting of reality that's involved in hearing about a bunch of horrific stuff that one group of humans is doing to another group of humans with impunity, and then reacting not with horror and rage that these abuses are happening, but with anger towards the person pointing it out.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but why does anyone need to apologize?

bemy made a very eloquent point and I can't begin to imagine how she feels.

This does not mean we should never consider the vulnerability of technology to abuse, IMO.

Nope, sorry. That doesn't read like an apology to me.

Your comment about removing the emotions was really interesting ER - but what about those children born to a surrogate, who never see their 'mother' again? What about those thankfully rare cases where a woman is terminally ill and dies shortly after giving birth?

I don't think it could ever be an artificial womb 'in a box' so to speak.

Anyway, school run beckons.

MrsDistinctly, Sakura made it quite clear she wasn't address that comment to bemybebe.

Ooh, that's an interesting point ER. I wonder if a baby in an artificial womb could even learn normally? Babies start doing the ground work of learning to talk in the womb (they learn to recognize the rhythm of their mother tongue).

I don't think it's wrong or OTT to consider the worst case scenarios with medical technology, sakura. Someone has to think about it.