Glosswitch on Artificial Wombs

I think that it's a reasonable fear to think that some men might happily eradicate women if they weren't needed for reproduction, given how badly they treat women currently, don't you think?

I don't think that artificial wombs are anywhere near possible, even with a very optimistic interpretation of the recent developments.

Excuse me English is not my first language

No need to apologise, its not mine either.

men can make eggs artificially I don't know if that is true - I really doubt it. In order to do so, I'd imagine you would need to manipulate the chromosomes in a normal cell - by which I mean diploid - and find a cell in the right chromosomal stage - then somehow move one set of the paired chromosomes into each half of the nucleus and persuade the cell to divide along the necessary line of division - to make the daughter cells haploid - even then your missing out on the cross-over stage. Honesty there is no end to the technical obstacles to be over-come......not to mention the ethical dimensions.

Do you have any links to the creation of artificial eggs, because I keep relatively well up on stuff (OK... I read New Scientist) and have never heard of this.

It certainly would be fantastic, as egg donation, unlike sperm donation, is hugely invasive and dangerous for the woman doing it.

Excuse me English is not my first language, now men can make eggs artificially and then trade among each other or with women so they do not produce clones. men contain the x and y chromosome and sperm decides gender so men can trade they artificial eggs and then use they own sperm to fertilize it resulting in a daughter or son having the DNA of two people instead of one.i don't understand why everyone is so hostile here science is trying to help women with all the complications of pregnancy from death,premature birth, stillborns and giving you the opportunity to to continue with your career's and not sacrifice your Bodies for reproduction it is absolute freedom.

Eggs can be made artificially by the way they don't need women to make them just stem cells

Eggs (and sperm for that matter) are more complex than that - unless you wish to create a clone (of the person who donated the stem cell). The egg has undergone meiosis with cross-over recombination occurring between the pairs of each chromosome prior to the last cell division. Not so easy.

Maybe science should change men before putting all the responsibility for parenting and loving on to them. They struggle with 50%.

Also, some basic punctuation would be helpful if you think you can manage it. Thanks.

Jamescv Then good luck doing the shit work when you have achieved your dearest wish and eradicated women.

Why should we be happy?

Please mansplain that aspect of this to the world.

Eggs can be made artificially by the way they don't need women to make them just stem cells and they have a few sources to extract the material to make them from. the different stages of the womb is going to be further studied then replicated nothing is too magical for scientist to figure out you must understand that when scientist were trying to clone they had limited knowledge and technology just because it failed in the past doesn't mean it will fail in the future but as we go on in the future science and technology now is starting to take off and produce things at a faster rate the article's that are now popping up are a result of understanding that with increased funding the timeline to a finished product declines in my own personal opinion artificial wombs should already exist but lacked funding and interest you should be happy science is helping women with the burden of pregnancy

The female body may not be needed for gestation, but it is needed to produce eggs.
Its not that the womb is complicated; but the different stages of development are. the ovaries produce hormones that help the fetus develop.
Cloning was once thought to be a simple matter. But in real life, cloned animals suffer from bad health and die young.

You must also understand that science is never stagnant it is always evolving pregnancy in itself is a biological process it isn't magical or a miracle it will be figured out and replicated the lamb experiments just proved that the female body isn't necessary for gestation there isn't some connection needed for a fetus to continue growing in order for you to be updated you need to quote current article's donkeyskin don't hold your breath it was believed a couple of years ago that the womb was too complex to replicate but here we are it is now artificial so will the so called complicated first few weeks in the artificial uterus will be figured out

The mouse experiments they conducted did not include an artificial womb yet but they came very close to bringing miece to full term using IVF if you think artificial wombs are not going to happen or are a long time away you must be foolish the success of the lamb artificial wombs have just increased the funding to artificial wombs at an alarming rate

The article's you posted are dated they were before the current experiments with the lambs they just conducted proving gestation is possible and can be repeated outside a women's body all they need to do is merge the artificial uterus and the artificial womb together and this will happen a lot faster then you think

" In fact the human aspect could provide a useful fake news cover, and good PR, for the real story of 'farming practices to become even more inhumane' (if I was being cynical). "
Very good point.. And sadly not very cynical at all, just realistic.

Completely agree that pregnancy is far far too complex to reproduce artifically (see what I did there)
but, the drive to do it even in part always makes me wonder about assisted conception generally. I know it's not a popular view and at an individual level I am sorry for people who are infertile and understand why they would pursue IVF or whatever. But at a societal level I question why we would pour resources (including the research effort) into this when the beneficiaries are actually otherwise healthy. If we haven't cracked malaria and can't seem to protect people from the diseases of affluence in the North, is it a good use of money and human effort?
Of course if it is all driven by agriculture that would make sense, but this is the first time I've come across that idea.

Sorry shouldn't have left milk production in there. In sheep milk production is often not required, continuous production of lambs is.

In milk animals like cows and goats it would be a little different but I can still see how this technology would be useful.

My suspicion is it's got nowt to do with humans, bit like the development of artificial insemination.

Fertility techniques are developed for use in farming 9 times out of 10. The biological knowledge we have of reproduction is basically cow knowledge, tweaked a little for special human characteristics. Ditto lactation.

It's not surprised at all that this technique has been developed with lambs...a food animal. And in America...with their lax farming practices. By peadiatric doctors yes, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't big farming money poured into it somewhere. In fact the human aspect could provide a useful fake news cover, and good PR, for the real story of 'farming practices to become even more inhumane' (if I was being cynical).

Pregnant animals kept in horrendous intensive farming conditions have a high miscarriage rate. This affects herd replacement and milk production. If you could replace even just half the pregnancy with a reliable artificial means you could really throw animal welfare to the wind.

Tbh I don't think they're trying to eradicate males or females, it's dystopian scaremongering (and maybe wishful thinking by that MRA group)

Agreed.


Fact is, a couple of buckets of sperm and there is absolutely no need for the male of the species for the foreseeable

People have been saying this ever since the first test tube baby and it hasn't happened.
The thing I don't buy is: men are trying to develop artificial wombs so that have no need of women. Yet they developed artificial insemination first, rendering themselves obsolete.
Why would they do that?
Tbh I don't think they're trying to eradicate males or females, it's dystopian scaremongering (and maybe wishful thinking by that MRA group).

"According to the charmingly titled Men’s Rights Activist blog Boycott Bitches, “the future is pretty dark for women”. This is because: “Once artificial wombs are invented, real human women will become obsolete.”"
Obsolete, they say? Well I will cheerfully wave them off to their men-only island where they can reproduce themselves to their hearts' content.

But - who will tend the freshly-decanted babies, feed them and wipe their arses, talk to them and love them? Who will cook and clean and keep house for these adult masters of the universe?

You're in for a steep learning curve, boys ...

Donkey totally agree. There is just no way this technology (creating a child outside of the human body) is imminent. It's one thing to replace current incubators for a premature baby with a fluid-filled bag, quite another to attempt to grow a foetus from scratch outside of the body.

The thing that struck me looking at the technology was the hole in the bag through which the cord/placenta-replacement exchange would take place. Meaning that it is only viable for a foetus past the stage of the placenta and cord being grown. So post 12/13 weeks at the very earliest.

I thought it was well known that the first trimester is the most complex stage of pregnancy; hence why morning sickness is often suffered then and resolves later. A system that assumes first trimester has gestated successfully, like this one, is no closer to gestating a baby in full than IVF techniques or current incubators. That bridge between the two - those crucial 20 or so weeks of development that must take place inside the human female body - are not really properly understood nor anywhere near being replicated.

It's almost as if the people who spout on about abolishing women don't want to appreciate the full complexities of pregnancy. Funny that.

We already know that children raised by distant or unloving parents are at a disadvantage, and how complex child development is. We know that damaged childhoods can produce damaged adults.
The men who promote these technologies are oblivious to that and think it irrelevant. People who are not closely involved with child rearing cannot grasp that its not a mechanical rearing process.
People are not a product that you can produce from an assembly line. Well not healthy ones at least.

Babies do learn their mothers voices in the womb dusty (and the rest of their families). They must also learnt the smell of the mother as they drink the amniotic fluid and smell/taste are closely related.