Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Artificial wombs - Guardian article

27 replies

OldQueen1969 · 27/06/2020 16:46

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future

I read this when I was barely awake this morning, and apologies if it has been brought up elsewhere.

I am still sorting out my thoughts on the subject as there are benign aspects and also troublesome aspects to the concept.

The science is being developed, and I just wondered what other people thought?

OP posts:
Doyoumind · 27/06/2020 16:52

So Brave New World brought to life? No thanks.

A child needs to be gestated in its mother's womb. Anything else is unthinkable.

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 27/06/2020 16:57

I am still sorting out my thoughts on the subject as there are benign aspects and also troublesome aspects to the concept.

Yep. It’s complicated, isn’t it?

Technology to save desperately wanted premature babies seems like a worthwhile cause...

But the earlier babies can theoretically survive from, the more pressure there is to move back abortion deadlines, and restricting abortion is bad for women.

And completely artificially-womb-raised babies is better than exploiting women through surrogacy, but who knows how not being gestated by an actual mother could affect the life-long health and mental well-being of a baby created in this way?

And in a dystopian future, men could theoretically demand custody of children prior to birth.

And regardless of the potential positives for premature infant, this will likely only be available to a fraction of parents-to-be anyway.

Urgh. What a mess.

OldQueen1969 · 27/06/2020 17:03

Indeed - my own thoughts pretty much mirror yours.

The thought that just because you can do something you should comes to mind.

I would imagine that it will be years before this will be anywhere close to everyday life but the ethics and impact on women and the potential children must be thoroughly examined and explored.

Quite the minefield and as mentioned in the article potentially open to abuse in the area of the definition of a "good enough mother".

OP posts:
2bazookas · 27/06/2020 17:33

Artificial wombs can be implanted into men. Great idea.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 27/06/2020 17:39

I expect you're joking, @2bazookas, but no, they couldn't. To re-use a phrase I saw here or on Twitter in a previous discussion about this, wombs aren't plug and play accessories. A woman's whole body is affected by/involved with pregnancy. I don't think a man's body could ever do the same job. The immune system would probably be a huge problem, as women's are set up not to reject the foetus.

I'd see it as a better use of research funding to look at reasons for premature births and all sorts of other obstetric problems, and work on solutions.

formerbabe · 27/06/2020 17:43

The old fashioned way works fine....hence 7 billion people on the this planet.

NearlyGranny · 27/06/2020 17:49

A foetus in the womb of a living, breathing woman (sorry, uterus-haver) gets rocked by her gait, hears her voice and her heartbeat and is flooded with the chemicals generated by her state of mind. This has always been part of human experience. who knows until it's far too late how important these experiences are?

I would be shouting for an artificial womb for anyone who was in premature labour with a wanted baby, but what would stop authoritarian governments mandating them for all aborted foetuses? Let's not kid ourselves that the religious fundamentalists in the US woud not do this democratically with the help of someone like Trump. .

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 27/06/2020 17:51

At first I thought this could at least be a good thing in terms of being an upgrade on current incubators but having thought on it a bit longer I think the implications are bad for the mental health of parents (especially mothers) and thus also have implications for the health and wellbeing of the babies too.
Mothers are encouraged to be actively involved in care for premature infants for bonding purposes. This is challenging enough already (when you can only touch and hold your baby for limited periods) and by the looks of these new devices it will be impossible.

The gap between pregnancy/birth and being able to bond with the baby has potential adverse implications for the child/parent relationship.

So on balance, more negatives than positives.

DidoLamenting · 27/06/2020 17:58

The old fashioned way works fine....hence 7 billion people on the this planet

Agreed. That article was revolting.

merrymouse · 27/06/2020 18:17

It's not the future, if for no other reason than cost.

Theterrible42s · 27/06/2020 18:31

My initial feeling was revulsion for the same reasons as pps. However....a close friend's baby was born at 23 weeks, with serious lifelong consequences for her child and whole family. This sort of technology would have been completely life-changing for them. If doctors can currently preserve the life of severely premature babies (which isn't ethically straightforward in itself), then logically the next, most ethical step is to ensure the chances of quality of life are maximised. I seriously doubt it would stop there though.

taraRoo · 27/06/2020 18:35

For premature babies I have no issue with this and for those that cannot carry their own child. Surely it's more moral than using surrogates ?

Wondersense · 27/06/2020 18:50

Great. A world full of sex robots and artificial wombs. Considering how many men have a utilitarian view of women, I'd say they can dispense with us completely.

KingofDinobots · 27/06/2020 19:09

There’s a science fiction writer called Lois McMaster Bujold, who’s written extensively about this idea in her Vorkosigan sequence. Just might be interesting for anybody else mulling over how all this might play out in practice. On the whole she’s positive about the idea. My own thoughts on it are a bit muddled.

StylishMummy · 27/06/2020 19:45

I'm the mother of two extremely premature babies and I wouldn't have wanted them to 'grow' in an artificial womb. If this means my babies may not have survived then I'd have to accept that. I can not reconcile any money being spent on faux wombs when the money and expertise could be spent on developing drugs to treat things like PCOS and endometriosis, which cannot affect anyone but biological women.

The process of pregnancy and gestation isn't simply about growing a physical human, it's about developing the senses, bond, thoughts and memories of the foetus with its mother, not a pseudo environment. It's another step towards The Handmaids Tale

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 27/06/2020 20:36

@Wondersense

Great. A world full of sex robots and artificial wombs. Considering how many men have a utilitarian view of women, I'd say they can dispense with us completely.
Naw. They’d still want someone around to clean their houses and raise their artificially gestated babies.
VickyEadieofThigh · 27/06/2020 21:26

The bit in this article about how 'weird' the way we reproduce is was quite astonishing. It was almost as if the scientist saying it doesn't realise we're animals.

CaraDune · 27/06/2020 21:34

To the old mumsnet favourite "1984 was a work of dystopian fiction, not an instruction manual" we can now add "Brave New World was a work of dystopian fiction, not a piece of aspirational futurology."

FannyCann · 27/06/2020 21:59

Did someone say sex robots? Here's some discussion from CBC (Centre for Bioethics and Culture Network)

Lots of interesting discussions plus link to the podcast Venus Rising here.

www.cbc-network.org/

I read with great interest a recent study donee_ on the difference between men and women’s attitudes on the use of robots, specifically sex robots and robots for platonic love relationships. I was not surprised by their findings, but first, let me say a few things about the work of the CBC as it pertains to this research.

Here, at the CBC, we are laser focused on things that undermine the dignity of human beings as it relates to advances in biotechnology, which is why we spend a lot of time in the space of assisted reproductive technology – or what we call “making, manufacturing, and manipulating” life. Our work in third-party conception, egg and sperm donation, and surrogacy underscores our commitment to the dignity of women and children.

Of course, at the heart of robotics are the advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), nanotechnology, and new and improved prosthesis development. Many of these biotechnological advancements will make wonderful contributions in the lives of others. But, as we are prone to say, "Not all progress is good progress" and "just because you can, does not always mean you should." Our vision statement shapes our work as we strive to see progress in biotechnology that will unite around a common human good, promote human flourishing, working together, for our shared human future.
So, we have our eye on the future always. And what we see ahead includes: artificial wombss, artificial ovariess, artificial eggss, artificial spermm, and artificial relationshipss with the development of humanlike robots often called humanoidss. Bottom line: Will we not need human beings to make new human beings and then raise and nurture them? Am I being too extreme? Well, if all life can be made and incubated artificially, who is to say we will not have humanoid robots to care and nurture newborns and beyond? We already see instances where robots may be used in the care and comfort of childrenn and the elderlyy.
Back to the study and the aims of the researchers. Acknowledging that advances in A.I. and robotics are happening rather fast and that they predict robots will soon be part of everyday life, “offering personalized service and companionship of different kinds," the authors set out to test five hypotheses:

1	Males will have more positive attitudes toward robots, compared to the attitudes held by females.
2	 Males will be more positive toward sex robots than platonic love robots, while females will be more positive toward platonic love robots than sex robots.
3	Males will expect to feel more jealous if their female partner gets a sex robot, while females will expect to feel more jealous if their male partner gets a platonic love robot.
4	 Males will be more negative to the prospect of their female partner getting a sex robot, while females will be more negative to the prospect of their male partner getting a platonic love robot. 
5	Males will expect that a partner would respond more negatively to him having a platonic love robot, while females will expect that a partner would respond more negatively to her having a sex robot.

The researchers then designed and conducted a vignette experiment with 163 female and 114 male participants and found that “general attitudes toward the robots were negative, regardless of the gender of the participants and type of robot.” They also found that “women have less positive views of robots, and especially of sex robots, compared to men.”
But will this negative attitude with robots’ shift? We have certainly seen the shifting attitudes around assisted reproduction with the normalization of IVF, buying eggs and sperm, renting wombs, and designing our babies? Which leads me to wonder- since the acceptance of artificial eggs, sperm and wombs, without our really even noticing it, has been embraced as a good biotechnological advancement and broad acceptance of its use as a means of “helping” people have a baby, will it follow suit that attitudes people have toward robots will also shift? If robots provide people with mobility issues, greater access to freedom in their daily lives, that would be a good sort of progress. And if robots provide company to the over 1 million Americans living in nursing homes, who seldom get a visit, what harm would there be in that? Would children benefit from robots being in the classroom as an educational extension or the doctor’s office to provide comfort and distraction from painful procedures be necessarily bad?
So, perhaps the good news is, we will reject robots to keep us company and engage in intimate relations with, but I do not expect that attitude to hold. Maybe we should ask Siri?

JanewaysBun · 27/06/2020 22:12

This is very strange but if it can help the long term prospects for people born preterm then I am on board

Gronky · 27/06/2020 22:46

I realise there are some rather large fundamental differences but does anyone else remember the controversy over IVF when it was first used? I recall an especially nasty critic at the time describing children conceived via this method as somehow less than fully fledged humans.

Doyoumind · 27/06/2020 22:58

I'm all for the sex robots Fanny. If they gave the incels something to do with themselves I don't see an issue.

FannyCann · 27/06/2020 23:05

Doyoumind This is a tricky one. On the one hand maybe it's a good idea for the incels to get their release without bothering actual women.
On the other hand may it not be the case that it feeds their lack of empathy and entitlement and could lead to an escalation of harm when they get a chance to repeat the performance with real women?

Especially considering there are CHILD sex dolls.

Doyoumind · 27/06/2020 23:08

I see your point, Fanny.

MotherWol · 27/06/2020 23:23

The bit in this article about how 'weird' the way we reproduce is was quite astonishing. It was almost as if the scientist saying it doesn't realise we're animals

Agreed - the way humans reproduce is no different than any other mammal!

The whole article was odd - it set out to look at the ethical implications of the technology but didn’t ask, much less try to answer, what it might mean for children. It stated that the technology was only a matter of time, when it’s clearly more complex than that - even when an advance is technologically possible, it may not happen for social reasons. And it argued that it should be welcomed for people who are physically unable to have children, but not for social/lifestyle reasons without setting out why.