Artificial Womb Technology
POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Thursday, August 7, 2014 04:28
VIEWED: 9348
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/read/artificial-wombs-are-coming-and
-the-controversys-already-here
Bring it on. Heck yes.
Freaky meddling and social engineering issues aside, these would change how adult humans interact with each other for the better. So many other issues would also be solved by this, not even kidding. Natural doesn't always mean GOOD, folks! Our reproductive methods are actually pretty detrimental in a lot of ways.
This would mean the meat market aspect of relationships between genders would be GONE. Do you know what that would be like? Do you? Because I do and it's BEAUTIFUL.
I'm not sure why you would find it so liberating for the human race and personally I'm not sure why we should be finding more ways to produce more children.
I can see why it might be a useful technology for someone unable to have children but I cant see why it would be a better option than the natural method? Another way for science to make a lot of money for something that's currently free? A bit like promoting formula for babies.
In utero, babies and mothers are already experiencing attachment, and babies are experiencing the world in a somewhat limited way. They can hear and react to noise, voices, music, they respond to movement, sensation. There is even some evidence that even share some emotional responses with their mother, Who is to say how removing that environment would affect the unborn child.
I know you may find this hard to believe because you have a kind of 'Brave New World' sensibility, but creating life the old fashioned way was pretty damned amazing experience all round for me. And to think that it all just happens, that your body just does all this and a human comes out, well it still blows my mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man walks into a drug store and sees this weird-looking thing on the shelf. He asks the pharmacist "What's that strange thing on the shelf?" The pharmacist leans over and whispers "It's an artificial vagina." Man says " That's amazing! I think I'll buy one." Pharmacist says, Okay, I'll wrap that right up for you sir." Man says "No thanks, I'll eat it here."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I can see why it might be a useful technology for someone unable to have children but I cant see why it would be a better option than the natural method?
Because it's a lot more convenient for the would be mother and there are a lot less medical risks.
Women still die in childbirth.
Quote:
A bit like promoting formula for babies.
And if we're going there, not every woman can produce milk well. The point is, "natural" is not always good.
Quote:
In utero, babies and mothers are already experiencing attachment, and babies are experiencing the world in a somewhat limited way. They can hear and react to noise, voices, music, they respond to movement, sensation. There is even some evidence that even share some emotional responses with their mother, Who is to say how removing that environment would affect the unborn child.
Again, explain children forming attachments in adoption scenarios. It's not just a one time thing, humans are built to potentially attach to a lot of people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Man walks into a drug store and sees this weird-looking thing on the shelf. He asks the pharmacist "What's that strange thing on the shelf?" The pharmacist leans over and whispers "It's an artificial vagina." Man says " That's amazing! I think I'll buy one." Pharmacist says, Okay, I'll wrap that right up for you sir." Man says "No thanks, I'll eat it here."
Almost laughed, then wondered if that would technically be sexually explicit behaviour in a public place. Interesting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Because it's a lot more convenient for the would be mother and there are a lot less medical risks.
Women still die in childbirth.
Yeah they do, but the risks are pretty low in countries where there is adequate medical facilities. And it's not like this is going to be an invention that helps women in developing countries.
Quote:
And if we're going there, not every woman can produce milk well. The point is, "natural" is not always good.
I did that I could see if could be useful if there were medical problems which prevented natural birthing methods, just not sure why it would replace what is already there.
In terms of formula, basically its been one big con - a money making venture by creating a market for something which is available free. A bit like bottled water - it may be that somewhere the water is too contaminated to drink safely, but the rest is people buying what they get free from a tap.
There are few medical reasons why a woman can't breastfeed, it's just that we've been conned into feeling shamed and guilted into doing something different so that it becomes a problem for many women. If there was no alternative, believe me, women would find a way.
It always struck me as being a bit ridiculous that you would spend money, quite a lot of money too, a fiddle around with bottles and sterilising and dragging all that stuff around with you, when you carried a free, convenient source around with you. A big bag of junk compared to a couple of boobies.
Quote:
Again, explain children forming attachments in adoption scenarios. It's not just a one time thing, humans are built to potentially attach to a lot of people.
Children who are adopted have still experienced being in utero with their mother and hearing her voice and feeling her movement. They still get the benefits of attachment to her, even is she wont be the primary carer.
The research around attachment is still happening. There is some that suggest that attachment takes place pre birth, that children will respond at birth to a mother's voice because they recognise it.
But in any event we cant know the impact not being brought to term in utero, of not being subject to mum's hormones.
My big question is why would this replace what we already have? I dont understand what the benefits would be and I dont understand your meat market references.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
In utero, babies and mothers are already experiencing attachment, and babies are experiencing the world in a somewhat limited way. They can hear and react to noise, voices, music, they respond to movement, sensation. There is even some evidence that even share some emotional responses with their mother, Who is to say how removing that environment would affect the unborn child.
Again, explain children forming attachments in adoption scenarios. It's not just a one time thing, humans are built to potentially attach to a lot of people.
I wouldn't dismiss the in-utero experience so quickly, and I wouldn't reduce it to an issue of attachment, either, though it probably plays a role in that, too, which you might be underestimating.
Fetuses go through a thorough process of cognitive development tied to sound, taste, physical routine and hormones inside the womb. It affects their preferences for food, for the sound of their mother's voice, their language development, their stress response...
In-utero experiences have an impressive effect on the later development of a human being, probably including the ability to form attachments post-partum. Something like the death of a twin in-utero can have psychogical ramifications throughout life.
Basically, while I agree whole-heartedly that natural doesn't always mean good, the in-utero experience is massively complex, highly influential and in that context insanely convenient in its natural form because the expecting mother literally does it all automatically.
If humans can replicate that in all its complexity through artificial means, go us. It'd potentially fulfill my personal dream of making abortion irrelevant by providing an alternate "host" for an unwanted pregnancy.
But such a discussion shouldn't stoop to dismissing natural pregnancy, either in its brilliant complexity OR in it's emotional importance for most human beings. I don't see this option as revolutionizing human reproduction so much as complementing it, like many other forms of medical interventions have done.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yep, that's what I meant, but more articulately stated.
By the way , AR, your command of English is astounding. I'm almost embarressed, seeing as its my first language. Well a version of it anyway
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If humans can replicate that in all its complexity through artificial means, go us. It'd potentially fulfill my personal dream of making abortion irrelevant by providing an alternate "host" for an unwanted pregnancy.
See, I didn't even want to go there because I knew that the backlash would be spectacular, but yes. It's an easy solution to a moral dilemma that still respects the rights and needs of the woman. Provided of course that certain groups don't jump on this as an excuse to grow rape babies against the victim's will or force women into motherhood for unplanned pregnancies.
But not just that, it really will make a LOT of social norms completely irrelevant, and I love it.
Worries and concerns about attachment in utero and hormones and normal psychological development can certainly be solved by science if we have the science to grow a fetus to full term outside the womb. Frankly those are much smaller obstacles than the bigger picture technology this would take.
And why would we need to make the artificial womb soundproof? Why is it assumed that it would be a completely sensory deprived experience for the fetus? Just because it isn't "natural?"
Are we going to dig our heels in just because of THAT? If we never pushed past our natural boundaries, we would never have invented airplanes or gone to the moon. We would never have attempted to grow artificial organs, never implanted artificial hips for those afflicted by arthritis. And I for one like the idea that with this invention women would not have to be subject to the pains, stigma, and mysticism of childbirth which so dominates all other social conversations about what women are and what our purpose might be.
We are more than just boobs and wombs and eggsacks on legs. And I'm prepared to give that up completely to prove that. I mean, yes, I was before this as well. But this makes that a viable option for other women, and I must always applaud when we are given greater flexibility in terms of choice. I want to choose my destiny, I imagine other women do as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think anyone here is digging in their heels because it "isn't natural". I didn't read anyone's replies that way.
But I do think you may be overestimating the social impact of this invention.
And I think it's colored by a negative view of pregnancy, childbirth and female sexuality that isn't shared by all women, or all people. You basically championing respect and equality by removing a supposed flaw from women, as if women were weak and inferior as they are now, as if the experience of pregnancy is universally loathed by women.
But it is not.
Pregnancy, like any other biological function, is flawed as hell. But it is not a flaw in itself, and it is not a mistake that needs correcting.
For women who want another choice, I would be gleeful to see it available, but I would caution against framing an artificial womb in the light of an instigator of radical social change. It is merely that: another option.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yep, that's what I meant, but more articulately stated.
By the way , AR, your command of English is astounding. I'm almost embarressed, seeing as its my first language. Well a version of it anyway
You flatter me. Thank you for that. :)
Australia, yes? When I was a wee anti-social teenager I thought about emigrating to Australia mostly because of how much I adored Claudia Black and her flawless everything and especially her voice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME