I suspect that conservatives and liberals would both be opposed to it, for different reasons.
Conservatives would (irrationally) oppose the practice of artificial wombs on the basis of being unnatural (even if not necessarily unethical).
Liberals wouldn't have any objection to artificial wombs as a practice, but I guarantee that they wouldn't want Roe v Wade overturned, because they wouldn't consider it an adequate substitute for abortion. Artificial wombs would solve the physical discomfort and risk involved with carrying a fetus to term, but the question would still remain as to who was responsible for that child financially, after the fact. Of course, liberals have no concept of personal responsibility, so they would vote against any laws that forced women to opt for artificial gestation instead of abortion, because they would then be financially responsible for the child after gestation ended.
Even if abortion was somehow made illegal, because adoption organizations couldn't handle the number of children, in cases of unwanted pregnancy, anyone on the right would hold the mother (and father, though fathers have always been financially responsible anyway, so nothing changed there) financially responsible, at least until the child could be adopted, while anyone on the left would disperse the responsibility to everyone via a welfare program for such children, that's funded by taxes.
It might help a little, but only if it was accessible to everyone as an alternative to abortion. If it was super expensive or there was a long waiting list or anything that made it harder to access than abortion, it won't do a damn thing. However my concern would be the pro life movement then piling on to this procedure as the only alternative and still trying to outlaw abortion. Because unless they can take an embryo and put it in an artificial womb within the first trimester (which, if I read that study right, so far the wombs are more for premature fetuses, not embryos) then an artificial womb will not replace abortion because it doesn't solve the main problem which is someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be.
If you have to wait until you are 7 months or so along to have your fetus moved to an artifical womb, you've already gone through most of the expenses, health risks, and trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. That womb is now entirely useless an an alternative to the abortion you could have had 7 months ago.
This is the correct answer to the question👆
@That_Skinny_Chick Thank you!
I have a lot of thoufghts about this, both plus and negative.
I feel like society as a whole is moving away from marriage and committment, would this further guide that? I feel as if that would be tragic.
On the plus side, if I didn't have to carry a baby for 9 months, I might actually be more inclined to have one. All my reasons for not wanting one, would have gone right out the window.
On another note, this would effectively end teenage pregnancy. Remove the ability for women to create a child naturually and you would only be able to have kids when the timing was actually right, instead of a surprise.
Why would they?
If a woman doesn't want to remain pregnant, and she wants to abort the pregnancy, but anti-abortionists insist on her using the artificial womb instead, what happens after the child is born? Does the biological mother still have to raise/pay for the child? Then what the fuck was the point in the artificial womb as an alternative? And the anti-abortionist won't pay for the hypothetical child, because they don't care for kids, only foetuses, they'd refuse to pay the taxes for the extra adoption shelters they'd created the need for.
So neither side would actually want this.
If the father wants the child to live, he will raise it. Simple as that.
I would stipulate that if a woman opted for an "abortion" (A. K. A. Using an artificial womb) then she would in effect be giving up all rights of motherhood to that child. People who could not have children on their own could then adopt the child.
@CLASSYMUTT
That's fine.
And if neither wants the child?
There are many couples out there that can't have babies like same sex couples and couples suffering from infertility. They would be more than happy to raise it.
@CLASSYMUTT
Which is why all foster homes are always empty.
There is already more supply than demand, this system would just create an abundance of unadopted children.
Because the legal system makes it incredibly difficult and expensive to adopt a child. Many people just can't afford it. If the process was simplified somewhat (of course the couple would need to be vetted)
It would fix the issue in no time
@CLASSYMUTT
I still imagine there would be way more supply than demand, even with a simplified adoption system. I don't think anti-abortionists ever comprehend quite how many hypothetical children their system would produce.
It's not just the pro-lifers goal to close abortion clinics. The other goal is to bring an end to hookup culture. The disposability of sex and the convenience of apps like Tinder have created a toxic culture, void of any meaningful relationships. Naturally, the rates of STDs have skyrocketed as well. If young people took more responsibility over their lives, we wouldn't have this debate.
@CLASSYMUTT
Then you are living in a dream world where you think sexuality can be controlled.
That's how the world used to be, I wish we could return to that way of life. People used to actually go out to meet each other, relationships weren't disposable. Technology and post modernism have brought about a generation of people that are dead inside. People are more depressed and lonely than ever.
@CLASSYMUTT
Nobody is stopping you from doing that.
That's why todays world is better - you have the freedom of choice. I'm sorry you find that so distressing.
@CLASSYMUTT You're not the one who has to carry the child for 9mo, and deliver it into this world. If you want to keep the child have an artificial womb implanted into you and deal with the joy of having the child grow inside of you, deal with the back aches, and of course you'd be lucky that you would only have to deal with a Cesarean instead of having to deliver the 6lb/2.7kg to 9lb/4.0kg child naturally. Hmmm maybe we can devise the artificial womb to deliver your baby anally.
Opinion
30Opinion
Probably wouldn't do anything to help stop the conflict.
If I’m being honest, I frankly don’t understand this “debate”: it seems beyond idiotic.
Firstly... there is a case to say men have no say here. You didn’t want a kid should have wrapped it. However I’m not so naive that this slips through and it should be a couple convo.
The biggest thing is RAPE. Now almost all men I’ve asked anonymously have said they believe despite rape and conversations before hand a woman should raise the child. When raised suicide they said it’s selfish of the mother and leaves the child no parent. BUT THEY REFUSE THEY HAVE A FATHER.
ABORTION IS A CHOICE. Let’s say it again, a CHOICE. You don’t have to take it, just like heroine, many don’t, but it’s there if you want it.
I find this whole removal barbaric as, as usual with the americans it’s so American based and not supported.
In some ways yes, on the other hand it would likely create a whole new debate which would leave us back where we started. Ultimately I’m not sure if we will ever be able to end the debate over abortion, at least not with things the way they are. The fact is many of those who are pro choice would argue that there is no life to preserve, as they don’t acknowledge fetuses as living beings deserving of equal protection. So then the debate would become wether or not this preserves life, or simply creates it in an unnatural manner. That then also brings up the debate of where parental responsibilities lye. As in theory anyone could have children made using their genetics without their consent. All it would take is a genetic sample of the two parties you wish to make a child of. It really would destroy our conception of parenthood.
It’s interesting for those who do not wish to carry and feel conflicted about abortion. However abortion isn’t necessarily about the pregnancy but more about allowing a fetus to fully develop into a baby. The women then either has to choose to adopt her baby out and wonder for the rest of her life how good or bad that kids life is gonna be, knowing her biological parents didn’t want her. Keep the baby and have it grow up unwanted. Or she chooses to abort which in the long run in my opinion would be more merciful.
People would find a reason to be against it. I don't fully agree with what ShortCircuit said, but he broke it down well. Some would argue it's unnatural and be against it on those grounds, but likely would begrudglingly go along with it as a better outcome than abortion. While some would argue the artificial womb option should not overwrite the mother's choice of what she should do with her body, even tho it would preserve life. Plus the fair point that it would likely still come with some financial responsibility even if she wasn't going to be mothering the child. Likely have to pay for some of it before giving it up for adoption. Which is part of the reason some women want an abortion. Not wanting to take on the financial responsibility.
I don't see how.
My pro-choice stance is based on a negatively-utilitarian belief that giving birth to unwanted children is objectively worse for them than to be aborted before they develop any cognitive functions.
This would not solve that issue, and I would deem it equally as misguided as banning abortion.
You are bringing people to live, only so they have a fucked up life, it's retarded.
Probably not because it would be impossible to perfectly recreate the womb, so there would still be a much higher miscarriage rate and the mother would likely have to carry the child at least 2-3 months before it could be even remotely safely transitioned. It would just be life vs slightly-less-likely-death-consequence-choice.
Nope. Women would still choose to get abortions of perfectly healthy children. They like depriving the father of any rights.
And then some of the pro lifers would want to keep the severely retarded kids too that will live on tax money/government assisted living their whole lives.
One the most ignorant comments I've seen in a while. Congratulations
@That_Skinny_Chick It is completely true. Women are against men's rights to their children and take them out of meanness and trying to get free money.
And plenty of pro lifers do want to keep severely retarded kids alive too.
Both things I stated are true.
Doubtful. Most pro life people would argue that it isn't natural and continue to block all alternatives to being pregnant.
Personally I'm all for artificial wombs if abortion was no longer an option. You want me to have this baby, here you fucking go:) *hands over fetus*
honestly I don't know why everyone's so against early termination. Less idiots in the world that way. The responsibility falls on the man and woman seeking the abortion, nothing has changed. Blood is on their hands and theirs alone if you feel that way.
I couldn't agree more.
Not to mention, if the only reason a woman doesn't get an abortion early (as the irreligious Right falsely claims) then do you REALLY want the offspring of an idiot being raised by an idiot?
No, the pro-abortion crowd would still demand to be able to kill a baby, and demand that the taxpayers subsidize it. You have to understand, the life of an unborn child has no value to pro-choicers. When I have kids in the future I wouldn't feel comfortable even leaving them in the same room as a pro-choicer.
Fully artificial wombs would eliminate pro-choice's primary argument that a woman's body is her choice. If the female role becomes reduced to that of a man ie. Solely genetic contribution, then the battle over reproductive rights becomes a very level playing field
She would still have to carry the being to term. It is her choice to terminate it from her body.
I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what is being developed here. An artificial womb eliminates the need for women to carry to full term. It won't be long before all stages of development are externally replicated
But until then, she would have to carry the being for an allotted time. It still impedes on her choice.
I also don't see a way for them to take the zygote out of her and implant it into the artificial womb. For argument's sake, let's say there is a way. What if she doesn't want to do it that way? It is still her choice.
Your hypothetical scenario suggests a glaringly sinister preference for abortion. This pro-choice argument seems to have degenerated from viewing abortion as an unsavory necessity, into the active desire to unnecessarily terminate simply because you can.
That doesn't answer the question. She is not given the option to choose a way to be rid of the being--she is being forced to give it up into an artificial womb. That choice (of choosing the womb or abortion) is being taken away from her.
The whole debate is about her having a choice. Why offer a proposed solution when not running through all possible scenarios to ensure that it would be beneficial for both sides?
Finally, I don't care what a woman's reason for abortion is (if she loves unprotected sex and doesn't want the consequence of it or if it's rape), it is her life, her body, her choice. If she wants to abort because she wants to, that is fine with me. It is her choice. Forcing a woman through pregnancy, placing the children in foster homes (which are notorious in the U. S.) and more does no favors for the quality of life the being may have.
If she doesn't want it, she doesn't want it. No one should impede on her life. That's my belief anyway.
Deep emotional investment obviously has you so intellectually entrenched that you're abandoning any and all moral semblance. The only argument I've seen is: "A woman's body is woman's choice". Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a pro-life activist by any means. I recognize that women play a greater role in creating life and therefore, deserve to be the deciding factor when it comes to abortion. However, that position is slowly being eroded with new viable options. the result is exposure of a diseased mentality trying to retain power at any cost. In short, the pro-choice position you've explained is not a winner. It's a shockingly ugly revolt against abortion alternatives which can only be described as anti-choice
You don't want choices. You only want abortion
Yes. Absolutely. I really hope that it can be perfected. Everyone would win 😂 if you don’t want want to be pregnant you don’t have to be and everyone else won’t have shit to say since the baby can still thrive somewhere else.
No. The woman would still be obligated to go through the pregnancy when she does not desire it. The whole point of pro-choice is her having a choice over what to do with her own body, irrespective of the being inside.
I think you're misunderstanding the goal of the pro-choice movement. It has nothing to do with reproductive rights, and everything to do with population control of minorities and the poor.
They cut their teeth on the Native Americans, using abortion techniques with a moderate occurrence of secondary infertility. Now that they have the numbers down, they're using those techniques as the standard. Birth rates and abortion rates are now on the decline, and infertility is on the rise.
@Shutupman obviously I was talking about secondary infertility in women due to involuntary abortion. So infertility in men is a completely different issue.
No, because someone has to bear the physical, mental, and financial burden of raising the child anyway, and the biggest pro-birth advocates tend to stop giving a crap after the child is born.
It wouldn't end the debate because there would still be many sorry people who wouldn't even take the time to put the baby into the artificial womb but instead go for the fastest wrote for themselves which is Abortion.
I don't think so, because pro-lifers would argue that it's not ethical, and pro-choicers would argue that the unwanted child could grow up in an unfavourable environment.
If it would work yes but we’ve tried that it doesn’t work so unfortunately it wouldn’t help.
As for the religious side of the debate hell no they consider it an abomination
It would be so cool if they could somehow safely take the baby out and grow it in one, better than throwing it away... yes... less psychologically harmful for the mother, and the baby gets to live, that'd make things a lot more grey
I actually think it will make the battles much more severe. Because I don't think women just want the ability to not carry the pregnancy to term, I think they expect to have the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy if they want.
If I didn't have to carry the baby, I would actually consider having one.
I doubt it. People are very passionate about it on both sides
That, combined with hyper realistic, affordable, companion androids will destroy the pro-choice movement and many women out there will need to try a lot harder to find a husband.
Nah. Many of us don't care if guys choose AIs to have sex/children with.
1) Weeds out unattractive/insecure guys.
2) Humanoid AIs will like have superior strength to the point that they will stop a man trying to get physical.
3) Many women won't be burdened by creepy men.
I wholeheartedly agree that companion androids should exist... as long as they have a choice of partner and aren't treated as mere objects.
@AuroraRoseat >fundamental misunderstanding of 'AI'
they are objects
Fully self-aware AIs? I don't think so.
@AuroraRoseat... where is this fully self aware ai you speak of? Do you understand what a massive leap you are talking about? Fully aware AI may NEVER be possible
@No_Archons I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about the unknown. It is still a possibility. They might not exist currently but if they do ever exist, their rights should be considered. That is what should have been gleaned from my original comment. I’m thinking pretty far into the future... unless humanity destroys itself before.
The other two comments were funny.. lol
The main point is that I disagree with the comment of making it a lot harder to find husband material. It will help weed out undesirables in my opinion.
Its gunna force women to be worth more than a fuck, which most r not. Also it str8 up probs isn't possible the kind of ai u speak of, learn something about computer science its my field
If all a woman does is ply a man to provide for them in exchange of sex, then yes an Android is superior in many ways.
I doubt it. I feel like people would want to preserve the right to kill their fetus
Yes. There is way too much tension between men and women at the moment and one of the things women LOVE to brag about is the fact they can give birth. Just let me buy a kid from one of these labs and to hell with dating, sex and marriage.
It would have to. Now any woman who wants to end the occupancy of her uterus could just transfer the baby to an artificial womb.
Otherwise it's really that they just like killing unborn babies.
No because the feminists will mandate that anything male needs to be exterminated.
No, as women still need to have the choice of not having biological children.
I would think the people that are pro life would argue now that artificial wombs are unethical.
That type of science is faraway and it still wouldn't.
Morally speaking it's just digging a deeper hole. You're going to produce kids whose mother is a plastic bag. Where do you want to go with that?
No, not at all.
It has nothing to do with the womb and everything to do with what's inside it.
This is what I've been saying since the debate arose
In some cases but not for the vast majority. Some women simply don't want to have kids.
No, because people will always need something to argue about. God forbid we let every individual make their own choices and let it be.
No it bring up a whole set of issues.
No because liberals love killing babies to much.
No. Women would still want to kill it
Not really. It just adds a new choice to the mix.
Not as long as feminist SJWs exist.
No. Murder is murder.
I'm so confused here
Now this, this is a dumb question.
I see fools disliked my comment lol
Someone will call it unatural and be against it
No they wouldn't
Ha No
No, why would it?
wtf?
Its weird.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions