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.
Most Helpful Opinions
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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
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.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.
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
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.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 abominationIt 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
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions