Do you support artificial wombs?

[Anonymous]

I'm referring to a technology that grows babies outside of the body

Yes although I'd never use one

Yes and I would use one

No

[Lionman95]

No for two reasons:

1. People won´t stop having sex so unless we´re talking about manipulating the female hormonal cycle from puberty to menopause with all possible risks you won´t stop women from getting pregnant. People will heavily misuse the technique leading to more orphants and foster care kids not less. Besides procreation not only creates another human being it also creates parents and it´s one way of people learning responsibility. If you take that away from people you create even more careless generations.

2. Anything humans invented that was supposed to be improving human life came with side effects. There will be side-effects that are now not predictable and that no one will take accountability for. It could lead to beings that are better working but indifferent to emotions and relationships and could destroy societies.

[Pyrofox]

The second part could be avoided by simply making it clear societially you don't treat a person from an artificial birth differently. And we already do to a degree with surrogacy.

[Lionman95]

That´s not what I meant you. We don´t know how people from artificial birth turn out in terms how they behave. It could be that they are apathetic in terms of social interaction and are completely careless about social interaction for instance.

[Pyrofox]

I'd support it if it was an alternative for the moms who want to have a kid but PHYSICALLY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY or medically cannot. But if you are healthy and can do it your self then there is no reason. And context about the Psychological thing is if the pregnancy hormones would make the woman be like questioning should she herself continue to be pregnant and it would be a risk to her well being and the unborn kids well being. That type of psychological issue.

Not Psychological as in the mother is psychologically like insane.

[provokeesmokee]

Yes, if necessary or safer than conventional birth.

I'm childfree so wouldn't ever use one. But I think the more options available to parents, the better. I have friends who would love to have kids of their own but can't due to various medical conditions.

However, I don't think it should be the norm. Just because technology can, doesn't mean it should.

[abbyjgriffin98]

Only if the woman could not physically bare a child or if the parents have health complications making it impossible to have children. I see no difference between that and in vitro fertilization combined with surrogacy. The only difference is a machine is acting as the surrogate, not a woman, and the baby will be the parent's full blooded child.

[Drumlin2001]

How about a gay couple who wanted children? Or a single man who wants a kid? Should they be able to use it?

[abbyjgriffin98]

@Drumlin2001 Well, yeah. If they want to. Like I said, it's no different than getting a surrogate or having in vitro fertilization. I would also add them under the category of parents who cannot have kids.

[Anonymous]

As soon as we start doing this on a regular basis, I'm pretty sure it's going to go awry fairly quickly...you've got the "create a master race people," and "the clone evil people, ones" and you've got "the breed perfect solider, people." Real genuine intentions like not having women suffer in childbirth or giving infertile women a chance to have a child of their own will fall by the wayside. Much like AI, it's cool...for now...but give it a minute....

[MyOwnMan2]

The fact you think improving human genetics is immoral 😂. Bet you're the type of woman who owns those mutant looking dog breeds

[Opinion Owner]

@MyOwnMan2 So you tell me what happens when the "genetically superior kids" grow up and decide that you who were born naturally with genetic disease/mutation, etc are now inferior to their perfect genes? They decide you should not have the same benefits that they do, should be excluded from "their schools, their clubs, their neighborhoods, their jobs." This is what attempting to create a master race, genetic, physical or otherwise does---it makes it so everyone else becomes a second class citizen to the perfection. If you think "oh that's science fiction," look at the Holocaust, Darwinism, slavery, caste systems, and on and on. FYI, I don't have any pets, but thanks for asking.

[Opinion Owner]

@MyOwnMan2 We're in the same boat, which is the thing you are failing to grasp. A better world means they get rid of those with inferior genetics, which means, everyone of us in this current generation of human beings because we are majority naturally born without the help of genetic manipulation. You're like the person that sees no problem with having self checkout counters, but doesn't realize each one of those was someone's job...but "okay progress."

[82lynx]

I’m waiting for AI to turn on its creators. Technology is advancing far too quickly and I’ve been digging my heels in for ages, not to mention shaking my head at the stupidity of those who support this crap.

[MyOwnMan2]

@82lynx It's going to get rid of you, not the creators. You and many other slaves will be out dated soon enough. Scary?

[Lionman95]

@MyOwnMan2 I disagree I will rather create more slaves not less since it could allow creating beings way quicker than the natural process. It will come with side effects though since anything human create had side effects.

[BlackBeauty90]

@MyOwnMan2 There's improving genetics such as removing inherited diseases such as Parkinson's & some cancers. What she described has nothing to do with improving genetics. Do go back to school and see if you can get educated & do something useful with yourself in life.

[BlackBeauty90]

@MyOwnMan2 "It's going to get rid of you, not the creators" --- no AI will remove uneducated fools that don't even know what genetic manipulation is. Sounds quite accurately like it'll remove you.

[soulOnDisplay]

Aldous Huxley wrote a book called Brave New World, which in the story actually included artificial wombs similar to these. That book, and the dystopia within, was the answer to a decade long debate among philosophers, and scientists, who were highly in favor of ectogenesis during that time - post 1950.

[TonyMetal___86]

Nope i don't, i support the natural pregnancy, no machine can be compared to the natural things that we have...

What's the use of an artificial womb if a woman have one...

Pregnancy is something intimate between a husband and his wife, a couple would love that their baby grows by their side qnd to feel each moment while he's moving and growing inside...

[Asker]

As someone who will never actually experience pregnancy I don't think I can say I support it

[TonyMetal___86]

You don't need to experience it to be able to support it or not

[nonyabeez-wax]

No.

I also don't support Artificial Insemination

Men and women should work out their differences and work together like we are supposed to.

[Asker]

At least you're consistent

[coachTanthony]

This will be one way to control population. The govt will make as many babies as needed to keep their country full and the govt will be their daddy.

[XingQi]

I feel it's way too early to say yes or no to this matter. Technology is not perfect yet and we do not know if using artificial wombs hold various risks for the child born from them.

[Lynx122]

Yes you can keep babies who are born prematurely in a artificial womb and they'll be more healthy and stronger when they're actually born.

[Smashingdoozy]

Yep so long as it's tested and safe then I see no issues. A great way for people who cannot carry (such as myself) and still want a child.

[Kayla45]

I guess if women go extinct then sure, but otherwise no. Kinda pointless.

[Asker]

You can not use it but I don't think you can call it useless

[Kayla45]

Sure I can, because I think it's useless in most circumstances. The only benefit I can think of is if a woman cannot physically bare giving birth due to health conditions.

[Asker]

And what of the women who want kids of their own but don't want to carry them

[Kayla45]

Simple, then don't have kids.

[Asker]

I don't know it seems wrong for us a society and me as a man especially to tell a woman the only way she can have a family is through months of pain when there might be a viable alternative

[Kayla45]

Well that's just too bad I guess, how do you think women managed for thousands of years before this technology became invented? Hmm... 🤔

[Asker]

They went through a miserable experience with a high injury and fatality rate

[Sasha0426]

@Asker Don’t bother. She doesn’t care about the well being of her fellow women. Women are against each other and will shame one another if they do something society doesn’t like.

[Sasha0426]

@Kayla45 That’s not for you to decide.

[Kayla45]

You're entitled to your opinions just as I'm entitled to my own. Disagreement is common on forums such as this.

[Kayla45]

@Sasha0426 You're absolutely right, it's not my place to decide how other women choose to have children or in what manner they choose to have them in. I'm simply stating my own personal opinion on the matter and sharing my thoughts.

Even if it's an option you disagree with, that's fine. I have no issues with that.

[PBandJ_Nerd]

Yeah. It's probably good for people who can't have kids but want one.

[SquishyBuns2628]

Yeah but it'll be way more expensive than surrogacy.

[jahaims]

Not as of now. Being physically attached to the mother changes how the babies brain develops. Artificial wombs are more likely to produce psychopaths/sociopaths.

[captain_voidwalker]

I'd be super happy. I mean you could pretty much cut women out of the whole reproductive process. Talk about liberating for men.

[Asker]

You still need eggs

[captain_voidwalker]

Nope actually if you remove half the DNA about any cell can be used to create an embryo with sperm. Sperm as it turns out is what sparks cell division and begins life. They've successfully used liver lung and kidney cells for this process in rats

[Kayla45]

Ah yes, so men can have the perfect utopia? Is this what I'm getting from your opinion?

[BlackBeauty90]

Yes that's brilliant. They did this with cheetahs years ago and why the entire population is highly closely related. Any wide spread disease will eradicate cheetahs.

Just as how it'd eradicate men in your dumbass world.

[captain_voidwalker]

That's because cheetas were endangered before the breeding program to the point of lacking a sufficient gene pool. Givin that there are what 4 billion men on the planet I dont see genetic diversity bieng a problem

[Drumlin2001]

Technology moves on. If it can be proven to be safe it could be revolutionary

[JamesRandiDebates]

Sure. The only way a man can have children without being tied to a bitch.

[KC-Sunbeam]

No. Especially since our world suffers from overpopulation.

[Unit1]

I am neutral about it. I am not sure why those are needed.

[RedInnocent68]

I’m sure there are legitimate purposes, but on this one I choose to remain old school.

[robocop666]

We do not yet know enough about genetics for this kind of thing. Things go wrong and nobody knows why.

[Asker]

Where do you draw the line in technological progress?

[robocop666]

genetics alters the gene pool forever and cannot be undone. Scientists will always lie about the safety like they always do.

[JesseP1nk]

Yes, i support it, if that works correctly. Meaning newborns are without any birth defects.

[msc545]

Eliminating women from the equation would be a blessing.

[Anonymous]

To make it so men get some control over our reproductive rights, yes.

[Anonymous]

couldnt vote coz one option is mandatory and the other science fiction

[Tamera952]

The fuck is that? Is that a thing?

[82lynx]

This is one of the best replies I’ve seen.

Just sit back and watch these scientists do themselves in by playing God.

[Levin]

Poor traumatised child.

[BoopBoopBeep]

I don't even support the real ones...

[DryGermanGuy]

I'll support artificial brains first.

[AngryCarl2]

For what purpose?

[In_Trance]

Support? How exactly does one support this?

[Celticwolf78]

hell no that's not even right trying to play god

[Anonymous]

Nope

[Asker]

Why not?

[Opinion Owner]

I think it ruins the bond between mothers and babies during pregnancy. Plus, why would it be needed when real wombs are a thing? Genuinely feels like people are trying to replace women in every aspect.

[Asker]

Women have plenty of irreplaceable qualities outside of child bearing. It seems a bit insulting to diminish women to just wombs

[Opinion Owner]

It’s not just this though. There’s been so much happening lately. I mean they just announced that the ‘Woman of the Year’ was transgender lmao. And I’m not diminishing women to ‘just wombs’ but it’s something only women can experience and it’s being over taken by artificial crap.

[Asker]

Is an experience good just because it's unique? I think many women in the past who couldn't have even imagined an artificial womb would've welcomed it

[Opinion Owner]

We already have a thing for women who want their own children without giving birth to them. It’s called surrogacy.

[Asker]

Why is one okay but not the other?

[Opinion Owner]

I already told you why I disagree with it.

[Anonymous]

Why not?