So I have been in one of those mind sets lately of taking a set of assumption and then guessing at what would follow. So I thought I would see what the rest of you thinks. Since this isn't based upon anything solid per se, I'm putting it in casual chat, but if it best belongs else where, please move it. This will be the first of several although I won't necessarily do them all tonight. So we need to start with some assumptions. I warn you now that these are not necessarily realistic for current technological and knowledge advancement. Hence why it is a "What If". Now that doesn't mean that what i am stipulating will or will not come about. But for the purposes of this thread, these are the conditions we will be working under. All else is as per the current world. Assumption #1: Artificial Wombs are a viable and proven technology, resulting in a successful birth rate when used comparable to birth directly by the female. Artificial wombs have been in the news lately, but they are no where near ready for human use. But they do bring up a lot of potential. Assumption #2: Medical technology and knowledge has advanced so far that the live removal of a Zygote/Embryo/Fetus (henceforth ZEF), especially in the first two trimesters, creates no more and no less physical trauma or potential problems than a straight abortion, nor does it take any more or less time to perform. Part of this assumption is that the live removal is for the purpose of placing the ZEF into the artificial womb to complete gestation. Those are your assumptions for this thread. Trying to claim that they can't or won't happen is counter to the whole point. Your arguments need to be based upon those two points being true, as far as the thread is concerned. So here is what I see as a result of the above. Women will no longer have a right to an abortion. They will still have a right to end the pregnancy, but not to automatically terminate the ZEF. If the father wishes to keep the offspring, then while she may choose to end the pregnancy, the ZEF is transferred to an artificial womb and the father assumes responsibility for it. This does NOT mean that he can force her to transfer the ZEF to an artificial womb if she is wanting to keep it. Any custody issues would have to wait until birth in such a case. Additionally, I can see where a lot of women would be under the same mandatory child support should the father decide to birth the child, as men would be if the woman decided to keep the child. What do you think of these results, or what other results do you think would come out of the above assumptions being true?
You'd want to make sure you get that artificial womb right... pregnancy is the mapping of the epigenome, also see many lawsuits due to genetic errors during the transfer of the fetus...
Dunno where you got this idea, but sounds like a good book/movie. Second due to my imagination I can only see this happening due to corporate profit motivations. But all of that aside..obviously child support laws would be dramatically reformed. Why they have not been already is beyond my comprehension...Perhaps the correct case has not appeared before the supreme court as of yet...but in your alternate universe it surly would be.
Sure, The blue pills make you horny. The red pills make you want to hire hookers to pee on each other.
Don't kid yourselves. They're working on this as we speak. When I started in neonatology 3 decades ago 23 weeks was the new viable gestation. I'm surprised and glad it's not lower than that after so long. We have a lab in the basement of the hospital that is working on artificial placental type substitutes with fetal pigs. It's years off.
Too bad more people just don't adopt children who have no families. Technology is not always a "good" thing. In fact, I kind of find it to be often very "Frankensteinesque" as well as a bit creepy, playing around nature like they do. I'm sure there will be some kind of unintended consequence. There usually is!
I understand that the artificial wombs themselves are not far off, but my What If is dependent upon more than that. We also have to get the ability to transfer the ZEF to the artificial womb to be as or less physically traumatic to the mother's body. I am running on the principle of not being able to force a more traumatic procedure upon a person. It is one thing to change from killing the ZEF to moving it to the artificial womb if there is no difference upon the effects to the woman's body. But to force upon her more damage or pain is unethical.
Pregnancy seriously stresses the body out. It's worse when the mother has Lupus. Hypertension is very common as well. It would have it's benefits but could also be abused.
Granted, and I do like that idea. I am pretty sure that most mothers who want to keep their child will make use of this technology even if it did more damage to them than the pregnancy would, if it meant the child would survive. But I was not postulating on the uses of the tech for those willing to use it. I was setting up a hypothetical on what such tech, combine with advanced medical, might mean for women's right to abortions and men's right to offspring.
