The Student Room Group

Abortion, the gender wage gap and women's rights in general - mechanical uterus...

Instead of killing foetuses, do you think it would be a good idea to grow them outside of people's bodies? This would perhaps mean that foetuses are not killed (which I feel is wrong) whilst women still have freedom to not go through with a pregnancy (which I think is currently a necessary evil of discouraging abortion).
What are your opinions (on this idea, please don't start a debate about abortion in general)?
Also, this would have other implications:
If women had the choice of not having to go through with a pregnancy whilst still being able to ave children, they could simultaneously have a career and a family, which seems to be a common personal goal of many modern feminists;
This would mean that they would not have to have maternity leave during pregnancy (and not necessarily after pregnancy either), and therefore there would be no argument that the gender wage gap is fair (I personally believe that it is not fair even with women missing lots of work due to maternity leave. On a more general level, I think everyone should be payed the same regardless of anything, or at least wealth distribution should be based on need. I don't want to start a debate on economics though...) due to women losing experience whilst being pregnant and all of those associated arguments;
Also, it would mean that we could better control the supply of nutrients to developing foetuses, meaning no more deformed babies due to their mothers smoking during pregnancy;
Finally isn't birth still somewhat risky, both to the life/health of the mother and of the child? This would eliminate the need for birth, a further reason why it would reduce child mortality rates.
I know that this is a hypothetical scenario, but it does seem feasible that such a machine could be built.

Can't be bothered reading the above?
Mechanical uterus, various implications, discuss, ignore other issues, please stick to discussion of this very specific idea, avoiding debate about the bigger issues as they are being well discussed elsewhere.

Scroll to see replies

You sound like karl pilkinton.
All the ideas are there...but no means to do any of them...
Original post by GottaLovePhysics! :)
You sound like karl pilkinton.
All the ideas are there...but no means to do any of them...

What do you mean?
A) that's pretty ideological and SciFi stuff there
B) If it's partially for replacing abortions, those children will still need to be cared for and we have a poor adoption rate as it is
C) Maybe it would be better to take the embryonic stem cells from early abortions for research and in the future, treatments.
D) Maternity leave is just as much (if not more so) for caring for the newborn child than carrying the child later on in the pregnancy.
Original post by Helloworld_95
A) that's pretty ideological and SciFi stuff there
B) If it's partially for replacing abortions, those children will still need to be cared for and we have a poor adoption rate as it is
C) Maybe it would be better to take the embryonic stem cells from early abortions for research and in the future, treatments.
D) Maternity leave is just as much (if not more so) for caring for the newborn child than carrying the child later on in the pregnancy.

IMO they don't need to be adopted, what is wrong with communal raising of children?
I see your point about maternity leave. Maybe it would be better to put just as much emphasis on paternity leave though, so men and women miss just as much time from work. I think that woul be fairer...
Original post by When you see it...
IMO they don't need to be adopted, what is wrong with communal raising of children?
I see your point about maternity leave. Maybe it would be better to put just as much emphasis on paternity leave though, so men and women miss just as much time from work. I think that woul be fairer...


Communal raising of children is rather unconventional and risky and would arguably be unethical, it's just a bad idea.
Reply 6
We're built for pregnancy, without pregnancy we wouldn't lactate therefore couldn't breast feed. Why do it outside the body when the perfect uteruses (uteri?) are already built.
Reply 7
Forgot to add - although painful and generally full of side effects, wanted pregnancies are beautiful and an amazing experience.
Original post by EmmaJane_
We're built for pregnancy, without pregnancy we wouldn't lactate therefore couldn't breast feed. Why do it outside the body when the perfect uteruses (uteri?) are already built.


I explained in the OP.


Original post by EmmaJane_
Forgot to add - although painful and generally full of side effects, wanted pregnancies are beautiful and an amazing experience.


...and that choice would still be available. What if it is an unwanted pregnancy? A good idea?
Pretty sure it's already possible with surrogacy.
Original post by EmmaJane_
We're built for pregnancy, without pregnancy we wouldn't lactate therefore couldn't breast feed. Why do it outside the body when the perfect uteruses (uteri?) are already built.


It's possible, see induced lactation.
Geography shouldn't affect it and capitalism is wrong anyway IMO.
(edited 4 years ago)
I'd have to disagree; the Spartan model of the Agoge is a bit outdated, but I'm sure we could blow some of the dust off and adapt it for the 21st century. In many ways it might be an improvement over traditional family life (although I'm sure there would be just as many drawbacks).
(edited 4 years ago)
Let's assume that we do get these magic uteri on the go and can actually follow the suggestions in the OP.

It is possible to employ people to raise them in infancy. When the area I live started to industrialise local women would form bands of between 6 and 12, one would be wetnurse/childminder to the infants (there was no maternity leave back then) and the others would work and pay her to provide this service. It is not beyond the capacity of our society to institutionalise this and employ people (though perhaps with formula) to raise infants in groups. This would be by far the most difficult part of the process both to set up and get right.

Around the age of 5/6 these children could be segregated by gender (which I think would help) and be sent to residential schools. We already have a system for running residential schools and borstals so there's nothing particularly new needed in this area; although I'd argue that the Agoge focus on athletics, philosophy and mathematics would make for more rounded characters than our more traditional academic education can hope to offer. And I do think a semi-militaristic style of discipline would bea great advantage.

Around the age of 17/8 these individuals are adults and should be copacetic to mingle with society at large.
(edited 4 years ago)
I agree. That doesn't, however, impact on whether the idea has merit or not. Do you think that it does?
(edited 4 years ago)
I accept that it's not popular, and that there's no will to do it (as yet) - but I can't make the leap from there to it being not feasible; can I ask you to go into a bit more depth on the subject?
(edited 4 years ago)
He rattles on enough about the big society and how everyone should do things for the free for their community. If he came out with this it wouldn't be that surprising to be honest.
(edited 4 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest