Artificial Womb: Yes or No? And Why?

But it would still be possible to have natural births. It just won't be the social norm. We won't lose the ability unless something happens through evolution.

Yeah that's my point. Hundreds (thousands?) of years down the line humans might evolve to not be capable of natural births.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Aside from the risk of technology crashing. The human population has increased dramatically and if we continue the way we are, the Earth won't be able to 'accommodate' us.
Also presuming this technology does advance, it will be pretty darn expensive and not everyone will be able to afford it. These people will rely on natural births as will many religious people. They won't be affected by this on an evolutionary basis.
It'll be like a sci-fi movie, where the poor people can't afford these things and they live in underground bunkers and then all the technology crashes and they have to repopulate. Sorry, I'm getting carried away with myself.

I'm going to say it's a bad thing because that's how the Asgard died out in Stargate

If you were to have a baby at a time when artifical wombs were available, would you consider it?

What would these artificial wombs be contained in? I'm guessing it won't be like one of those cylinder pods that you have in sci fi games/films.

- Will benefit women who have damaged wombs
- Equality for both sexes
- Women do not need to take maternity leave
- Deaths of premature infants could be drastically reduced
- Artificial womb may be safer than a 'normal' womb, ie the risks of diseases, accidents, drugs, alcohol, pollutants, inadequate nutrition, etc., would all be virtually eliminated
- Will benefit women who cant conceive
- If technology improves, will benefit same sex couples
- Could potentially end abortion debate, ie instead of terminating the pregnancy, the baby can be moved to the artificial womb and put up for adoption

For these two reasons alone, yes.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to have a child.

One potential problem is ending up reliant on the technology. If use of artificial wombs becomes the norm then a few hundred years down the line, most people may be incapable of giving birth naturally.

Then again, you could make the same argument against IVF I suppose.

One potential problem is ending up reliant on the technology. If use of artificial wombs becomes the norm then a few hundred years down the line, most people may be incapable of giving birth naturally.

Then again, you could make the same argument against IVF I suppose.

Disagree I think the natural way of reproduction is better

Isn't this just another way to render human beings useless?

I think some women won't be keen on this. They'll probably feel as though they have been rendered useless.

Very interesting topic! Why would women not need maternity leave though? AFAIK they only take leave JUST before the baby is born and use the months afterwards to care for baby, not recover from the birth itself.

Also, with this technology I presume it would not be possible for the mother to breastfeed the baby (no foetus in her womb therefore not triggering milk production), which some might not be happy with. Or does any drug currently exist that can trigger milk production? Quite a minor negative though.

IVF isn't quite the same, although I do admit it's taking a step on the road, therefore making other things seem more acceptable.

With IVF, the mother still needs to carry the child and give birth, and the whole process is very invasive and stressful.

One thing that I worry about is that it would make having children so much easier. With the current way that women have to carry and give birth to a child, it means that the want to have a child has to outweigh all of the physical aspects of carrying that child and then giving birth to it (unless of course it was an accidental pregnancy but one would hope that these are the minority). If it is this easy, you'll probably get people having children without really giving it enough thought. And if it's expensive then will it be a case of rich people can have children but poor people can't? At least with IVF you get a couple of free cycles.

Although the population is expanding, I don't think it's growing uncontrollably yet. If we take note of what's happening, we will be able to improve resources to cope with the expansion. If, however, it becomes the case that women can have more children and closer together, this might do more harm than good. I don't think there would be many people who say "I wish I had less children" (apart from when stressed, lol) but I know for a fact there are people who say "it would have been nice to have one more". And this artificial thing would leave that as an option.

In short: no.

No, I would rather carry my own baby

Wbu?

I understand. But, I think artificial wombs should be used in exceptional circumstances, as opposed to open to everyone. e.g. women who cant carry a baby, menopausal women, gay couples etc

I love this idea! I never ever want to have to endure pregnancy and childbirth (it's my main motivation for not wanting children, although there are other reasons) so with this artificial womb that issue would be solved!

Next, drugs to permanently stop periods...

Hahah, but I think that if it is ever introduced, at first it would only be offered to people who cant have children without an artificial womb?

And I know right, someone needs to come up with a drug, but then again: if periods are stopped, what happens the eggs?