What about educating about birth control and not making women feel uncomfortable about choosing a form of it? We would come very if we could stop making women feel like criminals for wanting to enjoy sex without becoming pregnant.

This only adds to the out of control population problem ,more unwanted children ,and additional costs to an already out of control healthcare system

I think we first need to examine the motives of the anti-abortion (quantity over quality) crowd. I don't believe their concern is actually the life of a child. I think it is a need to feel morally superior to someone else. And it is also a need for something to be against to promote unity among themselves. If they don't have something to be against, they will invent something like the war on Christianity. It's really about power and pride.

First, there should be no debate. The anti-abortion crowd is fueled by the christian agenda and its absolutes. No other religion on Earth has a major problem with this issue.

Having said that, we have a population that is growing too fast as it is and I can find no way to reconcile what you suggest with that. Frankly, we need fewer people in the world, not more.

That sounds uncomfortably like the MATRIX.

My question would be who is going to pay for the gestation? Certainly not the government. And if it's the woman, then why keep the man out of the equation. After all, it takes two to tango.

Another question is what if the child is unadoptable for some reason? Who pays for it to live?

No, this isn't an answer. It just opens up more questions to argue about.

They will find something else to bitch about. I faced them head on when I took my daughter to planned parenthood. They're against birth control but against abortion-purely control issue.

there is a lot more to this than mechanically gestating an embryo. I can think of reasons a woman would not want to do this religious or not. We really don't know what effects being carried in the womb has on brain development.There are probably benefits that can not be reproduced in an artificial womb. I for one cringe every time I run across an article about this possibility

I think this would be an awesome choice. People who want to have children but can't could be the other side of the equation.

No, because like the previous post says, the anti-abortion movement was never about “saving babies” but always about controlling women, their bodies and their sexuality. If babies were the point, Christians and conservstives would be lining up to foster all the unwanted babies who grew into angry children and troubled adolescents. Anyone see that happen lately?

That with genetic engineering is what Huxley envisioned in Brave New World.

We have always had a cultural arms race through history. A major part of keeping a culture viable is to grow its population. I think most individuals understand the world has a population problem but at the same time, that individual does not want to be part of a vanishing or minority culture. If we embrace a common non-theist world culture before massive famine and pandemics kick in, perhaps sterilizing newborns will be normalized and procreation will require a permit based on health, wealth, merit and need. In short, using technology to add to our already too large population, seems like pandering to religious conservatives trying to maintain their strength through numbers.

I've thought of two other issues that could come up with the advent of an artificial womb. The religious right could demand that all viable fertilized eggs be gestated. They might already be barking up this tree, given the huge numbers that are discarded at fetilization clinics, but an artificial womb would make this demand more feasible. If that were to happen, again parental rights would be another issue.

The other big issue is the risk to the unborn in any natural situation, i.e. miscarriages. They could demand that all babies be gestated in an artificial womb in order to avoid this, since the life of the unborn is paramount. This could easily lead to everyone being sterilized in some reversible fashion, and couples having to petition the court for permission to have children. If granted, it would of course have to be carried out by in vitro fertilization.

You may need to visit, or revisit the Harlow monkey experiments... without a 'human' connection and experience of the mother the children would possibly become psychopaths before being born.

I do not think that would end the abortion debate at all. If anything, I think it would only give strength to the strict pro-life thinker's current stance. I would even guess that, from this idea, were it a reality, the pro-life debate would shift, evolve to something along the lines of, parents refusing God's gift is wrong, etc etc.

My rebuttle... Don't have one that hasnt already been said. Women should be free to make up their own minds.

Dean out.

Pro-lifers are actually pro-birthers. They don't care what happens to the "person"once it pops out. They seem more interested in seeing the evil woman punished for having fun than anything. want to make a "pro-lifer" go nuts? Ask them if they were in a burning IVF clinic and they could save either a 4 year old child OR a dozen frozen embryos, which one would they choose.

I'm not sure that the woman would, you never know if an adopted baby is going to have a good childhood. Besides would women want mini me's out in the world that they'd forever have to worry about, but never know that they are ok? Just playing devils advocate here...

What part of unwanted do you not understand? How about just wear a f** condom!

As long as that's what the woman wants.

One question--who pays for the procedure and the incubation costs?

It's been done to some extent, with lambs! Although it's really a fluid incubator, it's a step closer to an artificial womb.<br><br>

A brief article. [nature.com];

Long and highly technical article. <br>
There are a few fantastic pics of a lamb in the device, at 4 and 28 days.<br>
Very similar to some of my ideas for such a contraption.<br>
[nature.com];

A relatively short article on the legal implications for humans. <br>
[onlinelibrary.wiley.com]

its been done with a calf and I don't care what religion thinks.

I like that idea.

Only if they were allowed to auction off (secretly of course) the child to their highest bidding follower… It’s not as much the ‘loss of life’ as it is the loss of their chance to brainwash an innocent..

Lolz! Are you kidding me? They'd probably be up in arms about it being unnatural.

It opens cans of worms. I'm not sure if the religious right would accept it or not. They probably still wouldn't want to support the child post-birth.

Not only that, there's the issue of parental rights. I'm sure if more women were willing to give up these rights in favor of adoption, there would be fewer abortions already.

Where this could really make a difference is if abortion is banned. Women could opt to give up their parental rights and embryo. It could be gestated in an artificial womb then put up for adoption. But this won't set well with all women. I suspect it won't set well with most women.

On a side note, an artificial womb would be highly beneficial in the case of premature births. I think it would have a greater impact in that area.