"Too Posh To Push?"
Loved that article title in the London Times. It's a piece, written by Ainsley Newsom, about artificial wombs, which may be upon us within the next 20 years:
Artificial wombs are not yet safe for human pregnancies. But if, as expected, the technology can one day be applied in human beings, scientific advantages may result.But Richard Ashcroft, reader in medical ethics at Imperial College London, fears a “foetal rescue act” to force drug or alcohol-addicted mothers to have their foetuses surgically removed. “I couldn’t think of anything worse,” he said.
It is also feared that scientists involved in cloning could continue their experiments without the need for surrogate mothers.
There is a danger too that some women who want babies but cannot face pregnancy or childbirth could take advantage of the artificial wombs — one step beyond being “too posh to push”. If they see their babies growing in a tank, would they bond with their newborns, or view them as commodities? Dr Ashcroft said: “Is creating children with artificial wombs having children at all, or is it a kind of manufacturing of children? It is deeply dangerous.”
Oh, please. Without suffering, a pregnancy isn't a pregnancy? That's called "the naturalistic fallacy" -- the dunderheaded thinking that just because something's natural, it's good.
There are women now who've had cancer and are physicallly unable to have kids, and have hired what I jokingly called a "rent-a-womb." Do they leave their babies in roadside rest stops? Do adoptive mothers not love their kids?
This is the same anti-science idiocy I encountered from a Kaiser shrink once, subbing for the guy who prescribes my Ritalin (for ADHD). He told me I really should get off the stuff. Let's see, it has few side effects for me, and really helps me concentrate, which really improves my writing, which, in turn, really improves my life.
I should get off it...why? Because he's uncomfortable with better living through chemistry? Likewise, what if women didn't have to swell up and get sick for nine months? Why is this a bad thing? Because some anti-science nut is used to seeing women get gigantic and spend their mornings bent over a toilet...and then, watching them, at the end in the delivery room, doing what compares to pushing a Ford Escort out a nostril? Charming.
I have no problem with better living through chemistry, especially since the cost of most presription drugs is fairly low, or would be if not artifically inflated by the drug industry. But I have a problem with the current baby fever state society seems to have reached, where people are spending thousands and thousands of dollars in the quest to have a baby at all costs. I'm sure I'm prejudiced, having popped two out with no medication or fuss whatsoever. But I think there's a problem with women in their 40s and 50s who just can't accept that they waited too long or are just among those who won't be having children, and I would be sorry to see these artificial wombs used for those purposes. And of course, there's always adoption.
Pat Saperstein at September 6, 2005 12:28 PM
Like at least half of the population I've never given birth. (I have X+Y sex chromosomes and not X+X.)
I'm too much of a coward to post a comment on an issue where I am not risking anything. I'm not going to start telling women how to reproduce or not reproduce as if I knew what I was talking about from personal experience.
Eamonn Keane at September 6, 2005 12:35 PM
Lucky ("old") me got pregnant completely naturally at age 39, and then also "popped one out w/no medication or fuss whatsoever" just like Pat, only I was the big 4-0. (Daughter just turned two last Saturday.) So I have a bit of empathy for fellow forty-something females who want a baby; the ones who weren't so "lucky" (or surprised!) as I was. Last stat I read was 8 in 1,000 live births are to a woman over 40. Although if I didn't get pregnant, I personally wouldn't have gone through artificial means to have one. Adoption is wonderful but the system needs help. If I were to support artificial wombs, I'd definitely suport them for women in their 40's.
PS. I think the worst part is not labor and delivery, but after the baby is born - feeding and caring for an infant on complete and total sleep-deprivation. Maybe they can make an artificial nanny, one that is reliable and not cost prohibitive who will stay up all night to let you get some rest.
And I also support better living through chemistry.
Claire at September 6, 2005 1:43 PM
Yes, Claire, you're absolutely right that it's after they're born when the real work begins, and I'd give the artificial nanny a try.
I don't necessarily think it's not a real pregnancy without pain, but I think anyone who's not capable of handling nine months of the physical demands of pregnancy probably isn't going to be very well equipped to be the parent of a small child. The female body was made to give birth and usually does a fairly good job of it, and there's all kinds of reasons that doing it the natural way is beneficial to the mother. For example, the fewer times you ovulate in your life (all the months you are pregnant plus all the months you are exclusively breastfeeding), the lower your risk of several types of cancer.
Pat Saperstein at September 6, 2005 3:02 PM
You may be interested to know that the sci-fi author C. J. Cherryh and others have already addressed the idea of artificial persons, from the womb to cloning and everything in between. As the capability becomes available, some will use it wisely, and some will abuse it, just like everything else humanity does.
The one thing that stands out for me is the issue of humanity itself. Since we have a tough time today with some people thinking that stem cells are people, others thinking that the hospital owes them a perfect baby, etc., I predict that utter stupidity will accompany the question as to whether an artificial person is human, and has rights.
Radwaste at September 6, 2005 6:31 PM
Amy, you should get off the Ritalin because Tom Cruise says so. Famous people always know best. That's how come they're famous, and stuff.
LYT at September 6, 2005 11:25 PM
I predict that Radwaste is quite right.
Also, I think it would be great for science to free women up (more than it does already, which is a little bit) to not rush into marriage and children because our adaptations for fertility couldn't have seen this ("evolutionary novel") world we live in, where women and men go on to be 100-plus years old (which is what Roy Walford told me I could live to if I eat my green beans). 120 was the exact estimate.
And Luke, I focus all my medical care around what Tom Cruise says. Why not struggle to concentrate despite the existence of a little yellow pill you can take to make it so much easier?
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2005 1:14 AM
I guess the Ritalin question raises some other questions which will start to come up even more now that they are working on some other, non-stimulant drugs for improving memory and performance. For example, I recently read that most college students now take Ritalin to help them study for tests and in other situations where they need help concentrating, whether or not they have been diagnosed with ADHD. Good idea or bad?
In other words, should people take stuff just to improve their performance even if they have no recognized deficit? Is this fair to those who don't want to, but are competing with those who do? I'm not sure what the answer is, but since my concentration has gone out the window lately (it's basically the Internet's fault) and my memory has started to fail as well, I say keep on researching those wonder drugs!
Pat Saperstein at September 7, 2005 12:24 PM
I don't have a problem with non ADD/ADHD people taking Ritalin to study for tests if it poses no danger to them. One of my shrinks (I've had three, because they keep retiring without notice...which is like being dumped by your boyfriend but not having him tell you)...anyway, one of them suggested that people who don't need Ritalin are likely to develop a habit for it...but that may just be anti-drug propaganda. I don't need much more now than I did when I started taking it. And it really is a wonder-drug for me. Doesn't do much for my memory. But it does help quiet my head down so I can work.
People who are smarter, remember more, and are more educated benefit everybody. I really don't care how they get that way.
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2005 5:24 PM
How do you think making birth convenient will affect society? All manner of "convenience" items today foster carelessness...
Radwaste at September 7, 2005 5:59 PM
Yes, and if no one was allowed to drive, there would be no drunk driving deaths.
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2005 6:07 PM
Mmm, not quite the same thing. Making birth easier might change the demographic. If you didn't fear the pain, and didn't have to carry 40 extra pounds around for months, would you find having children more appealing?
You would, after all, be able to produce a thinking citizen of whom you could be proud.
Radwaste at September 9, 2005 9:54 AM
Unlike my dog, children need private schooling, drug rehab, college educations, and constant attention. Lucy, I just leave sleeping on my couch (in uncivilized countries like the USA that don't allow her in many public places), or pop her in my purse and go in France.
Amy Alkon at September 9, 2005 10:09 AM
I'd rather be dead than pregnant. I'd rather be dead than have children. Period. So I had surgery to ensure my sterlization so that I would not have to worry about ever getting pregnant. People who want kids don't feel the same way I do (well, duh). Who am I to tell people they can/can't have kids and how to do it? I'm just worried about all the *stupid* people breeding. :shudder:
Goddyss at September 9, 2005 4:22 PM
OK, Amy, Goddyss, it's not for you. Still, would it change the demographic? In making the investment in time and suffering and hard work less, would this convenience make family impersonal?
Radwaste at September 9, 2005 5:47 PM
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a *good* thing. Personally, I think the earth is overpopulated as it is. Sadly, the dehumanization of the human race seems inevitable. Cloning; non-human wombs; whatever. I can't concern myself overly with this, because I try to focus on things that I can do, where I can help, what is going to make a difference. I'm just not sure that this will have a tremendous impact. Seems like it's something for the elite.
I could be wrong.
Goddyss at September 12, 2005 1:37 PM
Leave a comment