Very thoughtful, and you anticipated/addressed many of my concerns. One other one though (sorry if I missed it) is that we know expensive resource-intensive healthcare of any kind goes disproportionately to certain classes… would working-class women and women of color really ever have access to this technology or would current disparities be exacerbated?
Thank you! This is a great point -- I'm assuming for the sake of my argument that access is general -- but I'm sure you're right that at least whilst access developing there would be this kind of unfairness
"The undeniably wrong thing I’m referring to, here, is that these babies are being intentionally brought into the world, effectively motherless. Yet surely every child has the moral right not to be intentionally deprived of its biological mother — except in extreme cases in which she represents a serious risk."
This is the first piece of yours I’ve read. Most enjoyable - the debate is set up in a balanced manner, and I appreciated your nuance that proving the benefits of NCB doesn’t necessarily make NCB morally permissible. One question: since it is and will be impossible to know from the perspective of the foetus whether they would’ve “felt better” in an NCB opposed to their mother’s womb (scientific analysis may give us numbers on the foetus’ hormonal reactions etc, but it doesn’t account for its subjective experience), is it worth the risk of allowing something to potentially miss out on benefits, or even accrue unknown costs? This isn’t to oppose your point on the conditionality of this permissibility - I accept that - I just think that the potential drawbacks are unknowable, and therefore no amount of testing will remove this uncertainty.
Incredible article! Part of me thinks I shouldn't reply and simply re-read and reflect, in case I misunderstood or glossed over something, though I can't help myself but to communicate a few points:
1. Are there any considerations for pollutants in synthetic embryonic fluid, artificial placenta, artificial umbilical cord + blood donations? Or, do we assume NCB would necessarily expose a lesser amount and any of it would be less consequential than environmental pollution filtered through a biological placenta and a mother's bloodstream?
2. Relatedly are concerns of medical waste, energy consumption, and the medical industry itself... Can we rely on medical industries to regulate properly? Cultural and legal implications of neglect seem horrifying, considering even abortion is a hotly contested issue.
3. Another very naturalistic argument against it, but it's one that completely changed my mind regarding artificial womb use for full gestation. You're right when we say we don't know what it was like to have once been a fetus, but we know some of the importance of a mother's voice, her heartbeat, her scent. We can guess that there is some animal-connection to her hormonal cycles, perhaps her dream state, when she is relaxed, her hobbies, her daily habits and the sounds of her daily life, which likely have some effect and vitality for the development of life. Surrounding a fetus with plastics, metals -- lifeless industrial equipment -- seems, in some sense necrophilic. To "manufacture" life inside the apparatus of the lifeless probably enters the realm of religious argumentation.
Ultimately, it is inhumane and unethical to gestate a human life without even the sound of another human's heartbeat, their living, human flesh and organs. It is akin to solitary confinement, which we only and controversially subject to prisoners. An emotional argument, sure, but I, personally, can't overcome it. Though, maybe we could create a job market for "artificial surrogates" who sit around the glass uteruses, and read books aloud...
There needs to be more research into embryonic-fetal psychological and emotional development, which will probably only arrive after/if mechanical wombs take off. Sorry for the text wall, but thank you for giving me so much to think about.
You're massively underestimating the potential impact of artificial wombs. Hint: with artificial wombs, there's really no reason for the woman to be involved in the process at all. Then you end up in a *Brave New World*-style dystopia with corporations or governments mass-producing workers or soldiers.
Thanks! But isn't that exactly what I'm addressing with my baby's right to a mother argument? is the idea i discuss that many more eggs would be gestated etc.. that babies would be brought into the world 'effectively motherless'? (I say effectively because an egg is still required in the scenario I'm discussing)
Very thoughtful, and you anticipated/addressed many of my concerns. One other one though (sorry if I missed it) is that we know expensive resource-intensive healthcare of any kind goes disproportionately to certain classes… would working-class women and women of color really ever have access to this technology or would current disparities be exacerbated?
Thank you! This is a great point -- I'm assuming for the sake of my argument that access is general -- but I'm sure you're right that at least whilst access developing there would be this kind of unfairness
"The undeniably wrong thing I’m referring to, here, is that these babies are being intentionally brought into the world, effectively motherless. Yet surely every child has the moral right not to be intentionally deprived of its biological mother — except in extreme cases in which she represents a serious risk."
Would you say the same about fatherlessness?
Yes -- re intentionally depriving
How far would you extend that belief?
(I understand that this question is tangential to your essay, but it's not to the your point about baby deprivation.)
An obvious concern that you don't address is obstetricians and biologists distorting data to promote a particular agenda.
Until an NCB baby has been born and grown old, one can't compare natural & NCB babies.
I'm skeptical of the human ability to replicate a womb mechanically, similar to my skepticism of planned economies.
Sure, but I'm accepting permissibility is conditional on reliable testing :)
This is the first piece of yours I’ve read. Most enjoyable - the debate is set up in a balanced manner, and I appreciated your nuance that proving the benefits of NCB doesn’t necessarily make NCB morally permissible. One question: since it is and will be impossible to know from the perspective of the foetus whether they would’ve “felt better” in an NCB opposed to their mother’s womb (scientific analysis may give us numbers on the foetus’ hormonal reactions etc, but it doesn’t account for its subjective experience), is it worth the risk of allowing something to potentially miss out on benefits, or even accrue unknown costs? This isn’t to oppose your point on the conditionality of this permissibility - I accept that - I just think that the potential drawbacks are unknowable, and therefore no amount of testing will remove this uncertainty.
Incredible article! Part of me thinks I shouldn't reply and simply re-read and reflect, in case I misunderstood or glossed over something, though I can't help myself but to communicate a few points:
1. Are there any considerations for pollutants in synthetic embryonic fluid, artificial placenta, artificial umbilical cord + blood donations? Or, do we assume NCB would necessarily expose a lesser amount and any of it would be less consequential than environmental pollution filtered through a biological placenta and a mother's bloodstream?
2. Relatedly are concerns of medical waste, energy consumption, and the medical industry itself... Can we rely on medical industries to regulate properly? Cultural and legal implications of neglect seem horrifying, considering even abortion is a hotly contested issue.
3. Another very naturalistic argument against it, but it's one that completely changed my mind regarding artificial womb use for full gestation. You're right when we say we don't know what it was like to have once been a fetus, but we know some of the importance of a mother's voice, her heartbeat, her scent. We can guess that there is some animal-connection to her hormonal cycles, perhaps her dream state, when she is relaxed, her hobbies, her daily habits and the sounds of her daily life, which likely have some effect and vitality for the development of life. Surrounding a fetus with plastics, metals -- lifeless industrial equipment -- seems, in some sense necrophilic. To "manufacture" life inside the apparatus of the lifeless probably enters the realm of religious argumentation.
Ultimately, it is inhumane and unethical to gestate a human life without even the sound of another human's heartbeat, their living, human flesh and organs. It is akin to solitary confinement, which we only and controversially subject to prisoners. An emotional argument, sure, but I, personally, can't overcome it. Though, maybe we could create a job market for "artificial surrogates" who sit around the glass uteruses, and read books aloud...
There needs to be more research into embryonic-fetal psychological and emotional development, which will probably only arrive after/if mechanical wombs take off. Sorry for the text wall, but thank you for giving me so much to think about.
Great piece!
You're massively underestimating the potential impact of artificial wombs. Hint: with artificial wombs, there's really no reason for the woman to be involved in the process at all. Then you end up in a *Brave New World*-style dystopia with corporations or governments mass-producing workers or soldiers.
Thanks! But isn't that exactly what I'm addressing with my baby's right to a mother argument? is the idea i discuss that many more eggs would be gestated etc.. that babies would be brought into the world 'effectively motherless'? (I say effectively because an egg is still required in the scenario I'm discussing)
*ie not is!