I believe their stance is that it is something that no man can do and thus it is one of their most empowering things.

This is a potentially really cool technology which will be especially useful for people with fertility problems (solving the problem of surrogates) and reducing? eliminating? problem pregnancies, I can see potential problems (beyond new technology needs time to mature): 1)there is an obvious massive ethical dilemma in doing this on humans (what if it goes wrong etc)- although we've already had that with IVF, surrogates etc 2) on the feminist criticism, according to the book 'Feminist concerns in medical ethics', Julien S Murphy writes that ectogenesis 'could contribute to women's opression if it is used to undermine abortion rights, reinforce traditional views of fertility, increase fetal rights in pregnancy, and perpetuate the unequal distribution of scarce medical resources.' the three feminist criticisms she identifies are- i) ethical questions around the fetuses and chldren created as a result of this process ii) that it would privilege 'genetically related children' ie that it has the effect of discriminating against children available for adoption iii) would it be a technique of liberation- she raises the concern that it could potentially lead to the elimination of women, or at the very least undermine abortion rights (as it means all fetuses are- separate from their mothers and always viable), be used to impose more control of pregnant women, and increase he possibility of 'designer baby' fears. Its worth reading the article, even if it is 20 years old and google books cuts lumps out. (the link is in the motherboard article- i wont link here as it is a monster link. Helpfully, it concludes that feminists should not oppose this technology, but have a hand in its development. there would also be practical concerns: for example, would women who choose (or do not have access to this technology) to have natural pregnancies be discriminated against?- In employment, by their insurer etc, etc, In summary, feminists think this technology could do anything from liberate women from the shackles of pregnancy to the elimination of women. They would much prefer the first answer.

You make some good points, and the article and I generally agree with you. I'll try and explain the points you didn't understand. The ethical dilemma is the experimental one:is it morally justified to create people via a method that may have serious negative effects on their lives, which we may not understand in the long term. (It's the IVF question all other agin except way more complicated) it's also the thalidomide question. It's ethics though, so you takes your stance and you gets your consequences. The adoption question is the same as it was for IVF. It can't defeat the argument for artificial wombs. The abortion question. I think there's more to it than you realise. Abortion rights have been made available on the basis that the foetus is medically essentially indistinguishable form the mother. This technology means that is not true. Those who believe life begins as conception would use this technology to eliminate abortion rights. Best case scenario- don't want to carry the child to full term- have it artificial wombed! In an incredibly invasive surgery! . Worst case (if it's not possible to transfer a foetus from womb to an artificial womb) you have to carry it to full term no matter what. Either way- bye bye female autonomy and consequence free sex. On the elimination of women, it's an extension of the designer babies argument, and it's pretty damn paranoid (but- should be pointed out- sex selective abortions and female infanticide still happen in 2014). For what it's worth it goes like this: 1. Women are a discriminated group 2. Historically, in certain circumstances the ruling power has sought to eliminate discriminated groups i.e genocide. 3. This has not happened to women because they are needed to birth more (male) children. 4. This technology allows for the creation of children without the involvement of women. 5. Therefore, women could be eliminated/ made obsolete. Admittedly, this could equally happen gender reversed. But, to be honest, there are far more oppressive patriarchies than there are oppressive matriarchies. It's pretty damn paranoid. But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. This was pretty long, but this is a complex subject. My basic point: feminists are generally cautiously optimistic about this. It could be liberating. It could have negative effects. What is necessary is to make sure the technology is used positively, but not negatively. (Although that could be said of any technology)

To: Slightlyonfire, TranshumanMarina Thank you for a civil discussion on what could easily become... messy. I have a tendency to be rather blunt, and perhaps somewhat rigid in my ethics. (However far from the norm they may be.) On SOF's abortion response: I suppose that makes sense. I am completely unable to process the thinking of those that would restrict abortion rights, but as I see it, it's a matter of access and context. Also the nature of the procedure. Considering that we can apply a (equally crazy-advanced) filmfomr pacemaker with a small snake-cam-like bendy arm, I don't know that the procedure would be terribly invasive. This does, of course, depend on gestation and other things, but then the law depends on that, too, so I guess that's just the nature of these things. Since technology isn't a "suddenly you can fly!" kind of progress, the technology only, or should anyway, modify the discussion when it is present. Not everyone has access to the Wombot 2.0, so for those that don't, it's as if the technology hadn't been invented. Viability of the would-be child depends on the mother's access to her own needs, after all. What isn't present, shouldn't have an affect, aside from what happens when it's not present. (No water? The fact that water exists and is drinkable doesn't improve the viability of a pregnant woman's ghostrider, if she's in the middle of a desert with no such water. The fact that she, too, is dying of thirst is kinda secondary to the discussion, but that's just what happens when we don't get water.) I suffer from the same problem most do, which is that I, internally, assume that whatever position I've come to hold is probably right, by nature of it being right. That's probably partially a result of carrying the position that an objective truth exists separate from our positions, regardless of our perception. (A long line of people all running into a wall seems to imply the existence of some sort of obstruction, regardless of how we perceive it. The fact that we can't be sure it exists is secondary to the discussion, when it at least seems to be able to apply its effects.) So, I figure the abortion rights argument basically breaks down to there being one truth, and two sides that are varying degrees of wrong. One's side of being wrong tends to result in a loss of autonomy and the misapplication of religion, so as far as I'm concerned they're more-wrong. But that's just how I see it. I don't really know about the inherent value of 'consequence-free sex' (or, if it really exists in the first place, since social interaction and emotional 'thangs' are possible consequences in and of themselves), but I have little interest in it, so I don't know that I am able to see it from the position of those that very much do desire sex. In as far as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. It does affect people that do care, and in a negative way, to have people try to apply certain views of morality outside of their own domain, so for that reason I'm a supporter of the whole "give us freedom or give us superior firepower with which to acquire freedom" camp. The above comes from the same guy that holds that most notions of 'justice' are only valuable as a result of their benefits for society and the individual, as opposed to any inherent or intrinsic value. So, take it as you will. I'm supportive of the pro-choice movement because, frankly, it's less absurd. And as far as I'm concerned, more correct. It has more value for society and the people in it than does the opposing view; again, as I see it. For that reason alone, the development of technologies that remove the need for the mother to exist in the first place (or any other such progression into the strange, horrifically exciting future) shouldn't impact the abortion debate, beyond providing another option. The fact that some people want to force one option or the other is the inherent problem. I'm almost a fan of mental/social 'redaction' to the end of... just kinda putting them somewhere else, but I'm a misanthrope. I hate most of humanity, but I recognize that such actions are fundamentally the same as what I'm so vehemently against. But that's life. I write a lot, and I seem to ramble a lot, so, my apologies. The way I see it, almost every sperm or egg, given the appropriate environment, could result in a healthy, sentient individual. The fact that "appropriate environment" covers a huge list of possibilities is both kind of the point, and something that doesn't matter. I mean, the whole argument is over what constitutes that environment, and what rights those people that fall within those parameters, but there's no great outcry over every lost sperm or egg, so it's rather hypocritical, in my eyes, to raise a stink when an egg and a sperm happen to have been fully introduced. The data in our brains is us, frankly, so before that point I don't see a reason to believe we're alive. It gets complicated after that point, but I'm not a mother, thankfully, so I don't really have a vested interest in it one way or another. An artificial womb should provide the perfect balance between both sides. Life gets a shot, and we don't have to be parasitized or forced. In my opinion, separating the method of reproduction from the body is pretty central to equality anyway. As soon as male/female ceases to exist, so do the problem that list that as a prerequisite. To use a metaphor, we've settled into our new house. We should probably start unpacking the luggage, and putting down the baggage. It's starting to drag us down and hold us back. But my views tend towards exhuman, so, there's that. I guess I kinda managed to weave most all of my response to SOF into that. So much for covering only the one point. ^^' ~ ~ ~(Formatting, Ho!) ~ ~ TranshumanMarina, I tend to look at it as more of what the sides see in our society. Feminism seems, as a whole, to believe in the Patriarchy, in that the power structure is maintained and used by males, therefore disadvantaging women. The MRM movement (should probably just be called Masculinism, since it sounds close enough to not make the whole discussion sound odd) instead sees a society in which male effort and value defers to the female, a Matriarchy in which male production is aimed towards acquiring the favor o the female. Both of these views are intentionally skeletonised for the purposes of discussion. This is the pushing from both side I mean. Both sides recognize many of problems that the system causes, but both have the inherent bias towards their own 'side', just as a result of their parsing of society's complicated setup. There are feminists that seek to fix the problems that society causes for men, in the same way that many of the MRM members recognize and want to fix the problems that society causes for women. The problem, is that each side looks at their own side with a nuanced brush, with a tendency to see the good more than the bad. The exact opposite is applied to the other side, and a perfect example is this very site. The ban on identifying as a MRA is absurd. I can see why the site owners/mods/EP writers would view the MRM movement as inherently asshole-filled, i mean, from the descriptions, a couple people were positively VILE in their actions, here. Using this microcosm, we would assume that MRA's are generally shitty. Considering that the MRM is new, though, and that many movements initially seem passionate or vitriolic, I don't know that the MRM has really had the time to properly delineate what it stands for, or to weed out the crazies. The "but not all MRA's are assholes!" line, and the no-true-Scotsman-esque argument-by-proxy, (I don't know if I'm making sense, i have it in my head but can't always put things to words,) closely resembles the "those so-called feminists that are harassing peaceful men-oriented discussions aren't true feminists" no-true-Scotsman argument. I'm not saying either side is right, and I'm neither for reasons later explained, but there's a lot of hypocrisy thrown around by both sides, enough so that I'm willing to say that they are, frankly, pretty solid parallels. It's also good to keep in mind the varying "waves" of feminism, that whenever someone identifies as 'feminist' they could mean any number of things, both good and bad. the MRM just hasn't had time to say: "This is what we stand for." "Yeah, well this is what WE stand for." "No, you're both crazy, this is what we stand for." So far, it's just kinda a loose grouping of males (and females) that don't feel their concerns would be properly addressed by feminism, often as a result of the same kind of pushback to extremism that we see in the banning of MRA-labeled individuals here. Both sides see each other for the terrible ones among that group. I, and others, hold that society is too complicated to label as either Matriarchal or Patriarchal. I've heard the term "kyriarchy" thrown around, but honestly it's just that few social interactions are inherently balanced, and with people inhabiting all sorts of varying positions, things get messy. Currently, the most important thing, that I've noticed, is to fit your role in society. There are a great many roles, and role-types, that one is expected to fit into, and breaking those expectations varies a lot, depending on which role and role-type expectation was broken. Women, though feminism and other avenues, have fought against many of those expectations to the point that breaking them is considered okay, by all but the most 'old-fashioned' or 'conservative.' Men, broadly speaking, have not. Our roletypes and roles have changed very little, in comparison to women's immense recent progress. There are intense social stigmas against men crying or showing emotion, for example, depending on the roles and role-types the men in question fall into. Some progress is being made, but radical elements of every faction under the sun complicate the matter. The enemy, therefore, is not Patriarchy, Matriarchy, Kyriarchy, or even that mean neighbor we all seem to have, but humanity's tendency to expect what was, to be what is, and for that to be what should be. It's our tendency to factionalize and vilify that creates these violent confrontations between groups that should, frankly, be working together. The problem is tradition, broadly speaking. The situation is sub-optimal. Groups disagree on what would be optimal. Conflict starts, goalposts are moved, and suddenly we're fighting against progress, rather than against tradition. Since gender, using our example, is really only the vector by which humanity continues its existence, replacing or removing it would seem to do more good than harm. If the concern is that we derive too much of our sense of self from our gender, then perhaps we should consider why that is, and consider if that might not be the core problem. In other news, artificial wombs, vat-grown meat, and a prototype FTL drive? It would seem humanity is on the cusp of solving three of our biggest problems. Social issues as a result of gender, issues regarding food access and the morality of eating meat, and issues relating to space and overpopulation. Truly, exciting times. On the flip side, airborne Ebola, social backwardness, and climate change all seem to be pushing us towards destruction, or at least general unpleasantness. Perhaps this is truly what is meant by the curse, "May you live in exciting times." (HOLY WALLS OF TEXT, BATWOMB!) WORDS! I'm so sorry about this huge field of words. ><

It's not that the subject itself is interesting (I've read several articles when it came out a few days ago) but the fact that people here are discussing it in a fair way. Other places always have a few people who discuss the subject... and the throngs of wasted meat that hail or hate the subject... as well as those discussing the subject. I personally welcome the exowomb. I don't really care about all the "issues" everyone takes with it, rather I see it as a step towards a cloning vat. The leap from exowomb to cloning vat isn't a big one. After that I can clone myself, raise my clone until he is 9~11 years old and then scoop up his brain and transfer my brain into his body. Thus I see it as a limited form of immortality. As you can see, I'm not really that big on the whole 'ethics' thing. I mostly agree with what Jagdragoon said as we seem to have much in common in ways of thinking, but I don't really know much about the various "-ists" and "-isms" so I don't agree nor disagree with that part.

I'm also on the pro-exowomb side. Honestly, most of the concerns listed sound like perks. On the abortion question, it addresses the concerns of both sides. Pro-life can safely protect the life of the fetus. Pro-choice can protect the body autonomy of the mother. On the elimination of the female gender question, this already is occuring!! Clearly the lack of exowombs is not holding people back. On the other hand, it lets people have autonomy over their reproductive choices without having to use methods like infanticide. So, as much as I personally disagree with interfering with children like that, from a 'not-my-business' standpoint, it seems like a good thing.

Smokeskin wrote:

The way I see it, abortion rights are available because everyone has sovereignity of their own body. That includes the right to have something removed from it. The fetus dies because it can't survive outside of the women, not because she has a right to have it killed. If we're able to keep a fetus alive in an artificial womb, then the woman still has the right to eject the fetus, but I don't see how she has a right to have it killed if the father wants to keep it alive in an artificial womb.

The legal/moral argument to allow abortion actually goes further than that. It is that until birth the foetus is not a person but a part of the mother, exactly the same as her leg or kidneys. The fact that the foetus contains the father's genetic material is entirely irrelevant from this point of you. Your argument implies foetal personhood- I don't understand how you can accept abortions when the foetus dies if you think the foetus is a person. Unless you think it is property?

Smokeskin wrote:

As to the "bye bye to consequence free sex", I think women will manage, just like men are managing it (not always gracefully though...) :)

I don't understand what you mean when you suggest sex has consequences for men now, but not for women. Because what I meant was the original 60s meaning: sex that does not result in children.

Smokeskin wrote:

The difficult discussion here I see more if the woman is endangering the fetus, like if she's a drug addict or alcoholic. When does the father get the right to have the fetus moved to a safe artificial womb?

It's clear that you advocate father's rights over a woman's bodily autonomy. That genetic material= ownership (or something similar) that has consequences for any future transhuman technology.

Smokeskin wrote:

In my experience, men want women for more than just making babies :) I also think that people who present such ideas are getting of way too easy if we just label them as paranoid. It sounds like they think that the entire male population are genocidal maniacs, which would make it hate speech.

I didn't say in my original post that the origins of this argument was basically: what if the nazis had exowombs and were even more mysoginistic because I didn't want to Godwin the thread. So if it makes you feel better, this feminist willl say you are not a genocidal maniac. The nazis (and other similar types) are genocidal maniacs.

Smokeskin wrote:

Also, sometimes opposition to stuff like this is just plain old technophobia dressed up as whatever platform the technophobe has. Just because someone is a known feminist, and uses that platform and those arguments to argue against a new technology, that doesn't mean that it is actually a feminist issue.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say this. Since when has pregancy not been a feminist issue? I will say this though. (very brief, terribly researched potentially off topic, ignore if you want) on feminism and medicine. The relationship between feminism and medicine is a difficult one. While modern feminism is to an extent a creation of modern medical technology- the pill allowing for sex without the consequence of children, frequently, medicine has been used as a means by which women have been controlled. one could go back as far as the force feeding of suffragettes in the early twentieth century, or the utterly horrific treatment of so-called 'hysterical' women. In the modern era I could point to mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions in some US states, or nore dangerously, cases where women in prison have been sterilised without consent, and (directly relevant to this) cases where women have been essentially forced (or actually forced) to have C-sections when they were not medically necessary. Women being forced to undergo medical treatment without their consent (which you are advocating) has a long history, and very little of it is positive. So yes, feminists are concerned about medical technology. It is an issue that affects women. I know this sounds kinda ranty, and is very long, but my point is this: generally, feminists are in favour of artifical wombs. They are a new technology in an area which is morally and ethically fraught and complex, with strong opinion on all sides. Assuming any criticism or concerns around a technology to be technophobia is not helpful and contributes to an opinion of transhumanism among the uninitiated that is a view that is elitist, unsympathetic and ( relevant here) stereotypically male. EDIT: my tone here is really accusatory. I'm sorry about that. I didn't want to accuse you of anything Smokeskin, just quite curious about what you thought. I mean this in a spirit of understanding. sorry.

Quote:

The legal/moral argument to allow abortion actually goes further than that. It is that until birth the foetus is not a person but a part of the mother, exactly the same as her leg or kidneys. The fact that the foetus contains the father's genetic material is entirely irrelevant from this point of you. Your argument implies foetal personhood- I don't understand how you can accept abortions when the foetus dies if you think the foetus is a person. Unless you think it is property?

If you had kidney failure and were dying, and I was the only person nearby who could donate a kidney, would it be ethically justified for doctors to knock me out and steal my kidney to save you? The same principle applies in the abortion debate--Even if the fetus is a person, (I happen to believe it isn't, but that's tangential to this particular point) it's rights do not supersede those of the mother. (Under anti-choice laws where abortion is banned, the infant would actually [i]lose[/i] rights the moment it's born. That's a bit weird.)

Honestly, this thread is already running better than similar topics I've seen elsewhere. If anything were to restore my hope in people in general, it's a lot of the people on this forum. It's interesting, in that a fair bit of what I've read of Smokeskin's* I've disagreed with, but I agree just about 100% on this topic. I mean, those arguments are basically really well written versions of my own, and for that alone, I give my applause. (*I want to say it was their writing, anyway, on Anarcho-Capitalism, which I'm probably writing incorrectly. For the record, I'm a state-ist.) That we've been able to discuss such an intensely emotional series of issues is a testament to non-dickishness. I'm far too jaded to believe it, but maybe, just maybe, Rousseau Was Right.

Of all transhumanist technologies I would love to see developed . . . well the first would be augmentation, but this is a close second! No longer would people need to abort a new life. That person can go on and the mother would live as well. Everybody wins! Not to mention the other possibilities for extra-terrestrial colonization. I mean, if we can grow the colonists during the trip, they're born on their home and we leave instructions for . . . you know this is actually kind of sounding like Superman's origins. XD

There are so few cults with such practices that it is complete irrelevant, isn't it? I've heard people raise similar concerns over the fact that people with low IQ get more children than high IQ people, and this difference is on large population groups. And also the same suggestion that the "solutions are worse", which I don't get. Is it because that you're considering things like forced sterilization as a solution? Why not just fix the root of the problem: that people are able to vote for oppression of other people?