Artificial wombs: The coming era of motherless births?

Scientifically, it’s called ectogenesis, a term coined by J.B.S. Haldane in 1924. A hugely influential science popularizer, Haldane did for his generation what Carl Sagan did later in the century. He got people thinking and talking about the implications of science and technology on our civilization, and did not shy away from inventing new words in order to do so. Describing ectogenesis as pregnancy occurring in an artificial environment, from fertilization to birth, Haldane predicted that by 2074 this would account for more than 70 percent of human births.

His prediction may yet be on target.

In discussing the idea in his work Daedalus–a reference to the inventor in Greek mythology who, through his inventions, strived to bring humans to the level of the gods–Haldane was diving into issues of his time, namely eugenics and the first widespread debates over contraception and population control.

Whether Haldane's view will prove correct about the specific timing of when ectogenesis might become popular, or the numbers of children born that way, it’s certain that he was correct that tAt the same time, he was right that the societal implications are sure to be significant as the age of motherless birth approaches. They will not be the same societal implications that were highlighted in Daedalus, however. 

Technology developing in increments

Where are we on the road to ectogenesis right now? To begin, progress has definitely been rapid over the last 20-30 years. In the mid 1990s, Japanese investigators succeeded in maintaining goat fetuses for weeks in a machine containing artificial amniotic fluid. At the same time, the recent decades have seen rapid advancement in neonatal intensive care that is pushing back the minimum gestational age from which human fetuses can be kept alive. Today, it is possible for a preterm fetus to survive when removed from the mother at a gestational age of slightly less than 22 weeks. That’s only a little more than halfway through the pregnancy (normally 40 weeks). And while rescuing an infant delivered at such an early point requires sophisticated, expensive equipment and care, the capability continues to increase.

A comprehensive review published by the New York Academy of Sciences three years ago highlights a series of achievements by various research groups using ex vivo (out of the body) uterus environments to support mammalian fetuses early in pregnancy. Essentially, two areas of biotechnology are developing rapidly that potentially can enable ectogenesis in humans, and, along the way, what the authors of the Academy review call partial ectogenesis.

Because a fetus develops substantially with respect to external form and internal organs during the second half of pregnancy, our current capability to deliver and maintain preterm infants actually is a kind of partial ectogenesis. Supported by all of the equipment in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), a premature infant continues its development as a normal fetus of the same gestational age would do inside the mother’s uterus, but with one important exception. Inside the womb, oxygenated, nourished blood comes in, and blood carrying waste goes out, through the placenta and umbilical cord. Once delivered, however, a preemie must breathe through its lungs, cleanse the blood with its liver and kidneys, and get nutrition through its gastrointestinal tract.

But because these organ systems, especially the lungs, are not really ready to do their job so early, there is a limit to how early a developing fetus can be transferred from womb to NICU. Known as viability, the limit definitely has been pushed back with special treatments given to the mother prior to delivery and, just after birth, directly into the preemie’s lungs, and with intensive support. But the 22 week gestational age may be around the absolute limit for survival for a fetus that will have to depend on lung-breathing, not to mention other organs, rather than its mother’s nourished blood.

Still, the capability to push back the limit is around the corner. One of the two developing key technologies is the artificial amniotic fluid filled environment that has continued to develop with laboratory animal models since the work with goats in the 1990s. The other area is embryo transfer. Not only can a developing mammal be transferred from the uterus of its own mother to that of a surrogate, but gradually investigators are reproducing the endometrium–the cell layer of the uterus that contains and nourishes the pregnancy–as a cell culture, or an in vitro model. The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood.

Thus, survival and continuing development would not depend on the lungs and other organs being ready yet to do their job. Applying such a system to fetus delivered in the middle of pregnancy would constitute real partial ectogenesis. Furthermore, since bypassing the developing, not fully functional organs, stands to improve survival substantially, and might even decrease the costs of extreme premature birth, the movement of the technology from research to clinic is inevitable.

Once that happens, there will be no obstacle against pushing the limit further, toward full ectogenesis. But there will be no obstacle to pushing the limit akin to how lung viability has placed an obstacle to conventional pre-term care. At some point, an in vitro fertilized egg could be planted directly into the artificial womb, with no need for a natural uterus even for the early stages.

Societal implications

An artificial womb may sound futuristic, and in Haldane’s time this may have supported a perception that realizing the technology would go together with controlling the birth rate and eugenics controlling which humans come to life, and thus which genetic traits get passed down to future populations. But today, we could do these things without ectogenesis. We have plenty of contraceptive methods and can sterilize people, or make them more fertile, while pregnancies can be induced with implanted embryos made with in vitro fertilization.

If anyone is working on a eugenics program at present, they can use surrogate mothers and don’t really require an artificial uterus--unless, we imagine a society that routinely, forcefully sterilizes all females, so that whoever has the artificial uterus has a monopoly on reproduction, ectogenesis does not relate particularly to those 1920s issues. Instead, the artificial uterus would simply move the pregnancy outside of the woman’s body. When considering societal consequences, that’s the main factor that we need to keep in mind, and doing so we see that it does relate to many currently controversial issues.

Considering abortion, for instance, while the proposition that a fetus, even an embryo, is a person with a “right to life” is a religious belief that cannot be imposed on everyone else, the main argument for the right to choose is a woman’s right to control her body. If a developing embryo or fetus is not viable and the mother wants it out of her uterus, that’s her right.

But what happens once we have the technology to remove it from her without killing it and let the pregnancy continue in an artificial womb? Already, with NICU technology pushing back the survival limit, the timing of viability affecting the legality of abortion, has been challenged by abortion foes. The prospect of ectogenesis stands to turn the viability issue on its face, and it will be interesting to see where that leads.

While social conservatives might be receptive about what an artificial uterus might do to the abortion paradigm, make no mistake they’d probably not be happy that the technology also stands to make it much easier for male gay couples to have babies. All they’d need is an egg donor; no more need for a surrogate mother to take the embryo into her uterus and carry it for 40 weeks. That’s easier for any gay couple in terms of practicality, waiting periods, and money. The same thing goes for a transgender person wishing to have a child.

Finally, because of the sheer numbers, the artificial uterus could have major implications for heterosexual women with fully functional uteri. Many who want children of their own might prefer to forego pregnancy yet would hesitate to hire a human surrogate. Not only is it expensive, but the surrogate could grow fond of the fetus she’s carrying, so why bother taking the risk?

On the other hand, the mind set could be quite different if the surrogate were a high tech jar. It’s your baby with no worries about competing mothers. I’m not suggesting that all potential mothers would opt for this, but Haldane’s guess might not be so unrealistic in that it might end up being a substantial fraction of the population.

David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician and science writer. Follow @CosmicEvolution to read what he is saying on Twitter.

  • thefermiparadox

    Can’t wait for this to happen. Will one day be as normal as test tube babies. Just a matter of time and for the good. I only wonder how women will feel with the the connection they feel with a baby in them. It’s such an evolutionary lower animal instinct.

    • doramin

      In “Logan’s Run” (the original novel) all humans were conceived of natural parents but gestated in artificial wombs and raised by nannybots and robo-tutors.

    • Vanai

      Adoptive parents are capable and loving; this will be no different.

  • John Smith

    What a wonderful day it will be when it is possible to have a child without the need for a woman !! No divorce,no custody battles, no social engineering (the emasculation of young boys). Women will become obsolete and the world will be a better place for it ! Can’t wait for this to happen ! I wonder, with this technology, would it be possible to choose what sex the child will be ?If so, even better ! MGTOW men could raise a son(if they choose) the way THEY WANT TO RAISE THEM,Today’s status quo is any argument to the feminist agenda (social engineering) results in false accusations and jail time for the father.This technology would eliminate all that.

    • Addimon

      I’m assuming that the article had too big words for you to understand. Let me summarize it for you (that means tell you what it was about); we don’t need to grow embryos (that’s a fetus) in the woman’s womb anymore (that’s the area where babies grow in a woman’s body).

      • drake green


    • lauravel

      Lol…it sounds like extreme sarcasm to me.

      • lauravel

        …or someone who’s bitter cause he’s going through a divorce/custody battle.

    • H

      says right in the article that you would still need an egg. As far as I know you still need women for that. It’d be much easier to eliminate men by taking RNA/DNA from one egg and using it to fertilize another (making a clone). You can’t just take sperm and make a person. But who on earth would want to do away with one gender or the other? Only someone that bitter and angry.

      • So we can have egg banks that commoditize the female contribution to reproduction :-P

        • Emilio Lizardo

          No, we’ll have bio printers to make eggs, or even a viable zygote.

      • John Smith

        If you knew how women and feminists have affected the laws in this country , making it a dangerous place for men, you would want to eliminate women too.

        • Evana Schmidt

          Since I have a son and started to see things from a male prospective I do understand what you mean to a certain degree…

        • martina

          How the he’ll do you think you got here ASSHOLE!

          • John Smith

            I got here due to the generosity of a man who was willing to give a woman a child.That’s how. BITCH !

          • Immortal 1

            No you are only here because your MOTHER (a woman!) decided NOT to kill you by ending your life with abortion. She carried you inside HER female body from conception until SHE gave birth to you. So respect & love your MOM for that & be grateful. Tell her thank you every day & stop being a woman-hating DICK you ignorant asshole.

          • John Smith

            She wouldn’t have had the choice to abort if a man didn’t give her the seed. I DO love my mother, but I HATE FEMINISTS.Feminists are responsible for the emasculation and feminising of young boys. This is also the reason why fucktards like you put women on a pedestal and think they can do no wrong. Feminist mothers are the ones responsible for all the princesses, white knights, and manginas of the world, creating a gynocentric country. You obviously DON’T KNOW A FUCKING THING about how this country operates. Then these white knights, manginas and princesses sometimes grow up to be influential people like lawmakers creating gynocentric ( that means woman-centered to idiots like you) laws. These laws are then used as a weapon by women
            on a whim whenever a man disagrees with them. This is why I say an artificial womb would benefit men b/c they could raise a child without the presence of a woman. THERE ! YOU’VE JUST BEEN SCHOOLED ASSHOLE !!

          • John B.

            The problem is that you are right about these issues, but your delivery is uncouth. In order to effectively spread your message, a more tactful approach is required.

          • John Smith

            Well I get that way when people talk to me the way that person did. Call me crazy.

          • Grace Pearce

            Not all the woman are feminist, “forever Alone”.

          • John Smith

            Forever alone ? WTF is that supposed to mean ? You know nothing about me ! Also, no not all women are feminists, but most women do agree with the feminist agenda which I have described in an earlier comment.

          • Klas Wullt

            NO. rational people should never speak emotion and stupidity.
            We must stop these soft approached it makes people stupid.

          • Neo Theh Vallen

            Klas, women are becoming obselete. They aren’t needed. This Artificial Womb will only make the process faster. Do you think this is good ? No women ?

          • adioAmigo789

            Am I supposed to be thankful that my mother didn’t murder me? Maybe I should be thankful to the police for not shooting me. And thankful to Isis for not sending a terrorist to kill me.

          • qqqqq

            Calm your Fucking tits immoral bitch

          • Judy

            LMAO! Good one, martina.

      • Marius Müller

        Well, actually, in 2010 there was a mouse born with the genes of two dads and no mother. And just a few days ago there was the news that it is possible to make human egg
        and sperm cells using skin from two adults of the same sex.

        So, maybe there is a future where Men live on mars and women live on Venus.

        • Kaneda

          Davon hab ich schon gehört, ne Forscherin soll ja in einem labor künstliches sperma hergestellt haben. Die Oogenese sollte beiderseits nicht schwer nachzuvollziehen sein.
          Das hört sich jetzt sicher schwer verschwörungtehoretisch an, aber die technologie dazu haben wir schon länger.

    • Lou

      John Smith, you are a disgusting pig.

    • nrc

      We know who doesn’t get pussy and is feeling some type of way lol john

      • John Smith

        Typical ignorant response ! Any man who doesn’t worship women ” just needs to get laid “.I can already tell just from that response alone, that you are pussy-whipped and put women on a pedestal . There will come a day when a woman will treat you so badly that she will shatter those rose-colored glasses you’re wearing and you will see women as they really are.You obviously know nothing about how feminism has taken over this country to the extent that feminist teachers in public schools are ” resocializing ” boys to behave like girls b/c allegedly, masculinity is toxic and must be stopped before a boy becomes a criminal. I hope you have no children until you wake up so that you don’t promote the status quo.

        • tiki

          I’m female and feminist ladies annoy me. I like men being masculine

          • M

            Do you want a cookie?

          • drake green


          • John Smith

            Thank you for that. So what about feminism annoys you ?

        • drake green

          what a pig

          • John Smith

            Really ? That’s the best you can do ? Pathetic !

    • Makeda

      This person is crazy stupid. Making women obsolete?there would be no need for feminism if it weren’t for patriarchial crazy ass me like you. This technology is crazy and lack value and understanding of life. Scientist trying to play God/Nature…when else has that gone totally wrong…that has gotten us to where we are now.

      • John Smith

        ” Patriarchal crazy ass ” ? There is no patriarchy ! Just because most

        influential people are male, does NOT mean that a woman can’t hold the same position.That’s just the typical feminist lack of accountability talking. If there is any field that is mostly male, it’s b/c of ” the patriarchy “. No, it’s b/c women have CHOSEN not pursue said field.

        You want proof that there is no patriarchy ? Here it is :

        1) There are more men in jail than women

        2) Girls do better in schools than boys do

        3) More women are employed than men

        4) The wage gap is a myth

        I could go on, but I’m getting sick of this.
        Women are privileged here in the U.S. , but yet they constantly plead “victim” so they can acquire MORE benefits.This is the feminist philosophy. This is why men would be better off if they were able to have children without the aide of a woman.

        • chrissie

          Lol awwww. Poor johnny got dissed by a woman lol. Just because we aren’t forced to marry you out of a financial or societal necessity, because now we can have our own standards of what we expect from men, like to be treated with dignity, respect, and that if we have to have a stellar bodies at all stages of our lives, we expect you to not be lazy fatasses, doesn’t give you a right to spew your disgusting sexist vitriol. Maybe you should meet our standards like we have to meet men’s standards or you can die alone and be phased out of the gene pool. Get with the times, we don’t owe you sex or companionship unless you meet our requirements. We’re not your slaves or prisoners. You sound a lot like elliot Roger. You going to go on a shooting spree killing women for not wanting to touch your neglected genitals? Lol

          You don’t deserve anyone’s respect or love with that kind of bs mentality

          • John Smith

            OMG ! You are COMPLETELY missing the point and are way off base.
            1) I did NOT get dissed by a woman. I stated my case and had the facts to back them in the links I have provided.
            2) This is not a matter of sour grapes because I do not believe in marriage. This is not about sex either. If anyone is bitter it’s you b/c you went off on a tangent all your own and way off topic.You are the third idiot to not read what I wrote earlier and to just jump in screaming. Please read my earlier comments.
            Once again, the reason I say artificial wombs are a good thing, is b/c of the feminist agenda. Please see my previous comment. Your rant, as off topic as it was, is proof of how gynocentric this country is.Say anything even remotely negative regarding women and the rants start.

          • pat

            How hilariously atavistic chrissie. You are the scorpion on the frog’s back, and that frog is western civilization. Good riddance.

      • adioAmigo789

        I can understand why this technology makes you scared. It would mean you would lose some of your female privilege, and will have to be treated like men.

        • Alex Chaudhari

          And what did any of that have to do with what she said about Scientists trying to play God?

      • EJC

        Men are already obsolete. As long as sperm banks don’t run out of sperm of course.

        Why not? What if a man wants a child but don’t care for the idea of having a woman around?

        • Neo Theh Vallen

          Men are not obsolete. But women are, it will come a time when women won’t exist. The think is : It will be better this way ?

          • EJC

            “But women are” obsolete?
            How so?

            “The think is : It will be better this way ?”

            Are you are posing a question or making a statement?

          • Neo Theh Vallen

            As long as women are not capable to compete with men in absolute nothing, they’re pointless, serving only for reproduction. As Masterson said several times, the most valuable thing women have to offer these days is sex and fake marrieges.

            Now, I would advice you to search hardly for artificial womb, THIS will make women completly obsolete between 2074-2089.
            This will happen … it’s already happenning, these are facts.

            Now the thing is, what governments can do to stop this process is using ethical means to prevent this, such as several sources from religions. It’s a matter of moral, not the scientific project itself.

          • EJC


          • DesertLL

            Men will be obsolete before women.

          • Neo Theh Vallen

            Right, kid. Just sit there and shut up.

          • DesertLL

            You’ve got issues. No one will date you and I can see why.

          • Neo Theh Vallen

            Alright, kid, more bla bla bla. Go do something productive of your life.

          • Conner

            What is up with this weird “Men Vs Women” shit? No one cares about your Daddy issues. Men and women are still going to be useful regardless of reproductive status. You’re pretty much on the same level as people who say that if women didn’t have vaginas then we would just hunt them for sport.

            The artificial sperm (using bone marrow, skin cells, sperm banks, etc) and artificial wombs are ALTERNATIVES, you fucking morons. NO ONE is going to abandon all men or women because guess what? Men and women still LIKE each other. Do you make fun of infertile women because apparently the only use people have to society in your eyes is their reproductive status? Go outside.

          • Alex Chaudhari

            Ahhhh, someone is so angry, they have to let their feelings be the typical Feminazi BS to prove a point?
            Screw off, textbook definition.

          • Eldritch Angel

            Actually she’s right. They can create sperm out of urine or spinal cells now.

            Come on ladies and gents. Let’s play nice and not reduce ourselves to grade school boys vrs girls contest of wills?

          • Conner

            Being able to have kids w/o the need of sperm is around the corner, but then again, so are fake wombs (give or take a few decades).

            Honestly isn’t this sort of the same shit that people said about boats when planes started getting popular? How boats are so obsolete nowadays and how there’s no use for them because we can FLY. Sort of weird how people still use boats, it’s almost as if they’re still useful for getting places or something!

        • Conner

          “Men are already obsolete. As long as sperm banks don’t run out of sperm of course.”

          …Where do you think they get a vast majority of the sperm from? Are you absolutely retarded?

          Truth be told I sort of doubt most women would completely drop men from their lives and just start going to sperm banks to have kids. At least with men they get some fun times out of it.

          • EJC

            Are you absolutely retarded Conner?

            “Men are already obsolete”
            Of course men aren’t “obsolete” in that sense.

            If you asked nicely I would have explained. Now you have to watch the vid.

            ” As long as sperm banks don’t run out of sperm of course”
            with men still going to donate, retard.
            See that Connor? Words can be interpreted in many ways on a medium like the internet, it is up to you to ask what the I meant by it, Not ask “Are you absolutely retarded ” like only a retard can.

            Stop misinterpreting my words. Next time, drop the ad homs and ask if you don’t understand since you sound absolutely retarded.
            OK Connor?

            *Disclaimer – This is not normally how I respond. Just sick and tired of people starting off with Ad homs instead of inciting productive debate.

    • GoogleGuest

      Although, I agree that Feminism – especially, the American version of it – has done more harm than good to the family and women themselves, I do not agree with you spewing hatered and denying life to half of the humankind just because you, personally, are unable to sort out your relationship with the opposite sex. We’re all in the same boat here.
      Extremism, be that in interracial, international or any other relations stems from arrogance. Arrogance, stems from unwillingness to exercise the God given ability to think. Any dog can bark, any person with even the most limited vocabulary can express his/her anger using offensive language. So what? What makes YOU any different from a mad dog? Or any better from those you’re shouting at?
      Today, women of the Western world are as dumbed down and confused as men are. So, what’s the use in being at each other’s throat? Won’t it be logical to step back and take a good, hard look at what’s going on in our society and try to find out WHY??

      • John Smith

        A very good question. I believe some feminists have an actual pathology. Some of them ACTUALLY FEEL HELPLESS.( though most just use “the victim” narrative as a means of manipulation) Feminists try to rid themselves of any accountability of their own actions by blaming the mythical ” patriarchy”. ( there is none) Didn’t get the job you want ? It’s the patriarchy’s fault ! Life didn’t turn out they way you wanted it to ? It’s the patriarchy’s fault ! Even women who are non-feminists try to jump on the bandwagon.When a woman sees a feminist getting what she wants just by pleading “victim”, they join in. All of this is a result of our gynocentric culture created by the feminist agenda, it’s cyclical.

    • Jelly Tayco

      “Women will become obsolete and the world will be a better place for it!”-is simply implying that you want our gender gone, period. This may change the future but do not forget what women have done to bring humanity to this point. Whatever this world is now is because of BOTH genders have done. Divorce and custody battles are caused by the existence of women? Ingrate sexist.

      • John Smith

        Marriage, divorce, custody battles all favor women.Marriage is a HUGE gamble. A man is gambling half of his assets that she won’t leave. Women are totally aware that the laws favor them which is part of the reason why women want to get married.For them , it’s a win-win. If said woman want to raise the children according to the ” feminist agenda ” and the husband protests, she can have him removed with one phone call. If he goes along with it, the result is children who grow up to be princesses, white knights and manginas. This is why I say a single father would raise a child to be a much better person . There would be no woman there to hold the weapon of law to his head every moment of every day.This is what women have done to bring humanity to where it is today.Btw, thank you for at least having SOMETHING to say , as opposed to the last three idiots who just blindly scream insults at me with no argument at all. I don’t care what names people call me , but make an argument.

        • DesertLL

          The law is the way it is because men have not held up their end of the bargain when a child is born or a marriage fails. The law creates equality, but not superiority for women.

          • AKR47

            No law is biased and anti male in almost all countries in the world. Fathers have to prove mothers are unfit to get the custody of the children but not the other way around.

          • DesertLL

            Maybe for custody, that’s true, but not for sharing assets and wealth. All evidence points to men having to be forced to pay for their children.

          • AKR47

            Check out Indian law. In a divorce husband is required to give half of his assets to wife and on top of that his parents have to give half of theirs too. There’s no other way around. Funny right? Similar kind of sexists laws exist all around the world but CNN won’t cover these issues cause it affects men. It’s only sexists if it affects women.

          • DesertLL

            Compared with what happens to women in that country, I doubt that’s the most pressing concern. The US divorce laws are what I was talking about.

          • AKR47

            Do you know what happened to men in this country? How the fuck you know you read and watch CNN and think you know everything about India.

          • DesertLL

            I don’t. I just doubt your life is as bad as the average woman’s. Forced vasectomy was 40 years ago, btw.

  • ladycastt

    This is not good!!! Playing God is very dangerous

    • anon

      you say as the very same curousity is what lead us to modern day medicine.

      • Grace Pearce

        Ha ha ha people die for cancer, and various other illness but don’t worry is more important “this” incredible idea. And don’t forget that everyday, there are less and less food in the world.

        • adioAmigo789

          No, there isn’t less and less food in the world. And if you’re so worried about cancer, then become a researcher. Artificial wombs are important to some people just as cancer is to you.

  • libertarianlatina

    Good article until it reached the “Societal Implications” portion and flat out labeled anyone pro-life as conservative and anti-gay. I’m a pro-life libertarian. I think that any 2 or 3 or whatever ADULTS in a consenting relationship ship with a healthy home should be able to raise children regardless of gender. Maybe you should stick to reporting on scientific advancements, GLP, instead of trying to push some liberal agenda in your articles. It makes you look sorely misinformed and arrogant.

    • Emilio Lizardo

      I don’t care about abortion or god, but making gender impairments the new norm is irresponsible.

  • mary

    They don’t realize that is very dangerous. Until something bad happened they should find the cure of cancer, HIV etc instead of wasting money.

    • Arcturus84

      Well, a new ‘vaccine’, and possible treatment, for HIV is up for human trials soon. Gene therapy can accomplish a major blow the infection, possibly even eliminating it, but US congress doesn’t like gene therapy because *insert really stupid idea here*. Gene therapy, and the use of gene modified bacteria, have shown promise with fighting various types of cancer, but again gene therapy, so no go in the states.
      Additionally, I don’t think this is wasting money at all! This tech has a definite upside.

  • Homosexual couples might even be able to get real biological children by iPS technology (de-differentiating cells to a pluripotent state) and then in vitro differentiation into eggs (for gay men) or sperm (for lesbians)

  • Janice Rael

    Thank goodness for this technology to end the baby shortage! Just think! With the world underpopulated as it is, and no orphans, the foster care and adoption industries in tatters, these new baby factories are just what our world needs to ensure that we finally get more babies on Earth! Because there just aren’t enough humans yet to deplete our natural resources right now at all! Please breed more humans! Our DNA is SO special!

    • fergalf

      To be honest overpopulation isn’t the issue. Western wasteful issues are the issue. Of course this sort of technology is more for the wasteful west.

      • anon

        ^^^^^ THAT , japan practically has the US population in a place the size of california and continue to thrive just as well if not better. overpopulation is not the issue x’D

        • Guest

          In many developed European countries the birthrate is below replacement level, women have too few children, this is balanced by immigrants who have more children on average. Artificial wombs can help balance the birthrate as well.

          Japan has one of the lowest birthrates of all developed countries. It’s far below replacement level. If the current trend continues they would become extinct in a few centuries.

          Mostly South and East Asia are densely populated, the rest of the world is much less.

          Article about Japan:

          Japan’s birth rate slumped to a record low in 2014, health ministry figures show, dropping to 1,001,000 newborns in 2014 – 9,000 fewer than in 2013.

          The fall is the fourth in consecutive years and comes as the estimated number of deaths continues to rise, at just under 1.3 million last year.

          Some estimates say that by 2050 the population could be as low as 97 million – 30 million lower than now.

          “Countries need to have a birth rate not too far from replacement level, somewhere in the 1.7 to 2.0 area. Once you drop below that, you cause too much damage to your age structure,” he says.

          In other words, you have too many old people for the young people to support.

          “If you have a birth rate of one,” he says, “that means your population falls by half in one generation, which is about 30 years. After three generations you’re down to one-eighth of your starting population. And one-sixteenth after four.

          “If the Japanese keep their birthrate where it is they’ll quickly become extinct.”

          • Omega

            “this is balanced by immigrants who have more children on average”

            It’s not balancing. It’s replacement.

          • curly4

            You are correct but so is Guest. Without immigration western Europe would be declining in population. As it is it is just the ethnicity of Europe is changing. The percentage of Europe is predominately white but the birth rate of the whites births are below replacement. As the population of the whites decrease the immigrant population increases due to birth rate of the immigrants. When interracial marriage is thrown the white race will even decline faster since the white race gene is regressive while the gene producing the darker skinned races is dominant so the white skinned blue eyed race will soon die out given a little more time.

          • Omega

            This is an intentional and calculated plan. Look up ‘White Genocide’. Mass immigration and feminism conspire to destroy the white race. Let us be wise to this fact, and remove these evil forces from our realms.


        • Webster

          Much less than half the US population … more like a third.

        • lynneb

          Japan, like the US, has “outsourced” much of its resource consumption — what I mean is, they sustain their population in that small an area, by pulling resources from other land masses.

          The Japanese are huge consumers of metal and timber from other areas of Asia, and an even larger consumer of fish stocks from all over the world.

          If they had only the resources of Japan to live from, their quality of life would NOT be high.

          • Ri Zen

            Vertical farming ftw. If society went this route with thorium power, problem solved.

          • lynneb

            You’ll just need to convince them to give up the sheer mass of electronics (built in Japan, but made from materials mined elsewhere, including to a large degree in Africa), luxury goods like hardwoods, and beef and seafood. (Bearing in mind that Japan alone consumes 10% of the world’s seafood.)

            Good luck with that. Let me know how well that extraordinary change in human behavior goes.

        • 1bestdog

          yeah that does not extrapolate to the world…..really stupid if you cannot see the root cause of most problems is way too many people

        • andyrwebman

          At what level would you consider the Earth to be overpopulated, then?

        • Ri Zen

          Japan is miserable. There’s a reason they tried to expand(back during WW2).

        • curly4

          It seams that you have overstated the population of Japan a little. The population of Japan was 127.3 million (2013). I don’t think that it has nearly tripled in the last 2 to 3 years.

      • DesertLL

        It’s not technically the issue, but who wants to give up their standard of living so more people can be born? Isn’t it better to just have fewer?

        • fergalf

          Well arguably our standard of living can only be protected if we have more kids. Without immigration the west would be struggling.

          • GreenLantern

            Here in the UK we have mass immigration and lots of people who were born here living in poverty.

            Immigration is about money saving not low birth rate. We have more people then jobs, Asians bring wealth in and EU workers work for less. It saves training up British born people and when all the migrants have been here a couple of generations they will end up in the same position of being shoved in crap housing and out of work.

          • lynneb

            I live in the UK, too, and actually we do not have “mass” immigration. We have very modest immigration in comparison to much of the world — and a rightwing, fearmongering newspaper industry to wind people up about it.

            And many people born in the UK have decided not to even study engineering, nursing or medicine. We have a desperate need, especially in the NHS, and we import people precisely because we *can’t* find enough British to fill the jobs.

          • andyrwebman

            I live in the UK, and I consider net immigration of 300,000 a year to be extremely large. Particularly in the context of a country whose population is around 3 times its ecological carrying capacity.

            A city the size of Birmingham every 3 years is not sustainable long term. We need to train talent internally, the importing of an ever larger number of people is a short termist’s solution for those with no respect for long term planning.

          • lynneb

            Over 40% of that “net immigration” every year is students coming in to do a degree in the UK, did you realise that?

          • DesertLL

            I don’t think our standard of living is sustainable no matter how you look at it. But adding people who demand more and more resources doesn’t seem smart. Unless they’re all going to be scientists.

          • fergalf

            People have being saying our doom is imminent for 200 years and it still has not happened. No finite resource has ever run out ,only renewal resources temporarily eg wood in certain periods. We do need to conserve more and protect the environmental more but more children is essential.

          • 1bestdog

            pay attention dear

          • andyrwebman

            It took a long while for the credit crunch to occur, and for all that time, the bull market seemed invincible. The final crash was all the worse for the prolonging of the boom times.

            Humanity’s crash is set to be far worse than this.

            Also – the extinction rate of other species is at its highest in human memory. They certainly seem to be feeling the pain already.

          • Kaneda

            Yeah~ And what bedtimes stories do you get to hear at night.
            We are on the edge to fully automation. Not soon and almost every job will be possibly done by bots.

          • Alex Chaudhari

            You mean grunt jobs, person with no backings.

          • 1bestdog


          • andyrwebman

            This can only ever be a temporary solution – it’s a Ponzi scheme by its very nature.

        • lynn

          I understand supply and demand, however I know couples with children who make less money but live better lives because they know how to utilize their money unlike some people I know who make six figures and blow their finances and are broke and in debt because they are living beyond their means. “Its not what you have, but how you use what you have” or however that saying goes,

          • lynn

            P.S. Also don’t forget those kids could grow up to be doctors and lawyers and make lots of money to take care of mom and dad in their old age! It’s all perspective.

      • Patrick Greene

        Yes Fergalf, and the expending of non-renewable resources.
        The wasted lands. Lolol

      • 1bestdog

        sorry overpopulation is the issue

      • Tony Powell

        There are more humans living now than at any time in human history. Open your eyes and face reality.

        • crassfrazier

          Yes…And the reality is that our standard of living is at it’s highest than it has been in any point. This is no coincidence.

          • Tony Powell

            Only if you ignore the vast amounts of poverty and disease in developing countries. The root cause of all this in countries like India and continents such as Africa is the struggle over limited resources.

          • crassfrazier

            They only struggle over limited recourses because recourses are being limited to them. This is the problem with the third world, dear. They have not been permitted the access to the abundant energy that we have had in the developed world…It is our cheap and available access to energy that has provided us the ability to “develop”…That and Europeans have always had a propensity for innovation.

      • andyrwebman

        The issue is that population x (consumption per capita) is an issue for the environment.

        You can suggest that we reduce consumption per capita – which means a huge number of changes – or that we reduce (or stabilise) numbers.

        However, if you reduce per capita consumption without population stability, the increase in population can very quickly cancel out this gain – and with nowhere to go after that.

        For example, suppose you halved consumption per capita. Given that the world’s population has doubled in the last 40 years, you have only that time until you get back to square one.

        Exponential growth is incredibly fast if you do the mathematics. For example, if human numbers doubled every 40 years

        – there would be one human being for every square metre on the planet within 640 years
        – within 1200 years humans would equal the mass of the solar system
        – within 15000 years we would equal the mass of the known universe.

        So it is simply not true to imagine that all problems would be solved if the high consuming Western countries started acting more responsibility. At some time, humanity MUST control its numbers. This is simply physics.

      • Gauri Chaudhari

        wasteful? I am sorry, wasteful only when the babies are produced like we produce goods in factory. Think about people who trying since years but are not able to have babies. This technology could be a blessing for them. IVF was invented almost 40 years ago and yet it can be afforded by few people today. Imagine the cost of this “ectogenesis”. It would take a lot of years before people can actually start affording it and before this technology becomes wasteful.

    • Webster

      Dozens of countries are facing crises due to under-replenishment levels of fertility. Our world is NOWHERE near overcrowded, despite the neo-Malthusian lunatics.

      • Janice Rael

        “In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.”

        Other countries still have orphanages, and people in some countries abandon newborns (usually girls) to die. There is absolutely no rational reason to continue to make new babies when so many existing babies need permanent homes.

        • Webster

          You realize, don’t you, that 100k children represents less than one third of one tenth of one percent of our country’s population?

          There are about four million births per year in the USA. Based on the numbers you gave, perhaps one percent of them could be displaced by adoptions from the foster care system (over the long term). Even if we were to accept all your premises and ignore the real problems, your “solution” would not put a dent in the birth rate.

          Furthermore, the long term public policy problem is not that we don’t have enough children for parents who want families, but that we do not have enough future workers to support our social welfare programs! Congratulations on completely missing the point.

          • Janice Rael

            How very US-centric of you.

          • Webster

            You started with US statistics, so I replied in kind.

      • lynneb

        Our resource consumption rate far outstrips resupply, however. We are in the position of someone who started with a large bank account (the global resource pool) but spends more than they earn every month.

        If all you’re doing is looking for land to build houses, sure, the world has plenty of that. If you’re looking for housing, food, and energy resources and still have any interest in preserving ecosystems to continue to sustain resources long-term, we’re in real trouble. Obviously we haven’t spent the account down to 0 yet, but we’ve certainly driven large fish stocks down to nothing, we’ve devastated some previously highly productive ecosystems in favour of monocropping which will require more and more chemical and energy investment to maintain, and we’re running out of “easy” clean water, metal sources and fuel. The argument that we haven’t hit a complete crash yet, therefore we never will, is a ridiculous fallacy.

        • Webster

          > The argument that we haven’t hit
          > a complete crash yet, therefore we
          > never will, is a ridiculous fallacy.

          Of course it’s ridiculous! I would never say such a thing. Please respond to what I *actually* say, in the context I say it.

          Overfishing is a problem: the Great Banks will never again have the big fish that once abounded there. The genetic information for those varieties is lost, and there is no plausible mechanism for generating new information. So there’s that.

          Virtually all other resource issues are either on an upswing (e.g., fossil fuels) or the situation is generally improving (reduced loss of rainforests).

          Monoculture is a concern, but it’s not directly related to the issue of this thread, which is overpopulation. Monoculture would be just as much a problem in a depopulated world: more, in fact, as there would be fewer people to preserve other lines and generate new ideas for solutions.

      • andyrwebman

        Why lunatics? It’s nothing more than Mathematics. The world’s population doubles every 40 years. It’s very simple to show that within 240 years the population would be around 1 trillion if it continued at this rate.

        You’re looking at set of countries which locally have below replenishment rates – and perhaps in these selected places, a small increase would be beneficial.

        You are, however, refusing to balance this out by considering other countries with huge birth rates. Ethiopia, for example, has TRIPLED its population since the 1980s.

        So it’s clear that overpopulation is a huge risk, even though it’s also possible that the trend may change over the next few years.

        Neither possibility should be an excuse for complacency – rather, we should try to create a world where the population is stable around an optimum level.

      • Neshkav

        The first world countries, I agree. The Bass-awkwards dumps where we’re importing migrants from like the ME, no so much.

    • dita

      First of all, people who want their own children won’t adopt ever. Even if they pity parentless children. You should respect their wishes. Secondly, overpopulation is the greatest myth. The birth rate has dramatically dropped last few decades almost everywhere. Population of some European countries, Japan and S.Korea has already dicreased. And this tendency brings a lot of problems in economy, social issues, etc.

    • JCNow

      I see this as a very real option for ending the abortion debate. If the state insists that a woman cannot terminate her pregnancy, then she should be able to insist that the state remove the fetus from her body. The state can then bear the cost and burden of “carrying the pregnancy” to term by the use of an artificial uterus.

      • andyrwebman

        Not unreasonable. I think also the prospect of reversible sterilisation will vastly help to reduce the need for abortions.

      • smoink

        The state must not bear the costs, because that means the People would have to bear the costs, through taxes. Instead, the costs should be borne out by the anti-abortionists.

        • pbasch

          Absolutely right. Also, when the children are put up for adoption, pro-lifers should be in a queue to receive them in order “born”, without being allowed to select.

      • Misty

        I never thought of that. But it’s quite true. This technology has so many positives but they also have downsides. Hopefully by the time this is ready, the price of printing/growing organs will be much cheaper, and sickos won’t grow infants just to harvest their organs.

    • martinbrock

      The technology will be very expense at first, so only relatively affluent parents will use it. Poorer parents have more children, so the technology has little effect on any baby shortage.

    • Joseph Walcott

      I can’t help but detect a bit of sarcasm in this statement… One’s opinion on the matter doesn’t necessarily make a difference, this science will have major implications, the author could have gone WAY further in depth here.

      • Janice Rael

        mhmm, a bit of sarcasm. I’m glad for the scientific breakthroughs, but I’m concerned about the implications.

    • andyrwebman

      The idea is that this technology would replace natural birth, not supplant it.

      There’s abundant evidence that the real cause of overpopulation is old fashioned human sex – whilst technological innovation such as contraception is reducing birth, not increasing it.

      The only real thing you can blame technology for is stopping us from dying young and keeping the numbers down that way. Personally I think we can aspire to far better ways of controlling our numbers.

      • Janice Rael

        Thanks for that viewpoint, AndyR. You do have a valid point and I appreciate it.

    • Alice Rose

      no thats not how it works! The world is OVER populated have u seen pictures of china? And look at all the deaths and violence who would want to bring children into this world right now?Also all the poverty and hunger in the world. maybe we should work on helping the people we have now before we bring all these new babies into the world.

    • Ri Zen

      I think the point is we will have a finder degree of control over births. So imagine taking eggs/sperm from people at early age, sterilizing them(temporarily or forever)until such a time when they are ready to have kids. Because apparently people just can’t keep it in their pants or use contraceptives as directed.

    • curly4

      Janice, when they prefect this method of child birth it will free both men and women from the worry of child birth and rearing. Each man and each woman could engage in all the love with anyone they wanted to and would not have to worry about having a child to contend with. Now this will mean that a very effective birth control be developed for men as have been done for women. It would also require that all persons be on birth control. From the adults the ones who are responsible for batch of people would also have to select the genetic donors that is until enough research has been done to develop the ability to design the next human from scratch. But then they will be able to eliminate all medical problems from humanity. They also may be able to increase the intelligence level. So in the end a big plus for humanity.

    • Psk Da Charioteer

      You are obviously looking at only the negative connotations of such a development. Not to mention, you’re not considering economics. Most people can’t even afford to have abortions, and this technology will be more expensive. Also, this may seem far-fetched, but by the time we have complete ectogenesis technology, seasteading and space colonization will no longer be things of the past. Hence overpopulation problem solved. Any other concerns, madame?

    • RandomDev

      You’re just frightened that this technology will replace you.

      • Janice Rael

        Um, no, I’m not afraid of being “replaced,” that’s a laughable idea in many ways. What scares me is overpopulation, which is what I commented on in my post.

        • RandomDev

          No you’re scared this technology will take away the value you have, overpopulation is bogus.

          • Janice Rael

            You think you are a mindreader? Go win the lottery and then get back to me.

          • RandomDev

            If you actually knew anything about human nature, especially female nature, you’d make the same conclusion.

          • Janice Rael

            Well, “RandomDev,” as a female I think I know more about my nature than you do. Did you know that women aren’t some monolith of likeminded thought?

          • RandomDev

            No reality doesn’t work that way. Women have a well documented nature and very few know anything about their nature. Had you known anything about evolutionary psychology you might be aware of that.

          • DinosaurGenetics

            Have any citations to back up those claims?

          • RandomDev

            Good look up Gad Saad or StarDusk/Thinking Ape for a better understanding of evolutionary psychology.

          • DinosaurGenetics

            Typically, a citation has a location to a specific piece of information, so that both parties are reading the same thing. In this case, a link would be greatly appreciated.

          • Janice Rael

            Your mindreading abilities are failing you, Miss Cleo.

          • RandomDev

            No, I’m well educated on human nature and know the under lying motives of people.

          • Janice Rael

            ooh, magical.

          • Ah Got Somethin Ta Say!

            Or maybe she means what she wrote…because she wrote it.

            She’s not the one with glaring psychological concerns on display.

          • RandomDev

            No, what a woman says is almost never what she actually means.

          • Ah Got Somethin Ta Say!

            All you’re conveying here to everyone is your lack of meaningful female interaction, and a capacity for wildly oblivious displays of ignorance.

  • jeremy_hh

    I fail to see any truly substantial upside here, but see plenty of potential pitfalls.
    What am I missing?

    • Jeff Ritchie

      Women with cancer who want a child but can’t because of chemo? Space exploration? The obvious gay community? The possibility of a healthier baby? potential life saving pre birth surgeries? or maybe even a women who is loosing her baby and needs to use one of these till it can reach maturity?

      • Global

        Not to mention Liberation of women from the painful, genital and body deforming, often scarring and traumatic (even lethal often enough) experience of 9 months of carrying a baby.

        [Obviously, Women would still be able to carry to term naturally if they wanted or couldn’t afford this technology (I’m assuming it’d only be allowed in very, very, very tightly controlled facilities). But as an experience of gender, birthing would still be highly valued by women’s and probably some religious culture.]

        • Celia

          Agreed. I hope that we would be able to have this technology as soon as we can!

        • AKR47

          And also single men wanting to be fathers.

      • AlwaysSumthin

        You also have the concept that there would be no need for abortion. Women who found themselves pregnant would simply turn over their parental rights and the fetus would be transferred to an artificial womb so that it could be adopted by another family.

        • Eldritch Angel

          Yes! The pro-lifers would be happy, the pro-choice people would be happy. This tech can’t come soon enough.

    • AKR47

      Saving 10 + million babies killed by mothers is fair enough upside for me.

      • jeremy_hh

        And this would happen how?

        • Butternut

          The mother would be able to have the baby taken out and placed in an artificial womb, instead of taken out and placed in a medical waste bin.

        • AKR47

          Cause abortion.

    • andyrwebman

      Sparing half of the population from the agony of childbirth and the associated medical problems it often brings.

  • Jean Valjean

    It’ll never happen. Women know intuitively that reproduction is how they maintain control over humanity and that their never ending collective rant against the evil menz (who won’t privilege them enough) won’t have the same teeth that it once had.

    Whatever progress science makes in this area will eventually be ended by women’s groups who will suddenly be forced to admit that women have always had power over men and that power stemmed from their essential reproductive role.

    End that essential role and women might be forced to live with the equality they’ve always claimed they wanted.

  • Laylayah

    If you haven’t already go back and read Genesis 2:7, Deuteronomy 32:6, Psalms 100:3, but before reading the Bible remember that it was first written in the Hebraic tongue and Hebrew is a language of metaphor so don’t confuse yourself with the metaphorical writings its up to you to discern what its clearly stating but anyway by reading those verses [though there are many more that state evidence] this act of a motherless birth is clearly thought out from a mind of satan, now don’t get all spooked out about someone having a satanic mind because if someone can have a Godly mind so can they have an evil mind derived from satan. This is foolish and blasphemy! And for any absurd mentality who has the audacity to agree with this is also satan himself. This has no correlation with a mind of God! And if I may offend anyone with this statement my purpose is simply not to but if you are offended I truly and deeply hope that later on down the road will understand what I’m saying for I am only defending God himslef because this, this is stupid and with the caranal eye that I have it sickens me to see satan still trying to get back at God from the Genisis up till now ‘what more can you do satan before God tears your kingdom down? What more!?” and I and others know that satan has more to come but its only a matter of time before the God of creation tears him down!!!!!!

    • BookRose86

      Time to take your crazy pills now, don’t you think?

    • Arcturus84


    • drake green


  • Ryan

    World Population: 7.2 billion people

    Analysis of these data reveals that, contrary to previous literature, the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100
    Now… tell me…. why are we looking for more ways to have more babies… when we are already running out of space and resources…? Hello.

    • Emilio Lizardo

      All that growth will be in Africa and some parts of the middle east, populations in the West and Japan are declining.

    • Klas Wullt

      We need it to populate space ships and allow women to work and make children at the same time.
      We also need to sterilize the weak gene pool
      and increase the strong gene pools
      those less likely to provide for their children breed more and those able to provide breed to little,
      the gene pool is deteriorating because the modern life style does not allow successful to breed more than the unsuccessful.

      • DesertLL

        There’s no such thing as strong and weak. Whoever is breeding is most fit to. We shouldn’t mess with it.

        • Klokinator

          Yeah, tell that to welfare whores. They exist, and there are more of them than there are responsible loving parents. Don’t be blinded by feminism.

          • DesertLL

            It’s not feminism. Lol. When you mess with who can breed, you don’t end up with the utopia you dream of. Educated people have fewer children. It’s not because they’re better.

          • Kaneda

            Its just we see how corrupted the world is.

          • DesertLL

            Ummm yeah. That’s not actually that hard to see. But that doesn’t mean you sterilize people.

          • lynneb

            I’m going to nominate you as one of the ignorant people who shouldn’t be breeding.

          • Klokinator

            I’ve noticed people tend to project. Those who call others ignorant are by far the most ignorant of all.

          • lynneb

            By that argument, you’re a welfare whore. :D

          • Klokinator

            Nah, I’m not a pregnant woman living off government assistance.

          • lynneb

            You’re neither responsible nor loving.

            Anyway, it’s perfectly valid to call someone ignorant when they are. You are. You can cope with it in one of two ways — either fix the ignorance, or deflect and deny. We can both see which one you’ve chosen.

          • Klokinator

            It sounds like you’re a pregnant woman living off said governmental assistance. It’s the only explanation for your hilarious butthurt about my comment lolol

          • lynneb

            And, once again, you are wrong on all counts. Colour me utterly surprised.

            Basically, I’m just poking the ugly with a stick to see how much ugly falls out. It amuses me.

          • qqqqq

            And no one gives a shit about you

          • lynneb

            LOL! Except here you are, commenting.

          • Nancy

            your welfare Whores/Queens R young white Caucasian females with dependent children..research it

        • andyrwebman

          You have no problem with the fact that being a lazy feckless scrounger without the intelligence to use contraception makes you have more children, then? The idiocracy scenario doesn’t bother you?

      • Kaneda

        Who wants to have a child in such a f’ed up society.
        I WILL NOT bring an innocent person into a world bound by slavery.

        • Alex Chaudhari

          Slavery? The 1800’s are over.

          • Nicola Cima

            just because the situation in 1800 it’s nowadays clear to us.. explicit situation we can call it. But my dear @alexchaudhari:disqus our actual situation it is going to be way more evident for the people will study our history one day, just in case we are going to be saved from this tyranny.

        • andyrwebman

          Why slavery? many women work AND have to raise children. This is just a “labour saving device” in more ways than one.

          To my mind, being tied to the natural way is much more like slavery than this ever was.

      • terryhallinan

        “We also need to sterilize the weak gene pool”

        That idea has never worked out too swell.

        Beyond the usual that needs no mention here, the works of Temple Grandin document that the most creative people from Leonardo da Vinci to Albert Einstein had severe learning handicaps as she herself did.

        I would argue against da Vinci being thrown in the same bag with Einstein because of da Vinci’s dyslexia but the idea remains that there is no way to judge mental fitness accurately.

        Best, Terry

    • Webster

      We are not running out of space OR resources. We are better able to access the world now than we ever were, and there are huge area as of the world that are practically empty. Cities are crowded, of course, but they take up an insignificant fraction of the earth’s land surface.

      • lynneb

        The physical space that cities take up is hardly the issue. The issue is “ecological footprint”, which is how much of an area is needed to support the inhabitants of a city (how much food do you think is grown inside a city, then?), how many resources are diverted to that city (where does its water come from? How much of that water is diverted away from other resources which really need it, too? What about metal, timber, building materials — where do they come from?), how much energy it uses and where that energy comes from, and where its waste goes and how much land, air and/or water is made contaminated and otherwise unusable by said waste.

        To pretend that all a city is, is its physical building footprint and nothing else, is to ignore the actual practical issues of resource management, and ignore the real problems. You might be privileged to do that as an individual because you just see things which have already been brought into your environment from elsewhere and don’t have to worry about where they come from, and you just flush your toilet or throw out your garbage and don’t worry about where it goes, but as a species we have to be a little bit smarter and better at planning and understanding than that.

        • Webster

          > To pretend that all a city is, is its
          > physical building footprint and nothing
          > else, is to ignore the … real problems.

          Absolutely. But it is equally ignorant for city residents to note that they live in a “crowded” area, and that everyone they know is similarly situated, and therefore that the world must be overcrowded. Because, while there are thoughtful folks like you who consider the real issues, there are a lot more who just say, “The world is overcrowded! The world is overcrowded!” without understanding how big the world is beyond the reach of the subway system.

          The truth is that the world population is both larger AND wealthier than ever before. And I’m not just talking about in terms of nominal dollars, but in terms of being able to get desirable outcomes with that money. In addition, the ecological outcomes in wealthy developed nations are improving: air and water in the USA are cleaner than they used to be. Currently developing nations are learning from our experience and will likely be able to skip the “dirtiest” stages of development we went through by integrating antipollution measures as they go. At least, in non-dictatorships I expect that to happen, as long as we don’t try to short-circuit the process by limiting their access to wealth-generating energy. Poor countries don’t do anything to preserve their environment: they just try to feed themselves. It’s wealthy countries that take steps to improve their ecological footprint.

      • andyrwebman

        You would only be justified in saying that when you had clearly and definitely provided plenty of healthy living space for all of the other species in the world.

        Healthy fish stocks, stable biodiversity, no mass extinctions etc.

        The fact that this is NOT the case – i.e. the increasing extinction rate, damage being done to ecosystems in key points, deforestation etc – shows that you are massively mistaken. The planet isn’t just for us.

        Also, the percentage of land covered by cities is a poor indicator of how much impact an individual human has. Our needs spread far wider than just our homes.

    • Webster

      Besides which, what makes you think that ectogenesis will lead to more babies?

      By dehumanizing the process, it’s more likely to lead to fewer.

      • andyrwebman

        I think it offers the best opportunity for stability – whether you think the optimum stable population is the current one, or a hundred times that.

    • dita

      First of all, people who want their own children won’t adopt ever. Even
      if they pity parentless children. You should respect their wishes.
      Secondly, overpopulation is the greatest myth. The birth rate has
      dramatically dropped last few decades almost everywhere. Population of
      some European countries, Japan and S.Korea has already dicreased. And
      this tendency brings a lot of problems in economy, social issues, etc.

    • andyrwebman

      It shouldn’t be to have more – rather, it should be a way to have them without putting women through so much pain and body damage.

      Also, we could monitor babies as they’re forming in much more detail and perform corrective surgery without risk to the mother – or risk of spontaneous miscarriage.

    • Nancy

      thats a goddamn LIE made up by the beast ..the goddamn people R the most prolific demonic LIARS on this planet..there is NO problem with over population on this planet ..all of your western white supremacist LIES ..R ..being exposed for what they R..DEMONIC by its very NATURE..the goddamn whiteman is NOT ..R the tiniest minority on this planet and THANK GOD you..R.. dying out going extinct like your forefathers the (neanderthal) primate CHIMP CAVE BEASTS THAT YOU ARE..EXTINCTION!!!!

  • T_M@ζغ

    Why all of those arguments.? You guys have to understand for a woman that a child is the most if not the only successful weapon against a man where they ask $15,000 in child support and spend only 10 to 15% on the child and spend the 90 and 85% on themselves. They just don’t understand the technology will benefit both sexes. The same way that a man will be able to have a child without a woman is the same way that a woman will be able to bear a child without a man Think about it for now. Children brings money in (Child support, Food Stamp, Sole custody) and after all they still want to appear as the victim so the man will always look bad. If that technology become standard they know that their colonial era on men starting in the mid-20th century with all of these laws giving them rights to do anything they want because they pretend to be weaker than men. But remember that you (women) are fighting for EQUALITY by trying to be everything that men are. So if I don’t need you to have a child why are you ( women) complaining. We still going to have sex… Don’t Worry Girls….

  • Karen Glammeyer Medcoff

    so, they want to create a world full of people who have little to no emotions, because of the bonding that happens in the womb between the baby and mother. where the baby first learns things like love. Yeah, screw that crap.

    • drake green


    • Klas Wullt

      Love is just biology. They want to create a world where we can afford more emotion than every. A baby doesn’t learn love.
      Bonding in the womb is not necessary to give the child love and affection.

    • AKR47

      And also they want to save 14 million babies who will be killed by mother before even they are born.

    • Butternut

      You got any scientific evidence to say they learn love in the womb.

      Or do you think that way because it sounds pretty?

      • Karen Glammeyer Medcoff

        babies learn hear and connect things in their brains in the womb at a certain age. some even have pre birth memories. I did, but had no clue what they were until I found my mother when I was 18. so yeah. things start in the womb, and love more than likely is one of them.

        • adioAmigo789

          Hatred is more than likely another. Perhaps these artificially gestated babies will love more and hate less than conventional babies. The only way to know is to create them and find out.

          • Webster

            That would be incredibly unethical to experiment on humans like that.

          • andyrwebman

            It’s incredibly unethical – if there’s a viable alternative – to continue with the current method which is hugely painful to women and risks any number of long term health issues.

  • Modapu

    Mostly South and East Asia are densely populated, the rest of the world is much less.

    Japan has one of the lowest birthrates of all developed countries. It’s far below replacement level. If the current trend continues they would become extinct in a few centuries.

    In many developed European countries the birthrate is below replacement level, women have too few children, this is balanced by immigrants who have more children on average. Artificial wombs can help balance the birthrate as well.

    Article about Japan:

    Japan’s birth rate slumped to a record low in 2014, health ministry figures show, dropping to 1,001,000 newborns in 2014 – 9,000 fewer than in 2013.

    The fall is the fourth in consecutive years and comes as the estimated number of deaths continues to rise, at just under 1.3 million last year.

    Some estimates say that by 2050 the population could be as low as 97 million – 30 million lower than now.

    “Countries need to have a birth rate not too far from replacement level, somewhere in the 1.7 to 2.0 area. Once you drop below that, you cause too much damage to your age structure,” he says.

    In other words, you have too many old people for the young people to support.

    “If you have a birth rate of one,” he says, “that means your population falls by half in one generation, which is about 30 years. After three generations you’re down to one-eighth of your starting population. And one-sixteenth after four.

    “If the Japanese keep their birthrate where it is they’ll quickly become extinct.”

  • Chantaway

    Doesn’t bonding between mother and child begin in the womb? We are getting so far away from nature. I don’t think it is a good idea.

    • SrednaKun

      I just wanted to elaborate on the idea of a mother and child bonding during pregnancy. In my own opinion this is a pretense that people may impose on the mass population of people who go through child bearing. I think that people are individuals and have unique personalities, so we may differ in how we perceive experiences. Those who are carriers of the child, may begin bonding with the child in the womb, some after, some before, some never.

      I just wanted to give you another perspective, and I totally respect your opinion. Very interesting thoughts :)

      • Amanda Trail

        I agree with you. I felt no connection with my son until he was born. I am going to be a surrogate and i feel it will be the same way little or no connection and knowing the chil dis not mine will further cement that emotion distant

        • BankyMons

          It is because in the west people treat babies as though they are commodities so no surprises there. E.g. surrogacy, adoption and all those nonsense.

          • Tara

            What is wrong with adoption? Would you rather babies grow up in orphanages? WTF… anyway, people who adopt are wonderful people imo.

          • Rainbow!

            At least we have the means to adopt and give children a nice home and wonderful life unlike other countries and their countless orphanages or female children being forced to marry and give birth and those children are born into awful hateful abusive homes because their mother was 12 when she gave birth and is married to an old bastard who raped her on a daily basis.
            YEA, that’s Totallllllllly better! #Fkn-idiot

          • BankyMons

            You can spout all your rubbish here, it wont change a thing. Your foul-mouthed comments are quite representative and a give away of a ‘loving parent’ like Rainbow!! Mr Do-good go have your own baby and then nuture and love him or her – you wont because you havent got what it takes to do so. You are here pretending but you remain a dangerous person and children shouldnt be left anywhere near you.

        • Tiffanie Dillion

          You feeling no connection doesn’t mean the child feels no connection. I’ve seen videos of how babies respond to their mother’s voice/touch, or even their father’s voice immediately after being born, as compared to their response to everyone else’s–doctor’s, nurses, grandparents, whoever. It’s really amazing to see. E.g. –


          It’s like the father who take his son fishing to bond with the son. They spend hours fishing, catch no fish, and his son seems unimpressed. The father is dissappointed and feels like his attempt to bond with his son was unsuccessful–a waste of time. He later reads a journal the son wrote, and in it the son says, “Man, I just went on a fishing trip with Dad. We didn’t catch any fish, but it was just so great to spend so much time with him. This was one of the best days of my life.” You see, the dad had a totally different perspective than his son. He bonded with his son and didn’t even realize it. I don’t know if this really speaks to the article, but It’s just the idea that just because we as parents don’t recognize the bond, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

    • Klas Wullt

      nature is an illusion, it does not exist.
      Humans should redesign the hole ecosystem because its just as natural to do so as to not do so.

      • lynneb

        If nature is an illusion and doesn’t exist, despite the vast physical evidence to the contrary, then we can safely say you’re an illusion and don’t exist either. So we can simply ignore you.


        • Terence Keytap Domio

          This reply was golden. lol

        • andyrwebman

          Let’s phrase it differently: the concept of nature as a form of inviolate and immutable perfection is bogus, given the huge number of faults within the current system.

    • lynn

      so I guess you don’t go out to a restaurant to eat because dining outside your home is unnatural!

      • Hoek

        Yeah because thats a good comparison right? smh

      • Robb Alle

        HAHAHAAHAHHAHA youre a retard

      • Jami

        This may be the dumbest comparison I have ever seen on the internet. It’s scary how many people have NO ability to think rationally….and yet your type are allowed to vote.

        • Lisa

          Wtf u mean your type? I agree with your point of view and respect your opinion but u really have to go there?

          • Jami

            The type who have NO abilitity to think rationally. Duh!

          • adioAmigo789

            As if you would know anything about rationality.

          • lynn

            Just take a minute and think about it. Its just a different place to get food. There is nothing wrong with going out to get a meal. Just think about it for one minute.

          • lynn

            also there are many people who get food from a tube going into their stomach because of medical issues, this would be how these fetuses would get their food from outside the womb. (rational?)

          • 11nene

            Do you even know what your talking about?

        • lynn

          I was merely saying that the device is just another way to get food, that’s all. Plus, bonding with a child goes far beyond just carrying it. It takes hard work through out the years to build a good parent/child relationship.

          • daneeka

            Yes bonding does take years to build but it initially starts in the womb. There’s an experience to carrying the child within you. Personally I feel that these artificial wombs should only be used of normal pregnancy would harm the mother.

          • Rae

            What about surrogate mothers or those who adopt children? It might sound nice to think 9 months will truly affect your bond to your child but honestly I think that all depends on how you go on to raise a child. I’m not going to completely say no to this when there are barren women who want a child and more than one or two options to do it.

          • lynneb

            As has been pointed out, there are quite a few adoptive parents in the world with perfectly close and loving and “bonded” relationships with their adopted children. And what about fathers? Do you think they can’t bond with a child, because they never gestate it?

            To claim that you have to physically gestate a baby in order to bond and have a good relationship takes absolutely no account of the real world. “Your belief” does not define reality.

          • crassfrazier

            This is not as much about a mother bonding with the child, as much is it is about a child having a biological connection to the human, mortal coil. Life does not begin at birth, and the child learns much about life while developing within their mother. To deny a child that connection to a living mother is to deny a child a connection to it’s humanity.

          • lynneb

            Pretty sure they said that about “test tube babies” as well, to start with. I seem to remember churches having debates about whether “test tube babies” would have a soul.

            So far, all these “problems” have been people borrowing trouble based on their own imaginations and fears. And I’m pretty sure that these babies would continue to be human, and continue to be far more influenced in the people they become by how they are raised, rather than how they are gestated.

          • crassfrazier

            I happen to know of nine of these first wave “test tube” babies. They currently sit, and have sat frozen in liquid nitrogen for over a decade as their parents (my son’s aunt and uncle) wrestle with the decision on if and how they are to terminate them. Since these nine in vitro inceptions, the parents have now successfully conceived twice naturally. They have no desire nor need for these “artificial” young ones.

          • lynneb

            …And it is also completely irrelevant to the claim you made.

          • crassfrazier

            Yet not entirely irrelevant to your claim.

          • lynneb

            It is, actually. Your claim was that artificial wombs would impact a baby’s “humanity” by preventing their learning in the womb. I’m pointing out that technology in the past has been feared to prevent or impact on babies’ humanity, and such fears were ridiculous then and are ridiculous now. What on earth does that have to do with extra embryos?

          • RandomDev

            Horse shit, children don’t need mothers!

          • JCNow

            “Bonding” does not occur if the mother doesn’t want to carry the pregnancy to term. In fact, being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against one’s will would create the exact opposite of bonding. Hatred would probably be more correct.

        • lynn

          I don’t vote R or D. I vote based on credentials, like education and job experience.

      • BankyMons

        Are you out of your mind?

    • Vinnie Melo

      Lot’s of Animals have very short bonding periods. It’s not uncommon in nature.

      • Webster

        But we aren’t “lots of animals” — we’re one: humans.

    • Shawn

      There’s already a lot of variables in that already. The news is full of stories of mothers who do monsterous things to their birth children. On the inverse side, plenty of adoptive parents are extraordinarily loving towards their kids. Bonding can happen perfectly fine separate from pregnancy.

      • BankyMons

        Absolute garbage! Go promote your agenda, you don’t need to spew this nonsense here to achieve your aim.

        • andyrwebman

          Statistically, you’re far more likely to be killed by your mother than your father. Post natal depression and similar psychosis is a major cause of this. Nature aint perfect.

          • BankyMons

            And I guess your mum didn’t kill you,,,,otherwise you won’t be putting up such a pathetic garbage on here.

          • Rainbow!

            Banky…..You’re a freakShow And a moron! And bonding can happen between baby and adoptive parent. A biological parent doesn’t guarantee the best care OR love for a child. And that’s not spewing nonsense! It’s truth!

          • Laura

            Men also flat out abandon children more often than women do. Apples and oranges.

    • Kaneda


      • BR12345

        A place that I wish I didn’t live in

    • greyghost1

      Women don’t bond with anything

      • BR12345

        They want everything to bond to them

        • lynneb

          Hardly. Most women would prefer that your sort stay as far away from them as possible.

      • lynneb

        My guess is that women simply avoid you, because you are so full of rage at half the species.

    • MGTOW 007

      Chantaway, is just a typical feminist. Women will be useless and obsolete in the future!!!

      • Alex Chaudhari

        Oh look, the typical textbook misgyonist who wants a Bene Tleiex type utopia. Ignore this misanthropic munchkin.

      • Eldritch Angel

        Interesting fact. They can create sperm out of spine cells now. So one could say men are obsolete now.

        Shall we not squabble about this please? This tech isn’t about men and women persay. It’s about humanity and how we’ll continue to develope as a species.

        • andyrwebman

          I like to think that one day physical form will be a choice – maybe spend a few years as either sex.

    • greyghost1

      Abortion is legal there is no bond.

    • Elliander Eldridge

      The bonding process is from a specific hormone release that is produced at the time of birth and not only bonds the mother to the child, but helps bond the child to the father. (which is why it’s important for the father to be present)

      Unfortunately, the drugs used to kill pain inhibits the release of this chemical which means they are not released at all in the majority of births today.

      With an artificial womb it can certainly be a problem, but I don’t see why the parents can’t receive an injection right before “birth” to facilitate imprinting.

      • andyrwebman

        Ideally it would be more reliable than nature’s version too

    • andyrwebman

      Adoptive mothers and fathers manage fine without it. The adopted kids I know have some very loving parents.

    • välstånd

      Chataway, i volunteered in orphanage when i was 20’s. There are a lot of babies abused and abandoned by their own biological mother’s. I just can’t understand what i feel.. it’s a mixed emotion of being scared and being amazed.

  • Chantaway

    Maybe as an option for those who cannot have children on their own

  • The Guiding Light

    This is an interesting technology. Imagine a future where either sex can decide independently whether they want a child and actually have it. Imagine going down to what ever agency and apply for a baby making instruments. That would mean prospective parents would have to show proof of resources to raise and care for a child. Kind of like buying a house or any major purchases. Imagine no more “Daddy’s maybe.”
    This futuristic possibility would really give women the equality they have been pursuing, no longer will they monopolize the process of giving birth. Kind of like a one car family, where either wife or husband can drive. A kitchen either husband or wife can cook in it. The idea that this conflicts with “God’s will” is mute. There doesn’t seem to be any arguments about the development of cars when “God” created us with legs to walk. Selective arguments is the obstruction of hypocrites. God didn’t create the internet but they are using it. Innovative technology is the proof of man’s creativity. The difference between our species and all others. If there is a devil, than apparently “mankind” as a whole must be the devil. I personally doubt such a ludicrous idea. The big bang is still in effect. The continuing expansion of the universe will bring us to many discoveries. Get ready to enter the 5th dimension. Where, regardless of your race, gender or wealth you are simply an element of a greater element. Those that choose God & devil to make their point, makes no point, because neither can be substantiated and science is the process of substantiation.
    Women who refuse to take a look at their contribution to the break down of the family nucleus will continue to point the finger at men. This will further encourage men to discover ways to limit contractual activities with women. Make no mistake about this, nothing remain the same. The days of disproportionate judgement against men is slowly fading away. True equality will come to place in many ways, not just in the area of giving birth but as well as in the work place. Equal pay for equal work.
    True equality is, embracing the irreplaceable value of both genders. Expecting some mythical occurrence to resolve our differences is comical and cynical. Five hundred years from now, Harry Potter book and someone will use it to manipulate the naive.

  • chimera

    This is just the corporate “persons” (companies that have been given personhood under the law) playing God for profit.

    When will humanity wake up and realize that Corporations/Bankers are taking over the world? If the TPP treaty gets forced through and signed, Corporate Sovereignty will be higher on the legal totem pole than National Sovereignty.

    Wake up humans. Learn your history, learn the law and learn how to apply the law. Corporations are taking over and your time is running out.

  • Grace Pearce

    Ha ha ha people die for cancer, and various other illness but don’t worry is more important “this” incredible idea. And don’t forget that everyday, there are less and less food in the world.

  • katarnah

    What a fucked up world!!

  • thoor

    well i’m going to make my own army then

  • Emilio Lizardo

    The ultimate implication is that people will lose control of reproduction as it becomes industrialized and expropriated by the state. It also simply won’t be necessary to have women anymore at all.

    Biology is what saves us from the state. But Feminism has been chipping away at it for decades.

  • disqus_iKl87UbGah

    I am grateful that I will be dead by the time this happens. a bond like no other is created when a Mother carries her baby. I can’t believe this is going to be the world my son will have to deal with.

  • mistyblacksunshine

    Disgusting! !! But it is written of the soulless humans. People playin God. Higher power . Creator . Beginning or End. I can see nothin but a design for regret

  • Lydia Oh Lydia

    How do they propose to inject 40 weeks of LOVE and learning that is experienced inside the biological womb of an active woman?
    Will these organisms have a soul/spirit?

  • Guest

    article – and, in my view, technically preposterous. I think the author makes some
    huge and unjustified leaps from “We’ve gotten better to saving preemies
    in the NICU” to “We will soon have artificial wombs that can take over
    the entire process of development.”

    1. The
    author doesn’t say anything about how an
    artificial placenta might work. He mentions successful attempts to grow
    endometrium in the lab, but the placenta is far a more complex and and
    sophisticated set of tissues than the endometrium. (Embryo transfers are always done very early in development, before the placenta has formed.)

    2. He doesn’t mention the subtle,
    ongoing, and ever-shifting hormonal interchange between the baby and the
    mother; how would that be replicated in vitro? We do not even understand all the hormonal dynamics of pregnancy, let alone possess the capacity to accurately reproduce them.

    3. He doesn’t mention the
    no doubt staggering costs of such a high-tech system; rather, he
    suggests that it could be used to save every aborted fetus and provide a child to anyone who wants one.
    (Does he know that one month in a NICU can cost a million dollars?)

    4. He pays no heed to the fact that even with our best medical
    technologies, babies who leave their mothers’ wombs too early – even a
    few weeks too early – are statistically more likely to have lifelong
    physical and mental deficits. That doesn’t bode well for Dr. Warmflash’s
    brave new world.

    It seems that in writing this article, Dr. Warmflash chose not to interview any researchers in obstetrics, neonatology, embryology, or any other relevant specialties. I very much doubt that experts in this field would share the author’s optimism that artificial womb technology would be possible in the foreseeable future.

  • Amber Catherine Kerr

    Fascinating article – and, in my view, technically preposterous. I think the author makes some huge and unjustified leaps from “We’ve gotten better to saving preemies in the NICU” to “We will soon have artificial wombs that can take over the entire process of development.”

    1. The author doesn’t say anything about how an artificial placenta might work. He mentions successful attempts to grow endometrium in the lab, but the placenta is far a more complex and sophisticated set of tissues than the endometrium. (Embryo transfers are always done very early in development, before the placenta has formed.)

    2. He doesn’t mention the subtle, ongoing, and ever-shifting hormonal interchange between the baby and the mother; how would that be replicated in vitro? We do not even understand all the hormonal dynamics of pregnancy, let alone possess the capacity to accurately reproduce them.

    3. He doesn’t mention the no doubt staggering costs of such a high-tech system; rather, he suggests that it could be used to save every aborted fetus and provide a child to anyone who wants one. (Does he know that one month in a NICU can cost a million dollars?)

    4. He pays no heed to the fact that even with our best medical technologies, babies who leave their mothers’ wombs too early – even a few weeks too early – are statistically more likely to have lifelong physical and mental deficits. That doesn’t bode well for Dr. Warmflash’s brave new world.

    It seems that in writing this article, Dr. Warmflash chose not to
    interview any researchers in obstetrics, neonatology, embryology, or any other relevant specialties. I very much doubt that experts in this
    field would share the author’s optimism that artificial womb technology would be possible in the foreseeable future.

  • conscientia

    You dare dally into an area you clearly have no real knowledge what it is about.

    “Considering abortion, for instance, while the proposition that a fetus,
    even an embryo, is a person with a ‘right to life’ is a religious belief
    that cannot be imposed on everyone else, the main argument for the
    right to choose is a woman’s right to control her body. If a developing
    embryo or fetus is not viable and the mother wants it out of her uterus,
    that’s her right.”

  • drake green

    ok no they have NO right to try and do what God does this satanic bull crap and the person who thought of this needs to have a “come to Jesus” meeting because God and only God alone can create lives and to use these children for organs is down right stupid even without the satanic aspect they have to know just how wrong this is i mean. How would a congress official feel if they had a child and some random ass person came by took the baby and ripped its organs out only to sell them to the one who pays the most. STEP IT UP DAMN IT

    • Texan Polygynist

      So you’re nuts. That’s cool.

      How do you know those born in the artificial womb are actually prepared for ‘organ bootlegging’? You’re assuming one of the worst case scenarios, which may or may not likely happen. If the State steps in to regulate this type of business, that’s one more layer of enforcement that LE has to deal with.

      Also, how do you know the people, who created the artificial womb, actually are Satanists? Do you have concrete evidence? I’m sure that you don’t.

      Congress officials pretty much can either do trustee or delegate representation, given how they feel at the time. Just because you want some Congress official to feel doesn’t mean that Congress official will agree with you 100%.

      And who’s going to step it up, damn it? I really have no idea who you are addressing it to.

  • drake green

    calling it “the era” of the motherless birth is stupid the only “era” that i see is the era of bull crap government trying to play god

  • SrednaKun

    I think this was is an excellent article learning about artifical wombs. Thanks for writing this article to Astrobiologist, Physician, and Science Writer, David Warmflash, you did a great job.

    This is such a facinating topic and I applaud all respectful comments written on here. It is high time we took a stand against sexism and bullying. So I just wanted anyone who wrote a comment that was informative, insightful, or resepectful to feel proud for making the world a better place.

    This topic has been highly interesting to me and my husband ever since I myself have had children, we have been thinking about how there is so much to be improved in this area. We now understand how limiting a women’s reproductive biology can be to her life and future. And how it contributes to sexism and inequality. Because of this I plan on becoming a Scientist that contributes to the knowledge of Ectogenesis.

    So to me, creating an artificial womb sounds like the perfect option, for those who would like to choose for themselves to not have a child or to have children (no more surprise conceptions, hinging on the uprise of choosing sterilization over temporary birth control options), without being limited by their own biology if they choose to have a child, and the removal of any trauma associated with any person whose is going through pregnancy and childbirth. And of course anyone who would want to have a child in their own womb, is still a great viable option. We are not limiting people’s choices, we are expanding them, and treating people as individuals with their own unique wants and ideals.

    And last but not least I would like to end with some thoughts from a great Feminist Leader, Shulamith Firestone.

    “Approaching the topic of political theory from a feminist viewpoint, she argued that gender inequality was, in the end, ultimately dictated by biology. Pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing were a vital part of human existence, but the need to reproduce the species efficiently had made women vulnerable, and a patriarchal system had been imposed on much of the human race as a means of perpetuating the system. Few could dispute the fact, she wrote, “that Women throughout history before the advent of birth control were at the continual mercy of their biology—menstruation, menopause, and ‘female ills,’ constant painful childbirth, wet-nursing and care of infants, all of which made them dependent on males (whether brother, father, husband, lover, or clan, government, community-at-large) for physical survival.

    “In the 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex, feminist Shulamith Firestone wrote that differences in biological reproductive roles are a source of gender inequality. She singled out pregnancy and childbirth, making the argument that an artificial womb would free “women from the tyranny of their reproductive biology.”

  • Ashille

    Going through the comments makes one realize how educated our society really is. So many people don’t even see outside their little perfect world and are so oblivious from the real issues of the world out there!

    This technology isn’t meant to make women obsolete and to act as a substitute to getting pregnant the normal way for normal people. It’s for those couples who can’t conceive. There are so many sterile couples out there who yearn to have a baby but can’t. The same thing goes for gay male couples. It is those categories of people who are to benefit from the advent of this technology!

    To all those dimwit persons who have posted negative comments, and are supposedly condemning technology on moral grounds, please go and widen your horizons and start seeing things form different perspectives.

  • Maria

    More ways to rebel against YHWH.

  • disqus_GB8lUuziuG

    Unless family courts change a great deal I bet allot of single men who want children would opt for this. Imagine a world where you could have kids without the risk of having them ripped away on the whims of a woman and without risk of indentured servitude, the future is looking very bright. Female dominance over reproduction coming to an end will have HUGE effects on society.

  • Fed Up

    Wonder how long the waiting lines will be for this and the cost involved. Is this the plan, defertilize the populace then make it so only those of good fortune are able to have children? Makes ya wonder!

  • Golden Peach

    A baby does begin bonding with the mother inside the womb. Why do you think it is that the baby is calm next to the mothers chest, because it recognizes the mothers heart beat that it has spent 9 months listing to and feeling. Then every other person who has contact with the baby while in its early months of life causes the baby to cry because they don’t have anything like say the mothers heart beat or even the mothers voice for the baby to familiarize it’s self with. That’s my understanding of child bearing. .oh and any critics that don’t agree please save any negative feed back I didn’t ask for any opinions I just simply stated my own.

    • AKR47

      So why not the western society destroyed the father child bond now it is going to be pay back time.

  • sftommy

    Military applications, breeding the soldier with the perfect qualities for specific missions.

  • tobewan

    Even here in this part of life, man will see he needs the Creator’s control, as things continue to get ‘out-of-hand.’ Pray for the incoming divine kingdom, and it’s righteousness.

  • iCareSoVeryDeeply

    My sister knows a guy whose wife filed for divorce. Now he pays more than half his income so another man can sleep in his bed. So far, so good. Then he got laid off from his job and couldn’t make alimony payments. He’s essentially unemployable, and goes back to jail, six weeks out, a month in. Many men look to this technology as a way to have children without taking the very real risk of what amounts to life in prison. #MGTOW

    • AlwaysSumthin

      I’m sorry but alimony which is rare in this day and age is, for the most part, only for those who have been married for a decade or more and there is a large discrepancy in income or if the spouse being paid has a serious medical condition. It has nothing to do with children. Here’s some information by state on alimony.

      Child support is payment to support one’s children which one should do regardless of whether the parents are together. Adults who don’t have the ability to understand that having children is a twenty year (or more if the child has health issues) financial responsibility, should consider always using birth control or getting themselves sterilized.

      And you might want to learn more about the concept of legal relationships yourself before getting married. Each individual’s body belongs to themselves only and who they choose to share it with, especially after a divorce is no one’s business but their own.

      • iCareSoVeryDeeply

        Okay, apparently it didn’t happen.
        So maybe this situation was a hallucination, or maybe you are a hallucination. Who’s to say?

  • Sterling Ericsson

    The funny thing about these comments below is so many people are talking about this “bond” that pregnancy causes and bemoaning it being lost, which means they’re shitting all over adopted parents and those who use IVF and surrogacy. Seriously, you all disgust me.

  • s

    There are to many children that need to be adopted and don’t have parents. Why would you want to bring more children into the world without parents?

  • Jack Van Kirk

    Brave New World, here we come.

  • Eliza.

    Power to produce children without the physical human process of parents is both interesting in theory and concerning for mankind .
    There is more to human reproduction than just the biological process, there are many other factors involved, such as the learning which occurs in vitro as the foetus experiences sounds and movement of the mother, her heart beat and voice and emotions, the sounds of its siblings and other family members and his or her future environment. Yes perhaps science will be able to achieve creating artificial wombs, but I highly doubt it will create that element so vital for preparation for human interaction and bonding. There is so much science needs yet to understand about human beings before ever going down that path.
    What sort of implications would arise if this went ahead?
    There would be so many more ethical questions.
    Certainly glad it won’t be in my life time on this earth.

  • GreenLantern

    I think this should happen because this is the only way women can be fully liberated. Thats not bc having children is a trap, but because men have to get a woman to reproduce and because of that are always gonna try and dominate women on some level. At present women choosing not to have children makes the decision for men too. If women want their body to themselves, the right to live in it and do as they wish with it society wont let them forget their reproductive function.

    There is a problem though, people may choose to just reproduce males and get rid of females completely. It would be a mistake though bc future generations would be stuck with an all male population if the technology somehow went down due to a disaster of some kind.

  • GreenLantern


    • Butternut



  • Mark Talmont

    A baby begins the development of immunity in the womb.

    Premature babies are at higher risk of developing an illness because their immune systems are not as strong and they have not had as many antibodies passed to them.

    So are they going to wind up throwing away a bunch of experimental babies until they figure out how to get the artificial womb immunity “right”? I don’t believe anyone really knows where to begin to achieve this. Lots of experiments to be disposed of I suppose.

    I recall the East German scientist who found a spike of homosexuality in males born to women who carried through the worst of the WW2 bombing. Theory was stress hormones the causal relation. I guess you could argue the artificial womb could be made stress-less but then how are you going to know for sure that something else they would otherwise get in a real womb isn’t going to turn them into sociopaths? My old Lerner and Libby intro text argued that such traits were probably genetically rooted. So if you wait until the human grows up and they are a danger to others you get rid of them? Kind of like Blade Runner?

    The arrogance of people with their blind faith in technology is breathtaking. Comments below reflect an ideological affectation of someone who reads Huxley’s Brave New World and says “ooooh yeah!” Probably Orwell too. Because after all, The State is going to have to control all of this, right?

  • Jace Mindue

    Welcome eugenics wars!

  • Christian Malone

    the parasitic, fascist, toxic FEMALE GENDER #parasitegender will not like it :D

  • Cara Kelton

    Someone were those babies mother and father. The term motherless is incorrect.

    • Texan Polygynist

      It’s a case of funky semantics.

  • Greg White

    A artificial womb was used in the 1976 science fiction movie Embryo.

  • GreenLantern

    There is a possibility that artificial wombs will result in humans being unable to give birth naturally after many generation s. This will bwbe the result of babies head growing and females less equipped to birth reproducing. This is already happening as more women have c sections and as medicine has used tools to deliver babies. In the past women died frequently in birth and this pooled out women with mutations that effect their birthing. Some women can birth several babies with few complications and retain strong pelvic muscles afterwards, it may be better to find out why this is before using artificial wombs to ensure these genes dont get lost.

    Sperm when swimming through the female reproductive system meets resistance to ensure the weeker cells dont get to the egg. Even if all from the same man they wont all be as strong. If they are gonna fertilize eggs in the lab they need to mimmic this struggle otherwise they give babies weaker cells. Its too soon for science to be using any of this technology because they have not fully understood how the genome works, more so how epigenetic memory is passed on.

    Im a far left liberal person who has no problem with same sex reproduction from a socially moral view, as in if science knew how the
    genome would be impacted and all was well I would be fine with it. At present this is not known and im of the opinion that creating artificial sperm or eggs from bone marrow cells should not be done to produce children because sperm and eggs carry epigenetic memory which will likley not present the same in bone marrow cells. I know every cell in the human body comes from a set few cells at the start, but an exchange process where different epigenetic memory exists in different new cells probably needs to give different parts of the body different info. Stem cells in different patts of the body could hold unfound epigenetic instructions so making a complete sperm or egg from them in the lab could lead to a break in several thousands of years of passed down epigenetic memory. Fusing two eggs without sperm may also damage the epigenetic code and will lead to daughters only who will then go on to reproduce and pass down these erased epigenetic blue prints.

    Allowing infertile couples regardless of sex reproduce will only rexult in more genes for reproductive complications passing on. I think all people should be able to do what they want eith their body, even if it means altering genes in their body, but this should not alter the germ line cells themselves. When science is able to mimic the whole act of reproduction in the lab and ensure cells pass through the natural fitness tests they would in the body, including exposure to immune cells then im all for artificial reproduction. Just as long as science fully understands sexual differentiation and does not create a problem for the future that will lead to the genome decaying or unable to reproduce naturally.

  • Joseph Conte

    How about let people decide on what/how they want to bring their children into this world and fuck off. end of story. If you 100% disagree with these methods then you are simply not the “target market” at the moment. But monkey see, monkey do and soon enough the whole lot will follow.

  • Bronwen Winter Phoenix

    I’m totally for this, because I’m a selfish bitch who puts her own body first and have serious issues to get over, including a) phobia of all things giving birth related b) fear of all things needle/operation-related. This option would suit me down to the ground, and it would also be a good way to better monitor your baby’s development and spot anything wrong immediately. I think it could save a lot of lives, and that’s never a bad thing.

  • guest

    For someone like myself who might not be able to have a child of my own, this is just another option that could help me and others like myself.

  • Amanda Griffin

    I think this is a bad idea. I mean think about an embryo is sensitive to a lot of things and the main one that comes to mind is light. How is it going to make a healthy baby if the tops are clear and light can get in? If light can get in what else is going to be able to get inside? Common sense says babies are supposed to be grown in a living being.

  • Madison Ava
  • Tanya Robart Prenol

    This is wrong on so many levels. For starters, in the trial process or experimental stages, I believe there would be many deaths or you could even say murders happening.
    Next thing you know “they” will be teaching the unborn child from the womb (note the clear capsules).
    To go off the subject a bit…We as a human race have to grow up way to fast as it is. Then we have to slave our butts off for the rest of our lives just to make life a little better. Life shouldn’t be about “just living”
    Let nature run its course.

    • zocli michael

      murder!! lol what about abortion. we already mass murder allowed by the law.

      • Texan Polygynist

        It still is the law. Do you know why women defend Roe v. Wade? They defend it because they believe that it is the cornerstone of a woman’s rights. They believe that if they lose Roe v. Wade, they could lose all their rights.

        It isn’t abortion they’re defending. They’re defending the concept of having ‘rights’ the same as men. Despite the fact one of the Ten Commandments did specifically say to not ‘kill’, abortion is a practice that still regulates killing in a legal sense.

        Unfortunately, you’re never going to convince women to fight Roe v. Wade. That woman, Jane Doe, went back to Congress to ask them to reverse this law specifically. She failed. Do you know what Congress said to her? “No.” – McCorvey’s Intents – Norma McCorvey’s Testimony before Senators

        Take a look at the poll regarding the question of three months pregnancies. More Americans support it rather than wanting to overturn it.

        Ask yourself this: if women wanted equality, why did they not consistently vote for ERA? Here’s an opposition that ended equality a long time ago:

        When NCFM sued Selective Services to start requiring females to join Selective Services, several Supreme Court precedents showed up.

        Now, by opening all combat roles to women, they will become subject to the draft:

        So, just because Roe v. Wade is a cornerstone law that was accepted by the majority of Americans doesn’t mean it becomes time immortal, free from the decay of time. No, it doesn’t. As time goes on, the artificial womb might replace Roe v. Wade, with or without serious implications for the project.

        If you’re going to roll back laws, do it incrementally. Or, you could move forward and implement new laws. Just like that combat roles were given to women, it is possible for the military to start drafting all the females at 18 with a pink slip like all the males received.

  • HandonHeart

    Who’s going to take responsibility over mechanical babies lacking the positive emotional development ??

    Some scientists? I can only laugh! No, they do not even know what this is. While producing these artificial wombs, amounts of natural resources incl. capital etc. will be wasted.
    Without natural bases, could not be built such things, and when nature is used up, then what?
    We no longer want to ride on your Titanic. Scientists destroy nature, our livelihoods and female generativity. Are scientists at all nice and human people? No I do no longer think so!
    Enough is enough!
    Above all, the global social deficit should be removed, which is caused by the technical “progress” and the self-centeredness of scientists.

    Since, there are enough babies who need care and we do not need machines-adapted objekts.

    • Texan Polygynist

      Mechanical babies? LOL! That could be GURPS 4E Material for Transhuman Space right there!

      Gee, dude… Do you think they’ll automatically grow robotic legs, have servo-motors that whine, and a mechanical heart that hums so loudly?

      Maybe in a Steampunk setting but this is an artificial womb the article was discussing. Not the idea of developing little robotic babies. Here, this is a mechanical baby:

      So… Is the artificial womb going to produce mechanical babies? No. I doubt it.

  • i dont like where this is goin

    this is a bad idea and continuing on the conversation from other comments this article isn’t just talking about having the baby in a different womb its about creating a baby artificially and then having the baby and i think its wrong and yes the bonding between a mother and a child starts in the womb considering the child spends its first 8 or 9 months in side of the mother listening to all the sounds such as heartbeat, tummy grumbles, burps, etc. this is a whole bigger thing and eventually this is going to take over everything

  • Webster

    > Considering abortion, for instance, while the
    > proposition that a fetus, even an embryo, is a person
    > with a “right to life” is a religious belief that cannot be
    > imposed on everyone else, the main argument for the
    > right to choose is a woman’s right to control her body.

    That’s a mighty ideologically-charged claim for a site that claims that “science trumps ideology” here.

  • Kubash

    I think it is a good idea for ppl that can’t carry a baby naturally, I have considered surrogacy, and adoption but I’m not comfortable with another woman carrying our baby for 9 months or wat I will feel for a child I adopt. This is something I would try if I can afford it.

  • Kat Hayama

    This is a bad idea. Do we really want 70% of our children by 2074 to be made by ectogenesis? Hope not. The baby in the womb takes traits from the mother and father, the baby bonds with the mother in the womb, the baby is made beautifully. I certainly don’t want to tell my 7 year old daughter “Hey , yeah I never made you, You’re artificial, Love ya Honey”. Plus no offense , women go through periods for a reason. FOR A BABY. Also, during the pregnancy, the mother is pumped with all different kinds of hormones including some that help with nurturing the baby and breast milk. I do not agree with artificial wombs and I think this might be a very bad idea.

    • Texan Polygynist

      These are reasons that women have. In a scientific sense, these reasons are invalid.

      1) The baby takes traits from the mother and father. Did you read the article? It is possible to impregenate a woman, remove the child and place that child into an artificial womb for gestation. Traits are taken then before moved.

      2) The baby bonds with the mother. Have you seen many mothers bond with their children? Of course, there’s great parents. Then there’s the worst parents ever. Children are neglected, die of abuse, or experience the worst traumas by parents nonetheless. Ever heard of the article about a mother who made love to her boyfriend and allowed the abuse to continue. She even covered it up! The mother never did anything TO PROTECT her son.


      Here’s another based on organized religion:

      A married couple beat the living daylights out of their kids to confess their own sins. Now, they’re on their way to being butt-raped in prison.

      The articles above should truly make you sick!

      3) “Yeah, I never made you. You’re artificial. Love you, honey”. Emotion by appeal fallacy. This is not scientific. You’re trying to wound up people emotionally so they can agree with you. Not gonna happen. See any upvotes for your comment? No?

      4) Women go through periods for a specific reason: to clean out that vagina and make sure that it breathes better. That’s what it is. Having pregnancies is a side effect of not having periods, hence the ovulation and insemination of sperm by a male partner.

      It might be a bad idea to you. But it might be a great idea to someone else, perhaps a barren woman who wants a child. Perhaps, parents who keep having miscarriages want a child. The list goes on.

  • Wei Cui

    This will change human history, parental investment is a huge difference between the genders. Cultures, psychologies have evolved around different parental investment. Mate and reproductive scarcity will be a thing of the past. Each woman over 18 have about 300,000 eggs. In that sense not only every male will find a mate; but also each woman or couple can reproduce orders of magnitude more than previously. This has 10x 100x advantage over traditional reproduction. A couple can have 1000 babies. Just input energy, matter and time. We split the atom, don’t worry about overpopulation.

  • Walt White

    So if I’m a ” conservative” I automatically don’t like the idea of gays having lab babies? Stereotype much? And how deliciously ironic that science studies biology but claims that a determination of when life “Starts” is a religious issue. How convenient.

  • Mark Talmont

    That type of thinking is much more prevalent in the “scientific community” than is generally expressed; the technomaniacs who actually dislike the concept of “nature” itself are ascendant and constantly get a much better “press” than they deserve (usually by lies of omission) in the corporate-controlled media. Exhibit A is the exclusion of evidence regarding the real problems with GMOs; also the almost non-existent coverage of California’s $3 Billion taxpayer-funded CRM fiasco.

  • qqqqq

    This is awesome now both men and women can have a say on the baby without the women complaining about abortion and how it’s being her body

  • greyghost1

    This would be great for working family men to have children with out the threat of having them taken by divorce.

  • JCNow

    I can about imagine the screeching we’ll hear from the social conservatives when this becomes a reality. Because then, they will have to make their arguments, not on the basis of saving the potential life of an unborn fetus, but on the blatant fact that they want to limit women’s choice by controlling their reproductive functions. You can already see inklings of this argument. See Chantaway below, talking about “bonding between mother and child.” So will the conservative crazies then insist they have the right to use women as incubators to give the unborn a better chance at “bonding?” Wouldn’t put it past them.

  • pat

    Could be a lifesaver for premies-however new research is opening on subject of vaginal vs caesarian births, where caesarian birthed babies may face complications due to lack of exposure to various bacterium found in birth canal. Also in horses born too swiftly or under stress known as dummy foals which may appear dead or abnormally unresponsive, use of ropes designed to simulate squeezing on the body as the foal would be expo used to in normal birthing has had an amazlng effect on stimulating the newborn to react normally to life outside the womb. Would this be a handicap in artificial uterus?

  • pat

    Humans have always shaped their environment to suit their wants or needs and ultimately create laws and rules to govern society. Not giving birth may diminish bonding but many adoptive parents or foster parents form strong bonds with their offspring.

  • Timmy McPooPoo

    God let this world end….these ppl have gone too far.

    (in scary Frank the Bunny voice) ‘burn it to the ground’

  • greyghost1

    Single men could love and enjoy his family with out the constant threat of divorce. male pill and artificial womb and men are free to work and be productive to their full ability in full confidence for their families without fear. The economic implications are tremendous

  • Killing the Messanger

    I think this would actually be beneficial. If a woman doesn’t want to abort a fetus, but does happen to not want a pregnancy, perhaps then she could offer to donate it to an artificial womb for someone who say cannot have children. This may also lower our dependency on Surrogate Pregnancies which can have problems on the woman’s body especially if they’re older women who are trying to have babies for their daughters or something.

    Pregnancy stresses the body, multiple pregnancies can lead to complications. And even then pregnancy isn’t a prefect or safe thing. (It’s safer than it WAS but it’s still something that has a lot of unpredictable complications) so this would be a good way to lessen that too.

    If a woman has had kids but is having difficulty carrying another, this is a great solution too!

    I don’t really see a lot of draw backs in this, other than what chemicals or how it will actually work, and as strange as it seems to have kids this way, I don’t think it will be something that will be offered for women who just don’t want to give birth. I think if they can regulate it to infertile parents, parents who have had too many complications, and other things.

  • Guest2

    In the third to last paragraph, it’s stated that, “…the technology also stands to make it much easier for male gay couples to have babies. All they’d need is an egg donor;…” but it should be noted that it may soon be possible for an egg to be “made” from the stem cells from both men.

  • BR12345

    Humanity is losing touch. I will refuse to call them humans but instead AI.

  • Toon

    Don’t know why someone would want to grow humans. But I am all for a new soulless species us real humans can enslave! It would be best if science made it so we didn’t have to feed them.

  • Adeyemo Adefunmi

    Its all about population control and keeping the machine/company going. #AmericaInc #Allnationsconspiring

  • The author states that the difference between a MOTHER and artificial womb is: “Inside the womb, oxygenated, nourished blood comes in, and blood carrying waste goes out, through the placenta and umbilical cord. ”

    There is a far more major difference for future generations and society. Children raised in a surrogate or artificial womb are deprived the in utero bonding with the heartbeat, voice and rhythm of their moms, the continuation of which creates a healthy bonding experience and helps build a foundation of safety.

    Mechanizing these processes, and the increased use of nannies by the affluent, all add to levels of feeling detached from humanity. Studies of violent criminals have found abandonment – actual or emotional – as a common factor.

    Add that to the fact that adopted persons have described their experience of separation from their their womb mothers as leaving them with a feeling of having been “hatched” and disconnected… and we need to ask if we are moving toward creating generations of “abandoned,” hatched humans, and how this will effect their behavior and society.

    • greyghost1

      If all of that bonding was true abortion would not be legal and celebrated

  • dori mondon

    this is gross and scary.

  • Scott Weinberg

    I will bring all babies girls from the past. I can go into the time machines. We will build a large time vehicle for the babies, and Jennifer Driggers, as well. I can go back in the past. I will have build a private camp somewhere in the mountains. I will have all babies girls from the past. I can bring Emily, Alexandra, Samatha, Kristin Kramer, Matthew, Jennifer Driggers, Nicole, Moni, Jessica Durrant, and Melaine Mishkin, as well. They can build a real time machines. I will take care all the babies.

  • musikfanat22

    For those that “effing love science”, can’t you see what “science” is doing? They are trying to eliminate the need for women with these mad scientist ideas…

    • greyghost1

      Sounds like a good idea.

  • Dio Jones

    Sick and disgusting… more babies now they can sell for parts…

    Always be a light that is shininginthedark.

  • actual person

    I’m curious how an artificial womb will affect an infant’s development. There’s a lot more going on in the womb for nine months besides baby making. It’s also a crucial bonding time for caretakers. Although it’s not politically correct to admit this, there’s a heck of a lot more to motherhood than serving as a walking incubator. Not all women are obviously fit to be mothers, this doesn’t take away from a mother’s importance. Sorry gay couples and countries with low replacement fertility rates. A baby needs a mother.

  • Thomas Overbeck

    I mused upon the societal implications of ectogenesis – or what I called “extrauterine gestation” – in my webcomic five years ago. I would agree that social conservatives would raise a stink about the ethics of an artificial womb… but eventually I think they’d support it, as it would bring about an almost complete eradication of abortion.

  • Thomas Overbeck

    The next part of the “history”…

  • Jock Doubleday

    “Psychopathically, it’s called ectogenesis . . .”

  • Carol Kaye Perry

    The bonding between a mother and a child starts when the child is in the womb and continues during breast feeding. When you erase a human’s natural bonding process, you erase what binds us together as a society. If you want a civilization with detached, angry, violent humans, then you’re on the right track. Technology is wonderful, but what makes humans beautiful is the way we interrelate. Our children are already having a difficult time generating spontaneous conversation because they’ve adopted the detached communication of texting as the norm. This is the wrong path for humanity.

  • Texan Polygynist


    NOTE: I do not know if you were censoring my comment or Disqus did not load it correctly after I published it. Either way, this comment still stands, albeit changed.

    “They would lose all their rights, though. If you don’t have the rights
    to your own body, you don’t have rights. It’s necessary for equality.
    And do you think men would give up bodily rights? Be honest with

    You can lose the rights that were granted by the government, or a governmental entity such as the Supreme Court. What you cannot lose are the ‘inalienable rights’ that were not created, granted, or removed by the government.

    Inalienable, adj. – unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

    Roe v. Wade is not an inalienable right. It’s in fact a right that was granted by the possessor, the Supreme Court with its decision in the 70s. The law, as it stands today, is a decades old law that can either be sectionally abrogated, replaced with new implementations of updated legislations (i.e. bills that may support Roe v. Wade), or may be entirely removed to make way for new legislation. It all depends on the policy makers.

    On the lawbooks, you have ‘rights’ that were granted by the possessor, in the form of State or Federal government, that helps legislate and enforce said laws. You do have the right to medical care in regards to babies; to freely work without discrimination, sexual harassment, or being bullied, etc.; to charge a rapist with the crime of rape, press charges, and send him straight to prison; and much more. Your body is protected under law. This, by definition, is a set of ‘rights’ that were created by the State or Federal government, in large part to political activism.

    Suppose that a woman had sex with a man. She’s in her 20s, a marketing executive, and enjoys the benefits of sex. One day, she finds herself pregnant even though she has tried to do her best to do safe sex. It happens to people out there. So she considers abortion. It’s a decision that she can make for her body, which is granted by the State or Federal government. Since Roe v. Wade is on the fence of becoming invalidated, she might find abortion may be severely limited to specific trimeseters, months, or a regulated timeframe that the State considers acceptable. This is a ‘right’ the State can modify at any given time.

    What’s really selfish is that abortion can be used for ‘sexual convenience’ as opposed to sexual responsibility. I don’t care if a woman wants to end up in a gangbang, all that matters is that the gangbang being performed must have the idea of ‘responsibility’ and ‘safe sex’ altogether. Why is it that hard to understand? Pro-Lifers consider the fetus to be conception. I consider the same yet I am not a Pro-Lifer activist. However, I’m also a person who believes that ‘sexual responsibility’ must be placed *on both parties*, not just the man or woman. They must mutually consent to practice safe sex, agree to the guidelines, and stick to it. IF the sex does get sticky and a baby is made out of it, then there are options out there that people, who consider abortion, may find: 1) put the child up for adoption, 2) send the child to a hospital and say “I don’t want this child”, or 3) find a couple, who’s barren, seeking a child. They may be able to accept the child but that would require adoption agencies to get involved.

    Women have 11 contraceptives. More than enough. Men only have 1: the condom. Another is coming in 2017, if it is perfected. It’s called Vasagel. When Vasagel comes, men can regulate births with the pill or injection and remain sperm-free. This is going to lopside Roe v. Wade, and likely invalidate it in indirect ways; also, the fear that some feminists have that men are going to ‘control’ women with Vasagel is absurd.

    Men would not give up their ‘inalienable rights’. But they certainly would refuse ‘rights’, or privileges, that were granted by the possessor. These set of ‘privileges’ can be taken away at any given time regardless of whether it is considered a right. They have more to lose than to gain; women are in the same position.

    A right is something that can be taken away. An ‘inalienable right’ cannot. There’s a distinction.

    Ex: Colorado legalized marijuana. Then their congress said, “approve of this law or we will take away the marijuana.” You know what? They can, if they wanted. Why? Legalizing marijuana granted the citizens the ‘privilege’ of using marijuana recreationally, hence legislation or bills.

  • Rita

    Defend the innocent! As a scripturalist, I say what the Bible says, defend victims. Artificial wombs should be used to save people. Today we have many people who are NOT dead but frozen. These people need to be rescued – artificial wombs are the answer!!

  • Jem Rose Koontz

    This is all about the govt. They want to send more and more women into combat zones. Pregnancies are hard. There is high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, etc. Now they can ablate the lining of the uterus so female soldiers will no long have menses. Then they can harvest eggs, fertilize them, let them grow in the see-through womb. Women will also be more efficient on their jobs, without many of the hormonal changes. No more postpartum depression. I too have been predicting this for years.

  • Jason

    Getting kids without the total devastation to your wife’s body that child birth causes?? YES!!

  • Psk Da Charioteer

    Well, technically, scientists have succeeded in creating spermatozoa from human skin cells. I don’t see how similar processes cannot be used to create primary oocytes, the precursors of ova (egg cells). Combined with the ectogenesis technology, this may be a Pandora’s box for gay couples.

  • Snickers

    Not only bonding begins to develop in the womb, so does early learning. We have really no idea all the things that start developing before birth.

  • Marisol

    This world is the evilest place that man could ever live. The white man thinks that he’s GOD, so he’s recreating himself. Man and woman is completely removed from the mating process to prove that GOD is no longer needed . Sometimes people are not as intelligent as they think they are. And we all will have to deal with the consequences of the behavior of the devils….

  • Corey Roberts

    “Considering abortion, for instance, while the proposition that a fetus,
    even an embryo, is a person with a “right to life”is a religious belief” -No it isn’t

  • Seth Breedlove

    We’ve already made sperm and eggs from mouse stem cells. If this comes to pass, it won’t matter if it is a straight couple or gay couple, they’ll just need some stem cells and an artificial uterus. They could take biological parents out of the equation almost completely

  • Mike Brown

    “Considering abortion, for instance, while the proposition that a fetus,
    even an embryo, is a person with a “right to life” is a religious belief
    that cannot be imposed on everyone else…”

    Actually, the proposition that *anyone” has a right to life is a religious belief. Are we going to stop “imposing” that on everyone as well? (While we’re at it, we can also throw in the imposition of restrictions on theft, assault and rape.) We don’t ignore human rights merely because they’re upheld by the ethical system within a religion. (What does it matter?) If one says, “Well, not everyone agrees,” in matters of ethics, that doesn’t matter. (A lot of people didn’t agree with the civil rights movement, either.) The key question is, Is a human being a human being even before he’s born? The answer is, Of course. What we call “birth” is just a change in location. The subject matter of this article should drive that point home all the more.

  • välstånd

    The main issue here is some countries would not recognize it ( due to religious laws ). Your baby might end up being stateless, no biological mother to be documented also. There are few lawyers for surrogacy cases, but I do not know now what if it’s a baby from an artificial womb?

  • luz

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to take transgender and homosexuals to cognitive psychotherapy for they to become sane people?

  • CeeStoopid

    As a person who feels very strongly against abortion, I would like to ask that you not lump all people who oppose it together. I hope this technology advances to the point that we won’t kill unborn people for a person who doesnt desire to be a parent, and provides more opportunities to those who do. Hetero or homo. Been around a minute and know plenty of gay men and women who would be better parents than some of the straight couples I know. Just because a person is against one thing doesn’t mean they’re against a list of others. Just sayin. My real worry about ectogenesis is the detachment (mental and emotional) that it might create between parent and newborn. Part of the connection between them is the time spent together and pain And joy that comes from natural, healthy childbirth.

  • Bobbi Small

    Terrifying, we can’t even have productive discussions in this country about change and are fighting about GMO FOOD destroying the human body. WTF do they expect the result of this blasphemy of nature to give us more Jeffrey Dahmer’s on crack! One more reason our government needs restructured, the american people did not vote for this type of experimentation… the gov’t will kill us all for a nickel in someone’s pocket.

    • agscienceliterate

      This article is about artificial wombs, not about GE food.

      • Bobbi Small

        Under normal circumstances I do not reply to obvious comments, however, your special. GMO Food is a comparison of genetically altering natural products that disrupts bodily function. Meaning, artificial womb is an ever larger genetic alteration that should never have been implemented. We do not know enough to tamper with creation and even less on the effects of non-identifiable people. Shit, the scientific medical community can’t cure cancer 100%, can’t cure fibromyalgia or arthritis, can’t even prevent the common cold their arrogance is absurd.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          So you are against incubators for preemies? And various life support apparatus for injury victims until they can recover basic functions? Or are you only against these advanced biomedical technologies for other people, reserving their possible use for yourself, in a pinch? Do you avail yourself of modern technologies at all? Why, of course you do, you are ranting over the internet, so case closed.

        • agscienceliterate

          Good grief, Bobbi. We have been “tampering with creation” for centuries. We have been genetically altering food for centuries. Artificial wombs are not a result of eating GE food; read the article. There is no such thing as “non-identifiable people.” The fact that cancer does not have 100% cure is irrelevant to the topic of artificial wombs or GE food. Your expectations about medical “cures,” your total confusion over science and technology, and your palpable fear are sad.
          My recommendation: Don’t eat GE foods. You do not understand technology, science, or farming, so these products are not for you. Stick with organic and non-GMO certified foods. Labeled clearly so you do not have to think.
          And stay away from doctors. You never know what they may not be able to cure.
          And stay away from computers — who knows, they might be infecting your brain to become non-identifiable. You never know, right?
          And one more thing. Don’t vote. Please. You don’t trust “the government,” and you never know what they are up to. Stay home.

  • Remlao etat

    I like this new way of making our population grow and spread, but it does seem a bit unnatural to the traditional way of things. It’s kinda weird seeing how a machine will have my kids kids in the future. It’s accually kinda sad in a way. There will be no motherly bond at all. So even though it’s a good idea, it just doesn’t feel right.

  • Deep Thought

    But the artificial uterus proposed here is basically nothing more than the biochemical, technical environment to keep the fetus alive.

    What is left out is the psychological effect on the fetus and the mother by being so close to each other during the pregnancy (optimally nine full months).
    During that period the intimate relationship between mother and child necessary for the child to develop optimally is formed and already affects the psyche of both the unborn child and the mother.
    Hence, a significant percentage of all births being artificially will have quite severe consequences for the entire future society.

  • Bobbi Jo Johnson

    If they succeed in doing this they can turn around and make it illegal to have children any other way. Claiming it is safer, not putting any one in harms way carrying the child, and of course no one with abnormalities would be made, much less “born”. The government would have all rights to these children, and the right to determine if they are alive or not. They will have countless arguments for why this is the better way, and how wrong it is to make children the old way. Those caught having natural pregnancies will most likely be killed along with the offspring they produce.

  • John Patrick Jewell III

    I saw the future when I was fifteen years old.I thought was I raped .but it wasn’t a in and out thing.I was frozen completely and being spoken to,softly by mental telepathy but, then I realized they were needing my help birthing like I was an incubator. 1976.They were having me push, like a singer does, or a,woman contracting downward , they urged me to stay still more than anything and Imwas paralyzed (like Hillary was at 9/11.Was she not? Get the picture.I couldn’t use my body then when the water baby came out they spoke to,each other don’t drop her? The left through a time warp.I spent three days walking around seeing mother less babies in incubators and Jesus they said the most controversial figure of human history will always be and that there is a truth in his story although probably so,etching we still don’t understand.thats all for now.

  • Hunter

    We need Soldiers for the future colonization of the solar system.

  • A Ha’penny WIll Do

    Fascinating stuff.

  • dideyesaythat

    For the childless or those with sickly constitutions, this partial or full range ectogenesis is a great health benefit.

  • Jamie Robbers

    i like the idea of using this on animals that have been rendered genetically extinct like yanzee river dolphins, if used in conjunction with crispr it would allow to edit the genetics and allow the population to possible recover from 7 (something low like that) to a more stable population

  • kyle

    I would use this technology as a way for aborted children to survive to full term, the consequence of an abortion should be for the woman to have her reproductive system fully removed and she can enjoy all of the joys and pains of it knowing she will never kill another child.

  • nick haz

    This will be great for colonizing other planets. We could rapidly create millions if not billions of new people on site so we wouldn’t have to transport them all.

  • Glen Risk

    As normal people ignore the obvious inconvenient truth. Children nurtured through ectogenesis would not begin their lives as parasitic cannibals. An obvious and serious side effect of natural mammalian gestation in that we must consume our mothers to live is this impulse to prey upon each other. An impulse so many people fail to control.

Send this to a friend