zlacker

>>iamthi+(OP)
How far are we from completely artificial uterus with no need for human body? If we plan to colonize other planets, we need literal "baby factories". How far are we from this technology? (regardless of dystopian vibe)

>>bitL+um
Why would we need non-human baby factories?

>>yjftsj+Fq
Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women? This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.

>>chairm+NT
> Could you imagine something that equalizes the playing field more between men and women?

It really wouldn't because women would lose the societal benefits of being child bearers. So at best, it would be a wash.

> This provides the ability for people to have a child without the woman having to gestate the fetus for 9 months? None of the terrible side effects of pregnancy, none of the pain. Sounds pretty idealistic to me.

But most women actually want the experience of being pregnant. It's why this woman chose to transplant a uterus and become pregnant. She could have just hired a surrogate for far less time, effort and money.

But the issue of artificial wombs does offer a interesting question. How would it change humans as a species. Would it make men or women or both obsolete? Evolutionary pressure has made women child bearers and men providers. How would artificial wombs change that? Not to mention, the effects on physiology. Would women eventually lose uteri or will it become a useless vestigial organ over time?

>>eighth+li1
> most women actually want the experience of being pregnant.

I'm really curious if this is true.