Comment by eighthnate
7 years ago
> 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?
> most women actually want the experience of being pregnant.
I'm really curious if this is true.
Is there a doubt? You don't think more than 50% of women want to experience being pregnant?
Why do you think wealthy women like marissa meyer and angelina jolie choose to become pregnant?
It's as core a natural imperative as any human can have. Every woman I've known wanted to become pregnant and birth their own children.
I assume most women do as well. Why do you think women go to such lengths as to implant uteri and go through fertility treatments rather than adopting or hiring a surrogate?
Certainly not every woman wants to experience pregnancy but I don't think it is farfetched to say that most women want to experience a core female natural/evolutionary imperative. That's what women are built/designed to do. Think about it?