Something I was working around with in my Sci-Fi stories.

[Invictus ChiKen]

In my attempts to do Science Fiction one thing I considered adding is a totally artificial womb. The idea being it would replace abortion instead of aborting the fetus would be removed via a procedure that by the time of this story is virtually non-intrusive.

It's gotten me to thinking what would be the moral implications for such a device?

How would such a device really affect abortion?

Would the pro-life side see it as an abomination?

Would the pro-choice side see it as a slap in the face of women?

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

The law of unintended consequences is going to fall on this idea so hard...

In theory, it's going to make it easier for unwanted children to be carried to term, by something if not someone. In practise- well, the adoption service are going to love it.
As I recall the last time I looked, the figures, for around where I am anyway, said medical reasons for abortion were vastly outnumbered by socioeconomic reasons- basically, inability to take care of the child.

You're going to breed a generation of adoptees, without necessarily giving them anywhere to fit in to society and anything to do. And this is after the knee- jerk reactions on both sides.

Handwaving away all the growth/development medical problems, anyway- no wait, if those issues are soluble, if you can nurture and grow a child from the egg, well the sperm and egg anyway, what else are the solutions to that going to make possible?

Could you breed people without race? Without even the most instinctive kith and kin reactions? A herd animal without a herd to fit in to- or with a ready made herd?

Is this not cloning by any other name? I know that isn't what the OP is about, but I'm not sure you could make this work without going that far anyway.

[Akhlut]

What's problematic is that the uterus is going to be hard to replace with technology. So, firstly, I have to wonder how advanced technology is in your world. If it is extremely advanced, then this technology would probably only be used by someone whose own uterus was failing them, because otherwise contraceptive technology should be advanced enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies otherwise. Otherwise, replicating a uterus is going to be hard, especially since it is going to be a learning process for a large number of fetuses that are first housed in the artificial uterus (AU), since aside from nutrients, we don't know if the mother's incidental hormonal dosings to the fetus are necessary or not, if the nutrients delivered need to be switched up during gestation (e.g. does calcium need to be given after a certain number of weeks, but only on alternate hours?), how often does the amniotic fluid need to be changed (it is replenished and changed every few hours in mom and is completely sterile; can such sterility be achieved in an organic broth not manufactured completely within the uterus?), etc. Then you have to deal with the fact that you need a dialysis machine hooked up to the AU 24/7 for months on end to each and every single one.

Oh, and you have to make sure the plastics used in all the equipment does not have plasticizers that mimic mammalian hormones. Otherwise, you might end up with a fucking HUGE percentage of feminized male children born from AUs.

So, yeah, the learning curve would present a huge moral problem, mainly, how ethical is it to kill large number of human fetuses in order to learn how to maintain them until they can be artificially born? Sure, the basics can be learned from other animals, but the specifics would require human fetuses, especially for hormonal things (since in other mammals, such hormonal doses might be unrequired, but humans might require more to stimulate increased brain development, for instance). Plus, This would tie up a lot more resources than a pregnant woman, because she just requires food and prenatal vitamins to grow a baby; this machine would require a dialysis machine that not only takes out waste, but adds nutrients, hormones, and essential minerals and an AU that constantly removes and replenishes its own amniotic fluid. So, that also brings up the moral question if that many resources should be tied up via technology to an otherwise unwanted child, especially if a state could just mandate that a woman keep the fetus until term and then the state pays her a fraction of what this machine would cost to run for months on end to give up her child to be placed in an adoption program.

As for how it would affect abortion: it probably wouldn't. This would require invasive surgery that removes an intact amniotic sac (probably) and placenta (certainly) from a uterus. Unless it was law that this procedure be done instead of abortion, most women would probably opt for the much quicker, much cheaper (unless this is covered by insurance, state or private) much less invasive option of abortion.

[Feil]

You're not the first.

[Invictus ChiKen]

The law of unintended consequences is going to fall on this idea so hard...

You're going to breed a generation of adoptees, without necessarily giving them anywhere to fit in to society and anything to do. And this is after the knee- jerk reactions on both sides.

You just gave an idea of where the big as yet still being defined space empire will get a lot of it's troops for medical experiments... Gonna have to be care there however as it comes close to stepping on some toes...

Handwaving away all the growth/development medical problems, anyway- no wait, if those issues are soluble, if you can nurture and grow a child from the egg, well the sperm and egg anyway, what else are the solutions to that going to make possible?

Maybe the idea of black market organ factories on the frontiers and all kinds of sick shit is coming into my mind now...

Could you breed people without race? Without even the most instinctive kith and kin reactions? A herd animal without a herd to fit in to- or with a ready made herd?

A bit like the Space Marines meets the Grand Army of the Republic and the Clans from Battletech?

Is this not cloning by any other name? I know that isn't what the OP is about, but I'm not sure you could make this work without going that far anyway.

An interesting idea for a mix. Although I don't think they'd be true clones...

What's problematic is that the uterus is going to be hard to replace with technology. So, firstly, I have to wonder how advanced technology is in your world.

I'm aiming for a society that is to Star Wars as Star Wars is to Firefly and Star Trek if that gives you an idea.

If it is extremely advanced, then this technology would probably only be used by someone whose own uterus was failing them, because otherwise contraceptive technology should be advanced enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies otherwise.

True I think I've found some interesting new directions to take this in.

Otherwise, replicating a uterus is going to be hard, especially since it is going to be a learning process for a large number of fetuses that are first housed in the artificial uterus (AU), since aside from nutrients, we don't know if the mother's incidental hormonal dosings to the fetus are necessary or not, if the nutrients delivered need to be switched up during gestation (e.g. does calcium need to be given after a certain number of weeks, but only on alternate hours?), how often does the amniotic fluid need to be changed (it is replenished and changed every few hours in mom and is completely sterile; can such sterility be achieved in an organic broth not manufactured completely within the uterus?), etc. Then you have to deal with the fact that you need a dialysis machine hooked up to the AU 24/7 for months on end to each and every single one.

Well I'm aiming for softer Science Fiction but this is a lot to think about.

So, yeah, the learning curve would present a huge moral problem, mainly, how ethical is it to kill large number of human fetuses in order to learn how to maintain them until they can be artificially born? Sure, the basics can be learned from other animals, but the specifics would require human fetuses, especially for hormonal things (since in other mammals, such hormonal doses might be unrequired, but humans might require more to stimulate increased brain development, for instance). Plus, This would tie up a lot more resources than a pregnant woman, because she just requires food and prenatal vitamins to grow a baby; this machine would require a dialysis machine that not only takes out waste, but adds nutrients, hormones, and essential minerals and an AU that constantly removes and replenishes its own amniotic fluid. So, that also brings up the moral question if that many resources should be tied up via technology to an otherwise unwanted child, especially if a state could just mandate that a woman keep the fetus until term and then the state pays her a fraction of what this machine would cost to run for months on end to give up her child to be placed in an adoption program.

Good points all

As for how it would affect abortion: it probably wouldn't. This would require invasive surgery that removes an intact amniotic sac (probably) and placenta (certainly) from a uterus. Unless it was law that this procedure be done instead of abortion, most women would probably opt for the much quicker, much cheaper (unless this is covered by insurance, state or private) much less invasive option of abortion.

Well I admit to hoping the tech would reach a point surgery would be non-invasive... Still I think I gots me an idea from all of this...

[Enola Straight]

Realistically, I can only see artificial uteri being employed in situations where women are simply unavailable to bring pregnancies to term; too many women are dead, fighting as soldiers, "busy", etc.

Also, social conditions may neccesitate an immediate population explosion, to create a large generation of workers and/or soldiers; too many pregnancies being ordered up, and not enough women to bear them.

An artificial uterus used to save an otherwise lost fetus will probably be low on the priority list.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Would the pro-life side see it as an abomination?

Would the pro-choice side see it as a slap in the face of women?

This would really end abortion as a serious moral/political issue. If the woman wants to get of the child, then she can do so, and if the Pro-Life people want to care for the aborted fertilized eggs, then it's their choice to make.