UK Bioethicist: Pregnancy and Natural Birth Should Not Be Tolerated
January 27th, 2012Make ready the municipal hatcheries.
Via: Bioedge:
Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.
This is the radical suggestion made by a leading British bioethicist, Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia.
Artificcial gestation, or ectogenesis, is currently science fiction, but it may be possible. Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:
Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.
…
I suggest that there is a strong case for prioritizing research into ectogenesis as an alternative to pregnancy. I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.
Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:
I don’t think liberal means what she thinks it means. Or am I the last person who thinks liberal and tolerant go together?
Me thinks the good Doctor:
1) has daddy issues
2) has gender identity issues
3) is a research whore trolling for research grants
4) has never read Brisendien’s “the female brain”
5) is a socialist to the core
6) is a first and only child
7) has not raised children through adulthood
8) does not understand human bonding
9) believes internet based artificial sex is a wholesome substitute for intimacy
10) has image acceptance issues with her own body
11) hasn’t a clue that males and females are no more capable of “equality” than apples and concrete blocks
12) is a big fan of abortion and eugenics
13) will never get invited to dinner at my house
Wow. Methinks the lady bioethicist has some unresolved issues.
btw- substitute wombs already exist: They are called “surrogates.” And what’s wrong with adoption? Maybe she should take up foster parenting. That way she can send them back when she tires of them.
My question to her is this: what child would choose to be gestated in a ziplock bag at the equality clinic so their mom wouldn’t have to be inconvenienced or exposed to risk the way billions of other moms have for millions of years?
The woman is a sociopath.
And, to Steve Holmes, are you sure you’re not my doppelganger? We were thinking the exact same thoughts in almost the exact same words at almost the exact same time. Your version is far more eloquent, of course.
She has GOT to be kidding.
Perhaps she’s an unwitting pawn in a larger Tavistock exercise to gauge levels of public acceptance/outrage at such concepts?
Or perhaps she’s simply damaged goods, as Mr. Holmes details so well with his checklist in Comment #2. The only one he left off was “control” issues, while #13 was my favorite…
It’s like we both saw a huge fresh meteor crater from the same tour bus. Doesn’t take too much thought to agree that we are both staring at a big frelling hole in the ground I suppose.
Wow. I can’t say how angry this makes me. The woman obviously has issues, but even aside from that -take away pregnancy and childbirth?
This is the power of womankind: to brink life into this world. We are the lifegivers. Of course that is risky. It’s meant to be. TANSTAAFL.
this may be a move on the part of the baby formula lobby. perhaps w/ chinese infant formula the modern world can finally do away w/ pesky malnutrition and emotional intelligence? also breasts, no more of those on women, only 12 y/o boy chests. also psychopaths and paranoid narcissists for everyone!!!!
Anna Smajdor co-authored a book with another “leading British bioethicist”, Ruth Deech, titled “IVF to Immortality: Controversy in the Era of Reproductive Technology”. It was published in paperback by Oxford University Press USA in January 2008. There are no customer reviews at either amazon.com or amazon.co.uk.There is no wikipedia page for Anna Smajdor. There is only a single reference to her name in wikipedia: on the page for her co-author, Deech. The “About the Author” section on the book’s page on amazon.com says: “Anna Smajdor’s background is in Philosophy, and she been working and researching in the field of Bioethics for 5 years. She has an ongoing interest in the diverse ethical quandaries which are thrown up by novel developments in all areas of medicine and the life sciences”. There seems to be very little about the author on the web, apart from what is on her own web site and a few other media forays.
Nice work tochigi. Maybe we should link this page to amazon for her.
i pity the doctor (in the brief moments when the horror and disgust subside)… would’ve called her “ms.” but i’m sure she resents that.
it must be a terrible existence to loathe your own being so deeply… she’s clearly more conflicted than any transgendered individual i have ever met/heard about/read about.
to the boobs comment – ha! didn’t think about that one. as if the loss of childbearing abilities wasn’t tragic enough…