This to me sounds like technocratic political philosophy. I happen to really hope that we can innovate ourselves to a better existence. But the philosophical consensus appears to be that "life is suffering" and there's no getting out of that (men or women). we could try to suppress suffering with technology, but it will find it's way up again.

[N]obody in the pro-life movement supports this, because they don't actually care about fetuses - they care about keeping women controlled. — _db

:100:

Right-wing women are the class traitors par excellence - willing to masochistically sacrifice their sisters at the altar of phallocracy, just to get the meager privileges and honors bestowed upon them by the patriarchs. Collaborationists and cowards to the core, right-wing women fiercely cling to their masters, and jealously despise any women who has the courage to live for herself. — _db

:fire:

Right-wing women are the class traitors par excellence - willing to masochistically sacrifice their sisters at the altar of phallocracy, just to get the meager privileges and honors bestowed upon them by the patriarchs. Collaborationists and cowards to the core, right-wing women fiercely cling to their masters, and jealously despise any women who has the courage to live for herself. — _db

Either that, or you're not listening to them when they tell you that they believe that human life begins at conception and they believe that it's required that the embryo and then developing fetus be protected as any other human being.

It's not a position I personally subscribe to, but I can at least listen to what they're saying in order to gain insight into what they believe as opposed to concocting some psychoanalysis I can cast upon them because it makes me feel superior to think I better understand them than they do themselves.

If you actually care about fetuses, then you should support the development of technology that will make it less likely that a women will choose to have one. But nobody in the pro-life movement supports this, because they don't actually care about fetuses - they care about keeping women controlled. They don't want women to be relieved of this crucial weakness. They want women to be vulnerable to becoming pregnant and make up a bunch of bullshit about the rights of fetuses to obscure it. — _db

This is really nonsense. You completely fabricated a reality and then you concluded how it would turn out in a way that exactly met your biases. The reality you fabricated was one were there existed the possibility of artificial wombs, and then you next fabricated that right wingers were interfering with the development of these artificial wombs, and then you concluded that the reason they interfered with the development of these hypothetical wombs was so that they could oppress that subgroup of women who were pregnant but who didn't want to be. That is, you reached the conclusion you were destined to reach by referring to some crazy science fiction hypothetical about artificial wombs.

Back to reality. Neo-natal care has seen great advancements over the years without interference from the right. Fetuses that would have never survived in years past now have a chance to survive due to advancements in medical science. I think from all sides of the political spectrum there would be great joy if we knew we could save babies at even earlier points in their development. There are plenty of both liberal and conservative parents who are right now standing in maternity wards in complete devastation as they watch their premies fighting for their lives. That is to say, no one is interfering with the discovery of new neo-natal treatment options and everyone is hoping for the day when neo-natal care is good enough that it can save babies in all stages of development.

Keep in mind, also, that what you're proposing in terms of an artificial womb would pose serious challenges to the logic of Roe v. Wade, which I assume you were in agreement with based upon your disagreement with it being overturned. Roe held that the State's interest in protecting the fetus increased as the fetus became viable outside the womb. The State's right to regulate the pregnancy in the first trimester was extremely limited, more expansive in the second, and extremely expansive in the third. If neo-natal care pushed viability back to the earliest moments of gestation (as you're suggesting with the artificial womb), then under the Roe logic, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy would be reduced more and more, with the right existing only for a very limited time. Such is the problem with the trimester framework, which might offer another reason not to be so in favor of Roe.

Anyway, a question to throw back at you: If there were artificial wombs, if a pregnancy were terminated in the first week, would either parent have the right to refuse having the embryo placed in the artificial womb on the basis they didn't want to give birth to a child?

In order to say the parents have the right to object to placing the embryo in the artificial womb, I think you would have to argue that the embryo is not a person. But that does leave us with the question of what is a person, and I can't say I know any better than you where to draw that line, and I can at least understand (although not agree with) those who say personhood begins at conception.

One reason such polling hasn't been done on that issue is because there's no such thing as artificial wombs. It's just a science fiction hypothetical you've created. — Hanover

Consider environmental technology, which itself started out as a science fiction hypothetical, and was attacked by conservatards for this and other reasons. Just because it's hypothetical doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on whether or not it would be worth pursuing.

I also don't know what evidence you have that women consider pregnancy oppressive. I think many find the whole process hugely rewarding. — Hanover

Pregnancy is like the #1 thing that pregnant women complain about. It fucks up your body both during the pregnancy and for the rest of your life. If there was some alternative to going through this whole ordeal, I'd be willing to bet most women would prefer to do that instead. Lots of women find the prospect of becoming pregnant to be scary, too. I mean take a step back and really think about what pregnancy entails, it's a massively traumatic experience.

I won't deny that pregnant women may find parts of pregnancy rewarding - particularly all of the social benefits that come along with being pregnant. Conservative society LOVES pregnant women, it perpetually pumps out propaganda that exalts them as ideal women.

That is to say, no one is interfering with the discovery of new neo-natal treatment options and everyone is hoping for the day when neo-natal care is good enough that it can save babies in all stages of development. — Hanover

Right sure everyone is hoping things will work out - but so far none of the technology has really improved women's condition wrt pregnancy. There's pain killers and sanitation and whatnot, but fundamentally the core experience remains the same - the body is used as a factory for creating new people, and this wreaks havoc on it.

Conservatives aren't actively promoting R&D into artificial wombs, and they are the ones that seem to care the most about the survival of all the millions of proto-babies. They aren't doing that and there's a reason why - because they don't want science interfering with the female condition (or they never even thought about it, but that itself means they don't really care that much). This isn't the first instance conservatives object to science meddling in their sacred safe spaces.

If neo-natal care pushed viability back to the earliest moments of gestation (as you're suggesting with the artificial womb), then under the Roe logic, the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy would be reduced more and more, with the right existing only for a very limited time. Such is the problem with the trimester framework, which might offer another reason not to be so in favor of Roe. — Hanover

Fair enough. Roe v Wade accomplished the right thing the wrong way, IMO. It got the job done but it wasn't rock solid, given how it's been overturned.

Anyway, a question to throw back at you: If there were artificial wombs, if a pregnancy were terminated in the first week, would either parent have the right to refuse having the embryo placed in the artificial womb on the basis they didn't want to give birth to a child? — Hanover

Fundamentally the point I was making is that the pro-life position, if it is to be coherent, should support the development of artificial wombs. In a pro-life society without artificial wombs, there are two options for a pregnant woman: go through the pregnancy, or have an abortion. Artificial wombs provide a third option, which makes it less likely that a woman will choose to have an abortion (she doesn't have to go through the pregnancy, and the fetus gets to live and presumably get adopted or something later).

In a more enlightened society that doesn't believe in magic, a woman would not be shamed for having an abortion when there are artificial wombs available. She can choose to go through the pregnancy naturally, put the fetus in an artificial womb, or have an abortion, and there's nothing wrong with either choice (ignoring antinatalism, which I would prefer if this didn't devolve into a discussion of that).

Fundamentally the point I was making is that the pro-life position, if it is to be coherent, should support the development of artificial wombs. — _db

And fundamentally, the point I'm making is that you have no evidence that conservatives are opposed to artificial wombs. You've made an empirical assertion that has no empirical support.

What have the liberals been doing in the artificial womb field?

And I realize the question is a bit complicated considering there is no such field.

I also don't know what evidence you have that women consider pregnancy oppressive. I think many find the whole process hugely rewarding. — Hanover

Certainly not when the pregnancy is the result of a rape, or by "the wrong man", or at the wrong time.

Either that, or you're not listening to them when they tell you that they believe that human life begins at conception and they believe that it's required that the embryo and then developing fetus be protected as any other human being. — Hanover

Like with so many things, religious/spiritual people tend not to practice what they preach when it comes to sex and procreation.
I remember a Catholic man saying, "I don't let my religious beliefs get in the way of my sex life."

Many Christian women use contraceptives and have abortions, just like other women, except that those same Christian women sometimes preach that it's wrong to use contraceptives and have abortions. There is a culture of "don't ask, don't tell" among Christians about this, so one can only learn about the reality of Christian life by living among them, instead of relying on what they say in some official capacity.

At some point, the duplicity becomes too difficult to navigate, though.

Conservative society LOVES pregnant women, it perpetually pumps out propaganda that exalts them as ideal women. — _db

This is too general.

There's a lot that goes unsaid, but is expected to be understood in that propaganda.
Namely, that the pregnant woman should be old enough (and not too much), happily married, materially well-situated, in good standing in the church, healthy, with not too many children already.

The problem with Christian propaganda is precisely those things that are unsaid, that are taken for granted, that are tabooed. It's part of the Christian culture of public secrets.

Right-wing women are the class traitors par excellence - willing to masochistically sacrifice their sisters at the altar of phallocracy, just to get the meager privileges and honors bestowed upon them by the patriarchs. Collaborationists and cowards to the core, right-wing women fiercely cling to their masters, and jealously despise any women who has the courage to live for herself. — _db

What sisters? Christian women don't consider non-Christian women to be their "sisters".