[bdcrazy]

The main concern I see with "technologic" wombs is who is then responsible for the upbringing and care of the fetus until it because viable to live on its own? If someone gives up a fetus but is still force to be financially responsible for it, more harmful and destructive forms abortion will be, by necessity, be used.

[yieldcrv]

My use of “unburdened” includes financial in all variations, even sealing the ability of the subsequent child to find the parents.

It’s pretty clear that it will be the state who assumes receivership of the fetus and subsequent human with full constitutional rights.

It’s also a pretty easy legislative problem to say the state is transferring unwanted fetuses, despite the technology for its viability not currently existing. The outcome shifts the burden of guilt - or lack thereof - away from the parent(s), over to an immune state regardless of that state’s laws on abortion. And it shifts priorities and funding measures on creating the technology to ensure a fetus’ viability, whether that turns out to be a fool's errand or not.

This will easily bridge consensus between “camps” as the discomfort over citizens killing fetus turns into a market choice instead of a legislative debate. What will the market primarily choose to end a pregnancy

[lupusreal]

Who is responsible for incubator babies until they are viable to leave the incubator? That's already a limited sort of artificial womb. The state picks up the bill I suppose, if everybody else decides to bail.

[shrimp_emoji]

The state. They will be raised in creche-barracks.

But this is a stopgap until they can be grown as readymade adults, skipping the tedious and problematic child stage altogether.