I am sorry that it took me so long to get to your ask. I have been very busy with real-life obligations today and I also wanted to take some time to think this one through.
I will begin with a disclaimer that I am in no way an expert on these advanced medical procedures/devices, so please, correct me if I make a statement that is blatantly incorrect. That said, I will first state that I don’t believe the pro-life movement’s main goal is to make money; their main goals are to regulate sex and force conservative Christian values on others. Here is a terrific article, written by a former pro-lifer, that details many of the things that are wrong with the movement and its ulterior motives for fighting to “save the babies”. With that said, I would not be remotely surprised if the pro-‘life’ movement opposed procedures that would allow for the relocation or indefinite ‘storage’ of an unwanted embryo/fetus, because that would mean that women would still have a way to ‘avoid responsibility’ for their actions. It is absolutely fascinating how the other side will refer to children as blessings one moment and punishments the next.
If an already-developing fetus could be moved into an artificial womb, I think that would be a wonderful option for women who want children but would have extremely dangerous or potentially fatal pregnancies, as well as couples who are unable to naturally conceive. I do worry about what the availability of such procedures would do to the number of children in foster care, though. Would infertile people be less likely to adopt because they had a way to create their own children? Would unwanted pregnancies be incubated in artificial wombs just so that the child could be dumped straight into foster care? I see a lot of great things that could come out of this procedure, but I also see a lot of potential issues.
Additionally, such medical procedures would not make abortion ‘obsolete’, though they would likely reduce the number of abortions considerably. As I have previously mentioned, moving a fetus to an artificial womb or preserving it indefinitely could potentially create a lot more ethical issues than it would solve, in my opinion. What about a woman who does not want to be pregnant or raise a child, even if it can be incubated somewhere else? What about a woman who is not comfortable with the idea of creating an orphan, regardless of where it develops? What if a fetus was to be kept in stasis until its parent eventually wanted it, and they decide they do not ever want it? I fear that the pro-life movement would simply branch out into protesting for the ‘rights’ of the ‘frozen’ children and complaining about the fact that artificial wombs are ‘unnatural’, in addition to continuing to protest abortion, as it would most likely still occur. They would be angry because even though not all unwanted fetuses would have to ‘die’, their parents would still not have to ‘suffer the consequences’ of creating them, and the pro-‘life’ movement certainly would not condone that.
Despite the concerns I have voiced, I, personally, would be in favor of the development of these scientific advancements. They would offer people with uteri more choices in regards to their reproductive health and family planning, and the procedures would have other applications besides providing an alternative to abortion. Scientific progress is wonderful and I feel that it should be encouraged, but the ethical issues that accompany it are not always so great.
I believe that is all I can really say until these breakthroughs really start happening. It really leaves you with a lot to think about, doesn’t it? I, too, would be interested to hear Cultureshift’s opinion on the matter, but I think we can all be fairly certain that it will never be voiced.
Thank you for your very interesting question, and I would welcome any feedback (or corrections) from other readers, if you have something to add. Thank you all for promoting a culture of choice.