4 ms·

I wrote an excessively detailed comment on the implications of an artificial wombs from a legal perspective in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3730

I wrote an excessively detailed comment on the implications of an artificial wombs from a legal perspective in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37308675#37314083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37308675#37314083 TLDR: it's not as simple as just "fetus", but there is much disagreement around when a developing clump of cells becomes protected under the law.

RecycledEle 3y ago
In the post You link to, You say that in Georgia they define an unborn person as being in a womb, then You say an artificial womb would not apply. Why not? Is an artificial womb not a womb?
- waterheater 3y ago
  Obviously, this is just my opinion, but no, I believe it's possible that the Georgia definition may be exploited, particularly because the intent behind the law was to protect mothers (a natural person), not an artificial womb owned by a corporation (an artificial person).
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    I expect any law that defines a "womb" as being inside a woman will change once artificial wombs become possible.
    - waterheater 3y ago
      One can hope, though that's my main point in talking about it. The paradigm of artificial wombs will be a literal "brave new world". I wonder what the downstream effects will be when a company offers BaaS (Babies as a Service). Seems studying the present-day cloud may serve as an effective foil.
verisimi 3y ago
Perhaps, like many phones or cars, children of the future would be leased not owned, with full ownership (or at least a share of ownership) belonging to the corporation, state, etc. Further to this, there could be agreements that there would be an annual "service" of the child, with it being a requirement to have some ongoing medical treatment or gene therapy, that might be written into the terms of service. If any of that, at what point would the child 'own itself'? Does it ever? Will there be lifetime contracts?
- fuckingkike 3y ago
  [dead]
- waterheater 3y ago
  Without legal intervention, I do believe that what you describe is the ultimate endgame of these technologies. People could be owned by a corporation or state because certain developed clumps of cells never met the legal criteria for personhood and are therefore property, which is truly a legalized form of slavery. In the end, all these issues can be solved through the legal system, and I'm fairly certain that a court won't allow slight-of-hand or deception to create widespread de facto slavery.
  - picadores 3y ago
    What gives you this certainty? Prisoners are defacto slaves. HB1 are defacto slaves. Outsourcing is defacto slavery. Working for the same wage everywhere,that barely affords you food and roof with no chance to improve your fate, is slavery. Slavery is all around you. Its just that the word is not used.
    - waterheater 3y ago
      >Slavery is all around you. Perhaps "de facto slavery" was a poor word choice. That said, slavery as we traditionally understand it means you are entirely dehumanized; in essence, you are property. The examples you provide certainly are challenging, to put it lightly, but they are not slavery itself. Though the closest, prisoners still have human rights. HB1s have human rights, and they also chose to live and work the US of their own free will. Outsourcing exploits access to cheap labor in a global market, which will serve to eliminate extreme poverty by providing work opportunities, though we also know that such opportunities have come at the expense of human rights by our Western standards, which, to my understanding, is typically caused by poor top-level oversight of local management. The issue of wages is a largely Western phenomenon where, for better or for worse, people are unwilling to make significant lifestyle changes (e.g., moving somewhere new) for a better wage, a wage that hundreds of millions of people around the world would love to have. The word "slavery" isn't used in those cases because it's a false equivalence. Yes, there are countless ways in which humans attempt to control each other, but bonafide slavery isn't it. To return to the point, the status of legal personhood provides certain rights. What if it's legal for a clump of Homo sapiens cells to grow into something that never meets the threshold for attainment of legal personhood? I believe that clump of cells may, in certain places, be considered property, which is truly chattel slavery.

RecycledEle 3y ago

In the post You link to, You say that in Georgia they define an unborn person as being in a womb, then You say an artificial womb would not apply. Why not? Is an artificial womb not a womb?

waterheater 3y ago
Obviously, this is just my opinion, but no, I believe it's possible that the Georgia definition may be exploited, particularly because the intent behind the law was to protect mothers (a natural person), not an artificial womb owned by a corporation (an artificial person).
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  I expect any law that defines a "womb" as being inside a woman will change once artificial wombs become possible.
  - waterheater 3y ago
    One can hope, though that's my main point in talking about it. The paradigm of artificial wombs will be a literal "brave new world". I wonder what the downstream effects will be when a company offers BaaS (Babies as a Service). Seems studying the present-day cloud may serve as an effective foil.

verisimi 3y ago

Perhaps, like many phones or cars, children of the future would be leased not owned, with full ownership (or at least a share of ownership) belonging to the corporation, state, etc. Further to this, there could be agreements that there would be an annual "service" of the child, with it being a requirement to have some ongoing medical treatment or gene therapy, that might be written into the terms of service. If any of that, at what point would the child 'own itself'? Does it ever? Will there be lifetime contracts?

fuckingkike 3y ago
[dead]
waterheater 3y ago
Without legal intervention, I do believe that what you describe is the ultimate endgame of these technologies. People could be owned by a corporation or state because certain developed clumps of cells never met the legal criteria for personhood and are therefore property, which is truly a legalized form of slavery. In the end, all these issues can be solved through the legal system, and I'm fairly certain that a court won't allow slight-of-hand or deception to create widespread de facto slavery.
- picadores 3y ago
  What gives you this certainty? Prisoners are defacto slaves. HB1 are defacto slaves. Outsourcing is defacto slavery. Working for the same wage everywhere,that barely affords you food and roof with no chance to improve your fate, is slavery. Slavery is all around you. Its just that the word is not used.
  - waterheater 3y ago
    >Slavery is all around you. Perhaps "de facto slavery" was a poor word choice. That said, slavery as we traditionally understand it means you are entirely dehumanized; in essence, you are property. The examples you provide certainly are challenging, to put it lightly, but they are not slavery itself. Though the closest, prisoners still have human rights. HB1s have human rights, and they also chose to live and work the US of their own free will. Outsourcing exploits access to cheap labor in a global market, which will serve to eliminate extreme poverty by providing work opportunities, though we also know that such opportunities have come at the expense of human rights by our Western standards, which, to my understanding, is typically caused by poor top-level oversight of local management. The issue of wages is a largely Western phenomenon where, for better or for worse, people are unwilling to make significant lifestyle changes (e.g., moving somewhere new) for a better wage, a wage that hundreds of millions of people around the world would love to have. The word "slavery" isn't used in those cases because it's a false equivalence. Yes, there are countless ways in which humans attempt to control each other, but bonafide slavery isn't it. To return to the point, the status of legal personhood provides certain rights. What if it's legal for a clump of Homo sapiens cells to grow into something that never meets the threshold for attainment of legal personhood? I believe that clump of cells may, in certain places, be considered property, which is truly chattel slavery.