2 ms·
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
by 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 agoObviously, 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 agoI expect any law that defines a "womb" as being inside a woman will change once artificial wombs become possible.
- waterheater 3y agoOne 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.