Dialogue: Away with this old-style method of having babies

Artificial wombs are one of science's modern marvels. Why then, asks SHELLEY BRIDGEMAN*, do we continue
to cling to childbirth traditions?

It is a truism that we have advanced way beyond our ancestors' wildest dreams. Cutting-edge communications, space travel, the internet and modern medicine have transformed what once was science fiction into modern-day realities.

We have put people on the moon and are beginning a tentative exploration of Mars. Keyhole surgery has in some cases obviated the need for intrusive operations.

We've come a long way. Except - funnily enough - where having babies is concerned. Women are still giving birth in the same manner as their foremothers did in medieval and even Neanderthal times.

Sure, the mortality rate for both mothers and babies has reduced amazingly and various gadgets and potions exist to take the edge off labour pains. The Bible's maxim that women must bring forth children in sorrow is no longer a surefire prediction of all birth experiences.

Yet as a society we seem to be brainwashed into accepting the age-old method of gestation and delivery - even though it is a primitive cliche more suited to the Dark Ages than the third millennium.

If men gave birth, you can be sure that they would have organised it so that the inconvenient bits were abolished, so that some mechanical instrument was available to alleviate much of the bother of human reproduction.

As sci-fi as it sounds, artificial womb-tanks do exist. Japanese scientists have used them to incubate the foetuses of goats. These tanks are sacs filled with an amniotic fluid-like substance. The foetus is submerged in the fluid and connected to various tubes and monitors.

In this age of IVF and other reproductive tinkering, there is no reason that this technology cannot be used as the basis to liberate females from the physical burdens associated with procreation.

But, unsurprisingly, the staid medical profession has sagely decreed that this tool should be used only to benefit women with frequent miscarriages, troublesome pregnancies or infertility.

According to the old school, anyone else must do the hard yards and procreate in the usual tired and traditional manner. After all, it has worked for centuries, so why should we tamper with a good thing?

We merrily fiddle with genes and atoms but for some reason childbirth is considered a sacred and ancient ritual that must not be altered substantially or made too easy.

As a society we seem to blindly accept the notion that, while other areas of human endeavour can progress astronomically, childbirth must remain some prehistoric process that is little changed from the year dot.

If men were the gender doomed to be responsible for pregnancy and child-bearing, you can guarantee that womb-tanks for human foetuses would have been developed. Tanks would be available for $999 at a store near you, and The Warehouse would be about to obtain a model for less than half that price.

Traditionalists will no doubt gasp at such blasphemy as an artificial womb and wail about that crucial bond that supposedly grows between mother and offspring during gestation in a natural womb. That old chestnut is just one of the many myths designed to keep women's minds and bodies focused on the mechanical and menial job of incubating new life.

Another weapon in the arsenal to keep women in their place is the "breast is best" adage. No one is arguing with that theory, but traditionalists get very nervous when you try to meddle with it. Because, of course, that same breast milk can also be provided (via expressing) from a bottle, thus freeing the mother from the tyranny of being on constant call.

But mention that theory too loud down at the local coffee group and righteous shouts of nipple confusion will be hurled at mothers with rebellious thoughts of assigning baby-care to someone who is not lactating.

Those who believe in nipple confusion allege that babies will be disturbed if they are fed by different methods. Irrespective of its validity, talk of this syndrome nonetheless stirs up guilt and is an effective way of curbing most modern notions of dispensing breast milk from a bottle.

Doubtless it was devised by a group of diehards intent on keeping emancipating innovations from the child-rearing arena. After all, if women were freed from the maternal ropes that bind them, goodness knows what they would get up to.

So in the future, when you hear of authentic-sounding reasons - whether ethical, medical, moral, philosophical, religious or scientific - as to why the act of foetal incubation should not be delegated to an artificial womb, ask yourself what these people fear about finally releasing women from the arduous minutiae of procreating.

* Shelley Bridgeman is an Auckland writer.