March 8, 2025 - 8:00am
Every human ever born has been carried to term inside a woman, whether it be their biological mother or a surrogate. But as artificial wombs that could save the lives of premature babies get closer to human trials, there may be a future in which that is not the case.
We aren’t actually close to solving the challenge of developing an artificial womb that can house a baby all the way from fertilised egg to birth. This is partly because of regulatory barriers, including that embryos may only be cultured for research for 14 days, but also because of the great difficulty of replicating the unique characteristics of human pregnancy.
But even though end-to-end artificial wombs don’t yet exist, we already disapprove of them. New polling this week from the think tank Theos has found that a majority of Britons (52%) oppose artificial wombs if used to gestate a baby entirely outside its mother’s womb. Though the polling also shows that 62% of people would support the use of an end-to-end artificial womb in cases where the mother or baby’s life would be at risk during a normal pregnancy, 71% would oppose using one where the mother wanted to avoid the pain and discomfort of pregnancy and giving birth.
There are good reasons to be cautious about end-to-end artificial wombs. We should consider very carefully whether there are negative health effects or other problems that might arise from being gestated ex utero, and what it might mean for society if most of us came to be born this way.
Yet what the Theos polling has largely uncovered is a knee-jerk “ick” reaction to the idea of “growing a baby in a bag”, a feeling that this development is a harbinger of a creepy, dystopian future. It wasn’t so long ago that many of us questioned IVF, wondering whether it was right to create “test tube babies”. But today, more than 12 million babies have been born worldwide via IVF (I’m married to one) and opposition towards the treatment is minimal in modern Britain.
What may also drive a scepticism towards artificial wombs is a sense that having a child simply shouldn’t be so easy, that labour pains are somehow a necessary ingredient to becoming a mother. But it is a mistake to romanticise the pain of childbirth, just as it is a mistake to romanticise the suffering of any human being. When I gave birth on Christmas Day last year I chose to have an epidural, and while I respect that many women prefer not to have pain relief during labour, I cannot say that I feel I have missed out. And nor do I believe that my bond with my baby is less close, or my motherhood less complete, because I brought my daughter into the world without pain.
Theos also found that Generation Z is much more supportive of the idea of end-to-end artificial wombs, with 42% of those aged 18-24 in favour of this technology. This could be because younger people are less conservative than older ones, or because those in this age group are less likely to be parents themselves. But in a world of declining birth rates, with Britons having fewer children than they would like, it is promising. Helping more people have children must include the woman who wants an elective C-section as well as the woman who longs for a water birth aided only by aromatherapy.
So as we consider the theoretical future woman who might opt to “grow her baby in a bag”, using a technology that may become unremarkable, we should listen to our instincts — but not let them rule us.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAndrew Tate is the latest incarnation of Hugh Hefner, reframed for today’s culture of outrage. There really is nothing new here. A boy uses his strength to dominate the world around him in service to himself. A man uses his strength to dominate himself in service to the world around him. Tate has just figured out how to monetize immaturity.
Andrew Tate is the latest incarnation of Hugh Hefner, reframed for today’s culture of outrage. There really is nothing new here. A boy uses his strength to dominate the world around him in service to himself. A man uses his strength to dominate himself in service to the world around him. Tate has just figured out how to monetize immaturity.
I applaud Mary for taking the trouble to try to dissect the Andrew Tate ‘thing’. I suspect we might learn a great deal more from a dissection of the many young women who’ve become involved with him.
I can understand the superficial attraction for the first few, but once his name was becoming synonymous with toxic masculinity to anyone of that age group with access to social media (i.e. everyone), why would a young woman still fall into his clutches?
I’m really not victim-blaming here. My point is this: if those young women gravitate into his circle knowing full well the likely consequences, having the benefit of the testimony of many, many other young women who believed Tate was in a real relationship with them prior to being set to work, just what is going on here?
His initial attraction to a certain group of vacuous young people may seem as old as the hills, but just how vacuous do you have to be to become embroiled in cam sex for his financial benefit? Do they really believe he’s interested in them as human beings? Do they even care? Analysis, please.
You make a good point.
Yes the criminal exploitation Tate is accused of will be the results of manipulation and abuse but before that point is reached, he has to attract women first. If we were to concede that toxic masculinity exists then we should also ask the question. To what extent is toxic masculinity a response to the positive feedback from women?
On a superficial level at least, toxic masculinity appears to be one of the most successful strategies a man can adopt to attract woman. As long as this is the case men like Andrew Tate will persist.
Abusive matches with low self-esteem. Depressingly common, and ti makes sense as a ‘darkside’ dynamic . People are drawn to others who treat them in ways they recognise, good or bad. Many low self esteem women/men (especially if they have been ill treated by wo/men) are drawn to a-holes, and many a peasant has scraped before their ‘betters’, grateful for groats. There is a mirroring process at work – people such as Tate have a thick seam of low self-esteem, of which they are in denial* (people with good SE do not abuse, control, steal, cheat); similarly, victims supress their good SE – they know deep down that they deserve better, and often assume that the way to getting better is to recieve the ‘medicine’ from the abuser. *I suspect this is why some high-powered men secretly like to be humiliated by madams.
I think that some women are susceptible to the delusion that they can bring about change in a man. Then there are those who are blinded by a man who is good looking with a hot body and an impressive bank account, Tate certainly has two of those attributes and some would argue he had all three!
Sometimes it seems like every man posting comments here has been thoroughly brainwashed by feminism.
The lack of self respect is sad.
I agree about self-respect. It’s the baseline for respecting others, which is the antithesis of Andrew Tate, and, i might add, his supporters/followers.
Could you be specific, please? That’s such a generalization.
Are you defending Tates alleged crimes? If so I find your morals appalling
Alleged and no charges! Get a backbone
Alleged and no charges! Get a backbone
How exactly does my not wanting a scumbag like Tate anywhere near my daughter mean that I lack self-respect?
Why would he want to be near your daughter. You are taking this man out of character, you are probably a very weak man yourself it sounds, and if your daughter is as weak as you I’m sure you will be safe.
Why would he want to be near your daughter. You are taking this man out of character, you are probably a very weak man yourself it sounds, and if your daughter is as weak as you I’m sure you will be safe.
I agree about self-respect. It’s the baseline for respecting others, which is the antithesis of Andrew Tate, and, i might add, his supporters/followers.
Could you be specific, please? That’s such a generalization.
Are you defending Tates alleged crimes? If so I find your morals appalling
How exactly does my not wanting a scumbag like Tate anywhere near my daughter mean that I lack self-respect?
Without knowing about the individual vulnerabilities of the girls involved, then you indeed veer dangerously near victim blaming. You’re quite right that their testimony would yield the most valuable insight into this whole sordid affair. As would that of the victims in Rotherham, in their situation.
That’s what i was getting at – to elicit analysis based upon the testimony of those females involved. It should be possible to enquire about such analysis without being thought to be victim-blaming.
Indeed, without such analysis, the Andrew Tates of this world are more likely to succeed, and would be aided by those who deem it too sensitive to look into. That’s precisely the stance taken by the police forces who allowed the grooming gangs to succeed, and by all accounts, still are succeeding. Time, therefore, to take a more courageous look at the psychology of all those involved.
The women were apparently seduced. This phenomenon, being well-known through the ages, requires no additional analysis.
But the existence of seduction is an affront to “feminist” ideology. The women can’t be equal and at the same time need protection; prostitution (being a cam girl), what is now rebranded as “sex work,” is practically a sainted pursuit.
Wisdom about choosing a mate–avoiding would-be seducers–is now “patriarchal” and this toxic.
The women were apparently seduced. This phenomenon, being well-known through the ages, requires no additional analysis.
But the existence of seduction is an affront to “feminist” ideology. The women can’t be equal and at the same time need protection; prostitution (being a cam girl), what is now rebranded as “sex work,” is practically a sainted pursuit.
Wisdom about choosing a mate–avoiding would-be seducers–is now “patriarchal” and this toxic.
That’s what i was getting at – to elicit analysis based upon the testimony of those females involved. It should be possible to enquire about such analysis without being thought to be victim-blaming.
Indeed, without such analysis, the Andrew Tates of this world are more likely to succeed, and would be aided by those who deem it too sensitive to look into. That’s precisely the stance taken by the police forces who allowed the grooming gangs to succeed, and by all accounts, still are succeeding. Time, therefore, to take a more courageous look at the psychology of all those involved.
Okay, so it is almost certainly not your intent but the way you are talking about the women who Tate took in comes across as victim blaming. All of the women who were taken in by it will be blaming themselves enough without anyone else doing it for them. But, you want to know how they “fell for it.” so here goes.
It’s not that difficult. He’s a predator and knows who to prey on. He’s not going to try to get to women who are comfortable with themselves, confident, and not suffering from low self-esteem. There would be no point, they would be highly unlikely to fall for his manipulation. Like any predator, you go for those you perceive as weak. Before I continue, you seem to be of the belief that everyone knew of his toxic masculinity. That’s not true. His reach wasn’t that wide among women and very few knew what he wanted the women he “dated” for. So, how did he do it? Boyfriend model. He’d lure them with the whole “I love you, you’re my woman, you’re my only woman, I’m your boyfriend” blah, blah, blah. The majority of men who want to get women into sexually exploitative work use this model. You pretend to love them and they are seeking affirmation in love and affection. Boom! You’ve captured your prey. If your gut feeling was right she’ll go on to do everything you want her to do. If it wasn’t, you win some you lose some. I heard an interview with a young woman he used in this way. She’d been working as a stripper, and she didn’t think much of herself, he got her to Romania, continued to be affectionate for a while, became controlling, and gave it the old “if you loved me you’d ,,,” she wasn’t allowed out of the compound and she became yet another of his cam-girls.
The whole thing was hideously simple. Thus endeth the lesson.
You make a good point.
Yes the criminal exploitation Tate is accused of will be the results of manipulation and abuse but before that point is reached, he has to attract women first. If we were to concede that toxic masculinity exists then we should also ask the question. To what extent is toxic masculinity a response to the positive feedback from women?
On a superficial level at least, toxic masculinity appears to be one of the most successful strategies a man can adopt to attract woman. As long as this is the case men like Andrew Tate will persist.
Abusive matches with low self-esteem. Depressingly common, and ti makes sense as a ‘darkside’ dynamic . People are drawn to others who treat them in ways they recognise, good or bad. Many low self esteem women/men (especially if they have been ill treated by wo/men) are drawn to a-holes, and many a peasant has scraped before their ‘betters’, grateful for groats. There is a mirroring process at work – people such as Tate have a thick seam of low self-esteem, of which they are in denial* (people with good SE do not abuse, control, steal, cheat); similarly, victims supress their good SE – they know deep down that they deserve better, and often assume that the way to getting better is to recieve the ‘medicine’ from the abuser. *I suspect this is why some high-powered men secretly like to be humiliated by madams.
I think that some women are susceptible to the delusion that they can bring about change in a man. Then there are those who are blinded by a man who is good looking with a hot body and an impressive bank account, Tate certainly has two of those attributes and some would argue he had all three!
Sometimes it seems like every man posting comments here has been thoroughly brainwashed by feminism.
The lack of self respect is sad.
Without knowing about the individual vulnerabilities of the girls involved, then you indeed veer dangerously near victim blaming. You’re quite right that their testimony would yield the most valuable insight into this whole sordid affair. As would that of the victims in Rotherham, in their situation.
Okay, so it is almost certainly not your intent but the way you are talking about the women who Tate took in comes across as victim blaming. All of the women who were taken in by it will be blaming themselves enough without anyone else doing it for them. But, you want to know how they “fell for it.” so here goes.
It’s not that difficult. He’s a predator and knows who to prey on. He’s not going to try to get to women who are comfortable with themselves, confident, and not suffering from low self-esteem. There would be no point, they would be highly unlikely to fall for his manipulation. Like any predator, you go for those you perceive as weak. Before I continue, you seem to be of the belief that everyone knew of his toxic masculinity. That’s not true. His reach wasn’t that wide among women and very few knew what he wanted the women he “dated” for. So, how did he do it? Boyfriend model. He’d lure them with the whole “I love you, you’re my woman, you’re my only woman, I’m your boyfriend” blah, blah, blah. The majority of men who want to get women into sexually exploitative work use this model. You pretend to love them and they are seeking affirmation in love and affection. Boom! You’ve captured your prey. If your gut feeling was right she’ll go on to do everything you want her to do. If it wasn’t, you win some you lose some. I heard an interview with a young woman he used in this way. She’d been working as a stripper, and she didn’t think much of herself, he got her to Romania, continued to be affectionate for a while, became controlling, and gave it the old “if you loved me you’d ,,,” she wasn’t allowed out of the compound and she became yet another of his cam-girls.
The whole thing was hideously simple. Thus endeth the lesson.
I applaud Mary for taking the trouble to try to dissect the Andrew Tate ‘thing’. I suspect we might learn a great deal more from a dissection of the many young women who’ve become involved with him.
I can understand the superficial attraction for the first few, but once his name was becoming synonymous with toxic masculinity to anyone of that age group with access to social media (i.e. everyone), why would a young woman still fall into his clutches?
I’m really not victim-blaming here. My point is this: if those young women gravitate into his circle knowing full well the likely consequences, having the benefit of the testimony of many, many other young women who believed Tate was in a real relationship with them prior to being set to work, just what is going on here?
His initial attraction to a certain group of vacuous young people may seem as old as the hills, but just how vacuous do you have to be to become embroiled in cam sex for his financial benefit? Do they really believe he’s interested in them as human beings? Do they even care? Analysis, please.
Some people seem to think is is clear/factual that he abused/misused girls/young women. I have no idea but have seen a clip featuring many who said they knew him and he would not do what he has been accused of.
So please provide some sources that back up what he is accused of. And let’s remember that, at least for now, he is still innocent.
Some people seem to think is is clear/factual that he abused/misused girls/young women. I have no idea but have seen a clip featuring many who said they knew him and he would not do what he has been accused of.
So please provide some sources that back up what he is accused of. And let’s remember that, at least for now, he is still innocent.
And yet the values of empathy, cultural discrimination, and moral compass have changed considerably over the last few decades, along with ‘warrior’ values being deprecated.
There are pluses and minuses with this change but too many ‘progressives’ regard the changes as unqualified ‘good’ and they are winning the culture wars.
And yet the values of empathy, cultural discrimination, and moral compass have changed considerably over the last few decades, along with ‘warrior’ values being deprecated.
There are pluses and minuses with this change but too many ‘progressives’ regard the changes as unqualified ‘good’ and they are winning the culture wars.
Actually, this isn’t a case of Hobson’s choice since Hobson’s choice means no choice at all. This is a dilemma—a choice between two equally bad alternatives.
Actually, this isn’t a case of Hobson’s choice since Hobson’s choice means no choice at all. This is a dilemma—a choice between two equally bad alternatives.
I really don’t see the big issue with Andrew Tate. I have watched his videos, and although some bravado in there, this is tame to what used to come out of the rock n roll era. He doesn’t promote drugs, sex and rock n roll. He is advocating for violence, but as you all have got old you believe we shouldn’t have these people like Andrew rate who resonate with younger people? Who gives you the moral authority? My son thinks he is great, and hasn’t taken anything negative towards treating women poorly, or being some arrogant misogynists. He actually speak about power of the “elites” which UnHerd just wrote about in terms of conspiracy, he calls it the matrix. He is forceful and doesn’t hold back, so what? The reason he was arrested is his points ring true with a young disenfranchised group, and this is dangerous to those elites and woke governments. We need strong men in society, who will stand up for what is wrong and protect those around them. This wasn’t even an argument 20 years ago it was a given.
I really don’t see the big issue with Andrew Tate. I have watched his videos, and although some bravado in there, this is tame to what used to come out of the rock n roll era. He doesn’t promote drugs, sex and rock n roll. He is advocating for violence, but as you all have got old you believe we shouldn’t have these people like Andrew rate who resonate with younger people? Who gives you the moral authority? My son thinks he is great, and hasn’t taken anything negative towards treating women poorly, or being some arrogant misogynists. He actually speak about power of the “elites” which UnHerd just wrote about in terms of conspiracy, he calls it the matrix. He is forceful and doesn’t hold back, so what? The reason he was arrested is his points ring true with a young disenfranchised group, and this is dangerous to those elites and woke governments. We need strong men in society, who will stand up for what is wrong and protect those around them. This wasn’t even an argument 20 years ago it was a given.
He looks stupid and humourless.
Hence his popularity.
He looks stupid and humourless.
Hence his popularity.
I feel it is grossly unfair to slur the generally harmless Alan Partridge by associating him with Andrew Tate !
I feel it is grossly unfair to slur the generally harmless Alan Partridge by associating him with Andrew Tate !
‘Butlins like war room’. I wish I’d said that, you will, you will. I very nearly didnt read the article Mary, the title said it all.
Let me on the telly, let me on the telly ……….
‘Butlins like war room’. I wish I’d said that, you will, you will. I very nearly didnt read the article Mary, the title said it all.
Let me on the telly, let me on the telly ……….
never heard of him? Is he one of the Tates who was at Ampleforth? Surely not, as he is an oik?
never heard of him? Is he one of the Tates who was at Ampleforth? Surely not, as he is an oik?
A certain section of the Right almost wants to excuse Tate and develop some justifying psycho-social rationale for his behaviour and activities.
Fact is his attitudes are just one tiny step away from the Grooming gangs we all rage against. The more muted reaction thus displaying how sometimes the colour and background of the subject distorts optics. Let’s refocus and see what he does for what it is.
A certain section of the Right almost wants to excuse Tate and develop some justifying psycho-social rationale for his behaviour and activities.
Fact is his attitudes are just one tiny step away from the Grooming gangs we all rage against. The more muted reaction thus displaying how sometimes the colour and background of the subject distorts optics. Let’s refocus and see what he does for what it is.
Well said, Mary. A lot of the boys at the school where I teach are falling for Tate’s message, but masculinity-shaming them is hardly a viable alternative, as I argue here … https://adamjwolstenholme.blogspot.com/
Thanks Adam. Some good advice there.
Thanks Adam. Some good advice there.
Well said, Mary. A lot of the boys at the school where I teach are falling for Tate’s message, but masculinity-shaming them is hardly a viable alternative, as I argue here … https://adamjwolstenholme.blogspot.com/
He just seems so empty inside.
He just seems so empty inside.
To transmogrify ( no puns to be found here ) Newton’s Third Law: For every over action, there is an equal and opposite over reaction. If that’s too cryptic for you, try this: what’s sauce for the goose is saucy for the gander. Alright, I give up, but puzzle me this: Why the industry in someone called Andrew Tate in these quarters? This is, by and large, a pretty good magazine
To transmogrify ( no puns to be found here ) Newton’s Third Law: For every over action, there is an equal and opposite over reaction. If that’s too cryptic for you, try this: what’s sauce for the goose is saucy for the gander. Alright, I give up, but puzzle me this: Why the industry in someone called Andrew Tate in these quarters? This is, by and large, a pretty good magazine
I might sound pedantic here, but Avon is not pyramid selling. The ‘Avon ladies’ are not incentivised to recruit teams etc and generally make very small amounts of money based on their own hard work. I used to be one. They are usually women just trying to do something for themselves and other women. So trying to belittle Tate through this comparison rings false to me. But, like I said, I should think that sounds pedantic! Great article, and let’s hope he stays locked up for a very long time and the young men of this world move on to someone more worthy of their attention.
I might sound pedantic here, but Avon is not pyramid selling. The ‘Avon ladies’ are not incentivised to recruit teams etc and generally make very small amounts of money based on their own hard work. I used to be one. They are usually women just trying to do something for themselves and other women. So trying to belittle Tate through this comparison rings false to me. But, like I said, I should think that sounds pedantic! Great article, and let’s hope he stays locked up for a very long time and the young men of this world move on to someone more worthy of their attention.
“…it’s hard not to feel considerable sympathy for the many young men trying to find an honourable way to exist in the world today”
How condescending can you get.
But then, how can a woman be expected to understand. I guess being condescending is the best we can expect.
You have an interesting response to Mary expressing compassion for the plight of young males today. You seem to feel this is an attack, which perhaps says it all about the plight of young males today.
Cut out the “stay in your lane” woke schit.
You have an interesting response to Mary expressing compassion for the plight of young males today. You seem to feel this is an attack, which perhaps says it all about the plight of young males today.
Cut out the “stay in your lane” woke schit.
“…it’s hard not to feel considerable sympathy for the many young men trying to find an honourable way to exist in the world today”
How condescending can you get.
But then, how can a woman be expected to understand. I guess being condescending is the best we can expect.