[Dig1t]

The cost to have one child via surrogacy is about 200k right now. That is simply not an option for the vast majority of people. Some people go that much into debt just for the chance to have one child.

There is massive upside here, people who suffer from fertility problems could actually have a shot at having a child. Same goes for gay people.

Every technology is dual-use, but this one strikes me as absolutely worth it.

For people worried about baby factories: this is already possible via surrogacy with humans, especially is 3rd world countries. Yet it’s not a problem, there’s no evidence that evil billionaires want or need to grow an army of slaves via surrogates. You still have to get sperm and eggs from a woman (the hardest part honestly, it can take many rounds under anesthesia to get enough for just a few viable eggs) and that is already a well regulated process. If you are an evil billionaire and want an army of slaves you are much better off just buying robots and paying some already alive adult humans to do your bidding.

[didibus]

Like with most technologies of this sort, I think it's often a matter of how well does it work.

But is it even ethical here to attempt to develop this? How many failed attempts does it take to refine it?

If the tech can magically spawn of nowhere and create totally healthy at birth and later in life children, I'm sure people will get used to the idea of it.

But the path to get there seems unethical.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

Judging by similar things like stem cells or cloning, if it causes serious issues for even a small number of children, it will turn public opinion against the tech overnight.