Watching that video made me realize something, the concept of artificial wombs sounds like it's something you'd have a hard time selling today. Overcoming the barrier to acceptance is the hard part. But that's because we imagine the changeover being sudden, e.g. the machine completely replacing women overnight, to which there could be public or legislative resistance.
But what if we stick premature babies into them to finish gestating? That's a clear pathway for the things to come into regular use, and you're going to see the tech ending up on TV with feel-good news stories like we do with current incubators. Except the artificial wombs sound like you could put much more premature babies into them, meaning many more babies saved, and it even becomes an option that if someone is having an abortion, the fetus can go into an artificial womb instead. So if the tech works for that, then it's inevitable that it's going to be available and used for much earlier babies, which just naturally segues into babies incubated for the entire 9 months, and most likely already starting to happen before people have had time to properly debate the ethics.
But then again IVF was sort of like that. There was a huge row about it, but they were like "we're already doing it, get over it" so people just got used to the idea.