The controversy over artificial wombs

iven that birth rates in advanced countries are well below replacement rates, what if science could invent an artificial womb? If the alternative is extinction, it is something we might have to face in the near future.

The term for it is ectogestation, which is the gestation of a fetus outside its normal envir­on­ment. It's the natural extension of IVF (in vitro fertilization). The technology, known as artificial womb technology (AWT), artificial amnion and placenta technology (AAPT), or artificial placenta and artificial womb (APAW), isn't there yet, but it's becoming a big topic for discussion among bioethicists.

Awww, so cuuuuuute!

There are at least two conflicting trains of thought. One is that AWT could eliminate the justification for elective abortion. Another is that AWT could render humans dependent on technology for survival or even usher in a dystopic world of experimentation and eugenics. For feminists, the question is: is this liberating to women, or is it a way for persons of patri­arch­iness to erase pregnant persons, whatever that may be, altogether? Or is there a difference?

The justification for erasing (or replacing) “pregnant persons” was kicked off with a 2018 article by Elizabeth Chloe Romanis ^[1] who coined the term “ges­tate­lings,” meaning persons undergoing gest­ation . . . persons of gesta­tion­ness . . . fetuses. This led in 2019 to a special issue of Bioethics on the “Ethics of Ectogenesis.”

A replacement for abortion?

One train of thought is that AWT will eliminate the justification for elective abortion or maybe do away with abortion altogether. Some will see this as a great thing, but others are terrified of the idea. One author named Elselijn Kingma asked: ^[2]

What pregnant person [sic] has not wished—albeit only briefly—that they could leave their “body in its bulk and weight”; or that she could “park her fetus on a shelf” and run, drink, smoke, jump, dance, work or make love ad libitum, free from the risks, burdens and moral and physical constraints that actual gestation entails?

The author of this strange paper refers to herself in the third person and credits herself as a “source of inspiration.” Self-aggrandizement aside, the main concern in the paper is the metaphysical question of whether the ‘gestateling’ is still a body part:

After birth, by contrast, although the (formerly) pregnant person usually still has some say over the neonate, they no longer have a say on grounds of their bodily autonomy.

The prospect of using technology to eliminate abortion might seem like a perfect solution to our current debate, but it terrifies some people. Christopher Stratman wrote in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences ^[3] that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision “will likely culminate in additional threats to core freedoms.” Stratman is hopeful that this technology will never be viable and even if it is, “societies ought to implement any new legal prohibitions on a pregnant person's ability to obtain an abortion that results in fetal death.” The reasoning seems to be that anti-abortion is “misogynistic and immoral” and ectogestation threatens a pregnant person's right to ensure that the fetus dies.

There are several other papers echoing these sentiments, and I admit I have trouble understanding the argument. Calling for the death of a fetus is not something we would ever see in a real scientific journal.

A replacement for women?

Stratman isn't the only academic with bad ideas. Joona Räsänen says aloud ^[4] what some men may already be thinking:

For a long time, the discussion of the ethics of ectogenesis has focused on women and their reproductive liberation. However, since in many countries, an increasing number of men in reproductive age face difficulties in finding a partner and lack access to other forms of assisted reproduction, it is men who need ectogestation the most.

The idea is that if women won't fulfill their biological role, we guys may have to step in with technology. I suppose there is some merit to this idea: Men have been systematically deprived of the right to raise children, as if men don't have the same drive as “formerly pregnant persons” to perpetuate the species, play catch with the kids, and teach them how to change car tires. The stereotype that males only care about sex is extremely damaging.

Medori et al. ^[5] are having none of it:

Medical professionals agree that the natural mother-child connection is beneficial to both the mother and the child: a fundamental and physical trust is built between the two persons during the nine-month gestation period, a bond that is not only emotional, but also physiological, thanks to the flow of hormones. By design, the use of artificial wombs breaks this relationship, and the long-term effects of this extreme practice are difficult to predict. The use of artificial wombs thus threatens the very idea of motherhood.

The concern is that the gestateling is not only deprived of social contact but will have to be treated with a variety of antibodies, hormones, and other biomolecules. There would still be a need for vaccinations after birth, as the 1600 genes that are involved in a human's two immune systems (the innate system, which includes the complement system, macro­phages, NK cells, and neutrophils; and the adaptive system, which produces antibodies, B cells, and killer T cells) don't fully develop until after the first year of life.^[6]

Techno-dystopia

As a civilization becomes more technological, humans have a tendency to discount our biological selves. Today if it were possible to transfer our minds into computers, a great many humans would do so without hesitation. But it's a risky strategy: when an advanced civilization collapses, as ours surely will, citizens will find themselves unable to manu­fac­ture the necessary technology. Biology automatically eliminates functions that aren't used. This is why we can't make vitamin C: scientists hypothesize that humans adapted to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables and our enzyme L-gulonolactone oxidase was no longer needed. The same will happen to our ability to reproduce biologically. As always, humans should be careful what they wish for.

Some might be inclined to say that losing that enzyme is one more thing we can blame women for. It's been hypothesized that their increased ability to discriminate shades of red evolved to help them find fruits and vegetables. Maybe they did their job too well.

Ectogestation, critics would say, is merely one more step toward borgification and utter dependence on advanced technology for human survival. Based on what we read in the papers, extinction seems to be what people want; maybe it's all that interbreeding with lemmings they did in the last ice age. On the other hand, we may have no choice. Maybe it's lucky that males are genetically programmed to be so darn good at building machines.

jun 20 2024, 6:46 am