Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Perfect Womb: Promoting Equality of (Fetal) Opportunity

  • Symposium: Bioethics and Biopolitics: Presents and Futures of Reproduction
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to address how artificial gestation might affect equality of opportunity for the unborn and any resultant generation of “ectogenetic” babies. It will first explore the current legal obstacles preventing the development of ectogenesis, before looking at the benefits of allowing this technology to control fetal growth and development. This will open up a discussion of the treatment/enhancement divide regarding the use of reproductive technologies, a topic featured in various bioethical debates on the subject. Using current maternity practices in Western society as a comparator, this paper will conclude that neither naturally nor artificially gestated fetuses have interests that can conflict with those of potential parents who might want to use this technology to control fetal development. Such control may include selective implantation of embryos of a desired gender, deliberate choice of genetic traits, or maintenance of an ideal incubation environment to avoid fetal damage. Objections on the basis of disability as well as concerns regarding eugenics will be addressed. The paper will conclude that none of these objections are compelling grounds to prevent the development and use of ectogenesis technologies for the purpose of achieving specific reproductive goals, particularly when compared to current practices in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and selective abortion on the grounds of undesired traits. As such, when deciding whether to support ectogenesis research, the enduring interests of parents must be the primary consideration, with societal concerns regarding potential misuse the only valid secondary consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahluwalia, I.B., and K.L. Daniel. 2001. Are women with recent live births aware of the benefits of folic acid? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Recommendations and Reports, May 11.

  • Alghrani, A., and M. Brazier. 2011. What is it? Whose it? Re-positioning the fetus in the context of research? Cambridge Law Journal 70(1): 51–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 1994. Committee opinion: Committee on ethics. Preembryo research: History, scientific background, and ethical considerations. International Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics 45: 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arens, J., M. Schoberer, A. Lohr, et al. 2011. NeonatOx: A pumpless extracorporeal lung support for premature neonates. Artificial Organs 35(11): 997–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2016. 3301.1—Births, Australia, 2015.

  • Bayne, T., and A. Kolers. 2003. Toward a pluralist account of parenthood. Bioethics 17(3): 221–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict, M.D., S.A. Missmer, A. Vahratian, et al. 2011. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure is associated with increased risk of failed implantation and reduced IVF success. Human Reproduction 26(9): 2525–2531.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Binns, C. 2009. The shark factory: An artificial uterus gives an endangered species a shot at survival. Popular Science 275(1): 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, C., and R. Williamson. 2003. Is there an ethical difference between pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and abortion? Journal of Medical Ethics 29(2): 90–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cannold, L. 1995. Women, ectogenesis and ethical theory. Journal of Applied Philosophy 12(1): 55–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.S. 2009. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. The Hastings Center Report 39(2): 24–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deglincerti, A., G.F. Croft, L.N. Pietila, et al. 2016. Self organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature 533: 251–254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, S. 1970. The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, L. 1999. Prenatal diagnosis and discrimination against the disabled. Journal of Medical Ethics 25(2): 163–171.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Glenzer, J. 2014. Pregnant woman’s drug use equivalent to “child abuse”, court says. The Guardian, December 13. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/12/pregnant-womans-drug-use-equivalent-to-child-abuse-court-says. Accessed June 6, 2015.

  • Green, R.M. 2008. Are babies by design in our future? Personalized Medicine 5(3): 273–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, H.L. 2008. Surfactants: Past, present and future. Journal of Perinatology 28: S47–S56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 2001. One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics 27(6): 383–387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, K. 2010. Did Christine Taylor take abortion into her own hands? CBSnews, March 2, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-christine-taylor-take-abortion-into-her-own-hands/. Accessed June 6, 2015.

  • Heriot, M.J. 1996. Fetal rights versus the female body: Contested domains. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 10(2): 176–194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hofferth, S.L., L. Reid, and F.L. Mott. 2001. The effects of early childbearing on schooling over time. Family Planning Perspectives 33(6): 259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, M. 2010. Ethics and ectogenesis. Australian Nursing Journal 33(11): 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D.G. 1984. Brave new people: Ethical issues at the commencement of life. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal, E. 2015. Equal opportunity and the case for state sponsored ectogenesis. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knapton, S. 2016. Human embryos kept alive in lab for unprecedented 13 days so scientists can watch development. The Telegraph Science, May 4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/04/human-embryos-kept-alive-in-lab-for-unprecedented-13-days-so-sci/. Accessed June 29, 2016.

  • Loane, M., J.K. Morris, M.C. Addor, et al. 2013. Twenty-year trends in the prevalence of Down Syndrome and other trisomies in Europe: Impact of maternal age and prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics 21(1): 27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, T.J., and B.E. Hamilton. 2016. Mean age of mothers is on the rise: United States, 2000–2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHS Data Brief no. 232, January.

  • McMahan, J. 2005. Causing disabled people to exist and causing people to be disabled. Ethics 116(1): 77–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, J. 2016. Council to consider the “14 day rule” in embryo research. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Press Release May 4. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/news/2016/council-14-day-rule-embryo-research/Accessed June 29, 2016.

  • Murphy, J. 1989. Is pregnancy necessary? Feminist concerns about ectogenesis. Hypatia 4(3): 66–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T.F. 2010. When choosing the traits of children is hurtful to others. Journal of Medical Ethics 37(2): 105–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Otway, N., and M. Ellis. 2012. Construction and test of an artificial uterus for ex situ development of shark embryos. Zoo Biology 31(2): 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parliament of Australia. 2006. Prohibition of human cloning for reproduction and the regulation of human embryo research amendment Act 2006, no. 172: 1–33.

  • Pence, G. 2006. What’s so good about natural motherhood? (In praise of unnatural gestation). In Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction, edited by S. Gelfand and J. R. Shook, 77–78. New York: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, E. 2012. Indiana prosecuting Chinese woman for suicide attempt that killed her foetus. The Guardian, May 31. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/30/indiana-prosecuting-chinese-woman-suicide-foetus. Accessed June 6, 2015.

  • Sandel, M. 2014. The case against perfection. In Society, ethics, & technology, 5th ed., edited by M. Winston and R. Edelbach, 343–354. Boston: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5–6): 413–426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, L.M. 1998. Remaking Eden: Cloning, genetic engineering and the future of humankind? London: Phoenix Giant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonstein, F., and M. Mashiach-Eizenberg. 2009. The artificial womb: A pilot study considering people’s views on the artificial womb and ectogenesis in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18(1): 87–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P., and D. Wells. 2006. Ectogenesis. In Ectogenesis: Artificial womb technology and the future of human reproduction, edited by S. Gelfand and J. R. Shook, 9–26. New York: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A. 2007. The moral imperative for ectogenesis. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 16(3): 336–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, E. 2010. Not of woman born: How ectogenesis will change the way we view viability, birth, and the status of the unborn. Journal of Law and Health 23: 143–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, L. 2008. Fetal surgery for neural tube defects. Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 22(1): 175–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.A. 1986. Making babies: The new science and ethics of conception by Peter Singer; Deane Wells. Ethics 97(1): 288–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A.D. 2008. Wrongful selection: Assisted reproductive technologies, intentional diminishment, and the procreative right. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 25(3): 475–502.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Centre Level 5, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, 3000, Australia

    Evie Kendal

Authors
  1. Evie Kendal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evie Kendal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kendal, E. The Perfect Womb: Promoting Equality of (Fetal) Opportunity. Bioethical Inquiry 14, 185–194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9775-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9775-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation