Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?

Main Article Content

Michal Pruski
Richard C. Playford

Abstract

Ectogenesis (artificial wombs) might soon become a reality. This paper will analyse how the development of such technologies will affect Judith Jarvis Thomson’s defence of abortion, and what the potential consequences of this will be for society. Thomson attempts to justify abortion by appealing to the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. We will argue that once these technologies have been developed, the right to abortion can no longer be justified by  such appeals. As a result, when justifying abortion, Thomson-style arguments will no longer work, and a very different strategy will have to be adopted by those wishing to justify its permissibility. Anticipating a consequent weaker position of the pro-choice view, we briefly consider some of the practical implications of ectogenesis for society: effects on parental dynamics, governmental expenditure, research, and gender equality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Pruski, Michal, and Richard C. Playford. (2022) 2022. “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?”. Diametros 19 (73):35-53. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1794.
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Richard C. Playford, Leeds Trinity University

ORCID: 0000-0003-3879-1357

Share |

References

Adams S. (2021), “Surge in 999 Calls Over at Home Abortions After NHS Controversially Started Sending Powerful Pills by Post,” URL = https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958219/Surge-999-calls-home-abortions.html [Accessed 06.09.2021].
View in Google Scholar

Barraclough C. (2017), “Piecing Together the Pain of Loss for Men After Abortion,” URL = https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/corrine-barraclough-piecing-together-the-pain-of-loss-for-men-after-abortion/news-story/b9aed53e9a1977b0496633a669ee14f1 [Accessed 10.03.2019].
View in Google Scholar

Blackshaw B.P., Rodger D. (2019), “Ectogenesis and the Case Against the Right to the Death of the Foetus,” Bioethics 33 (1): 76–81.
View in Google Scholar

Bostrom N. (2005), “Transhumanist Values,” Journal of Philosophical Research 30 (Issue Supplement, Ethical Issues for the Twenty-First Century): 3–14.
View in Google Scholar

Brake E. (2005), “Fatherhood and Child Support: Do Men Have a Right to Choose?,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1): 55–73.
View in Google Scholar

Britannica (n.d.), “Patria Potestas (Roman Law),” URL = https://www.britannica.com/topic/patria-potestas [Accessed 11.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Cable A. (2018), “The Tiniest Survivor: How the ‘Miracle’ Baby Born Two Weeks Before the Legal Abortion Limit Clung to Life Against all Odds,” URL = https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html [Accessed 07.03.2019].
View in Google Scholar

Camosy C.C. (2022), “The Right to a Dead Baby? Abortion, Ableism, and the Question of Autonomy,” URL = https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/04/81840/ [Accessed 10.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Cha A.E., Wax-Thibodeaux E. (2019), “Man Allowed to Sue Abortion Clinic on Behalf of Unborn Foetus ‘For First Time in US History’,” URL = https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alabama-abortion-lawsuit-foetus-girlfriend-madison-county-a8811576.html [Accessed 08.06.2019].
View in Google Scholar

Cohen I.G. (2008), “The Right Not to Be a Genetic Parent?,” Southern California Law Review 81 (6): 1115–1196.
View in Google Scholar

Colgrove N. (2019), “Subjects of Ectogenesis: Are ‘Gestatelings’ Fetuses, Newborns or Neither?,” Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11): 723–726.
View in Google Scholar

Crary D. (2017), “As Number of Adoptions Drops, Many US Agencies Face Strains,” URL = https://apnews.com/article/b9f77e34d24c4303af5d601d960dd661 [Accessed 11.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Delhove J., Osenk I., Prichard I., Donnelley M. (2020), “Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review,” Human Gene Therapy 31 (1–2): 20–46.
View in Google Scholar

Department of Health & Social Care (2018), “Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2017,” URL = https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/763174/2017-abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-revised.pdf [Accessed 02.05.2020].
View in Google Scholar

Department of Work & Pensions (2022), “Child Maintenance Service Statistics: Data to December 2021 (Experimental),” URL = https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/child-maintenance-service-statistics-data-to-december-2021-experimental [Accessed 12.08.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Di Nucci E. (2014), “Fathers and Abortion,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 39 (4): 444–458.
View in Google Scholar

Eberl J.T. (2020), The Nature of Human Persons: Metaphysics and Bioethics (1st edition), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
View in Google Scholar

Furedi A. (2008), “Are There Too Many Abortions?,” Abortion Review, special edition 2 (Abortion and Women’s Lives): 3–7.
View in Google Scholar

Gelfand S., Shook J.R. (2006), Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction, Rodopi, Amsterdam.
View in Google Scholar

Harris G.W. (1986), “Fathers and Fetuses,” Ethics 96 (3): 594–603.
View in Google Scholar

Howard J. (2017), “Born Before 22 Weeks, ‘Most Premature’ Baby is Now Thriving,” URL = https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/health/premature-baby-21-weeks-survivor-profile/index.html [Accessed 12.08.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Huxley A. (2008), Brave New World (media tie-in edition), Vintage Digital, London.
View in Google Scholar

Kaczor C. (2018), “Ectogenesis and a Right to the Death of the Prenatal Human Being:
View in Google Scholar

A Reply to Räsänen,” Bioethics 32 (9): 634–638.
View in Google Scholar

Kaplanoglu M., Bulbul M., Kaplanoglu D., Bakacak S.M. (2015), “Effect of Multiple Repeat Cesarean Sections on Maternal Morbidity: Data from Southeast Turkey,” Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research 21: 1447–1453.
View in Google Scholar

Kendal E. (2015), “Promoting Equal Opportunity Through Ectogenesis,” [in:] Equal Opportunity and the Case for State Sponsored Ectogenesis, E. Kendal (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, London: 43–61.
View in Google Scholar

Khazan O. (2021), “The New Question Haunting Adoption,” URL = https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/ [Accessed 11.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Kingma E., Finn S. (2020), “Neonatal Incubator or Artificial Womb? Distinguishing Ectogestation and Ectogenesis Using the Metaphysics of Pregnancy,” Bioethics 34 (4): 354–363.
View in Google Scholar

Mackenzie C. (1992), “Abortion and Embodiment,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70 (2): 136–155.
View in Google Scholar

Marie Stopes AU (2016), “Understanding your options: surgical abortion vs medical abortion,” URL = https://www.mariestopes.org.au/your-choices/surgical-abortion-vs-medical-abortion/ [Accessed 10.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Mathison E., Davis J. (2017), “Is There a Right to the Death of the Foetus?,” Bioethics 31 (4): 313–320.
View in Google Scholar

McCaig C.D., Rajnicek A., Song B., Zhao M. (2005), “Controlling Cell Behavior Electrically: Current Views and Future Potential,” Physiological Reviews 85 (3): 943–978.
View in Google Scholar

McCulley M.G. (1998), “The Male Abortion: The Putative Father’s Right to Terminate His Interests in and Obligations to the Unborn Child,” Journal of Law and Policy 7 (1): 1–55.
View in Google Scholar

Metelo-Coimbra C., Roncon-Albuquerque R. (2016), “Artificial Placenta: Recent Advances and Potential Clinical Applications,” Pediatric Pulmonology 51 (6): 643–649.
View in Google Scholar

Mychaliska G. (2016), “The Artificial Placenta: Is Clinical Translation Next?,” Pediatric Pulmonology 51 (6): 557–559.
View in Google Scholar

Neal M. (2019), “Conscientious Objection, ‘Proper Medical Treatment’, and Professionalism: The Limits of Accommodation for Conscience in Healthcare,” [in:] Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State, J. Adenitire (ed.), Hart Publishing, Cambridge: 135–156.
View in Google Scholar

NHS (2016), “Abortion: Risks,” URL = https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/risks/ [Accessed: 17.08.2016].
View in Google Scholar

NHS (2020), “Abortion – What happens,” URL = https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/what-happens/ [Accessed: 10.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

NICE (2019), “Abortion Before 14 Weeks: Choosing Between Medical or Surgical Abortion – Decision Aid [part of NG 140]: Abortion Care,” URL = https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng140/resources/abortion-before-14-weeks-choosing-between-medical-or-surgical-abortion-patient-decision-aid-pdf-6906582255 [Accessed: 11.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

NICE (2019), “Caesarean Section [CG132],” URL = https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132/ifp/chapter/Risks-of-caesarean-section [Accessed 16.12.2019].
View in Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016), “Topic Summary: Artificial Wombs (Ectogenesis),” URL = http://nuffieldbioethics.org/future-work/future-work-topics-2015/topic-summary-artificial-wombs-ectogenesis [Accessed 07.03.2019].
View in Google Scholar

Oderberg D.S. (2008), “The Metaphysical Status of the Embryo: Some Arguments Revisited,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (4): 263–276.
View in Google Scholar

Overall C. (2015), “Rethinking Abortion, Ectogenesis, and Fetal Death,” Journal of Social Philosophy 46 (1): 126–140.
View in Google Scholar

Partridge E.A., Davey M.G., Hornick M.A., McGovern P.E., Mejaddam A.Y., Vrecenak J.D., Mesas-Burgos C., Olive A., Caskey R.C., Weiland T.R., Han J., Schupper A.J., Connelly J.T., Dysart K.C., Rychik J., Hedrick H.L., Peranteau W.H., Flake A.W. (2017), “An Extra-Uterine System to Physiologically Support the Extreme Premature Lamb,” Nature Communications 8: 15112.
View in Google Scholar

Playford R.C. (2018), “Elective Abandonment: A Male Counterpart to Abortion,” The New Bioethics 24 (2): 122–134.
View in Google Scholar

Pruski M. (2017), “The Relationship of Gametes to Those Who Procreate and Its Impact on Artificially Generated Gamete Technologies,” Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics 33 (1): 27–41.
View in Google Scholar

Pruski M. (2019a), “Double Effect & Ectopic Pregnancy – Some Problems,” The Catholic Medical Quarterly 69 (2): 17–20.
View in Google Scholar

Pruski M. (2019b), “What Demarks the Metamorphosis of Human Individuals to Posthuman Entities?,” The New Bioethics 25 (1): 3–23.
View in Google Scholar

Pruski M., Hu L., Yang C., Wang Y., Zhang J.-B., Zhang L., Huang Y., Rajnicek A.M., St Clair D., McCaig C.D., Lang B., Ding Y.-Q. (2019), “Roles for IFT172 and Primary Cilia in Cell Migration, Cell Division, and Neocortex Development,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 7: 287.
View in Google Scholar

Pruski M., Whitehouse D., Bow S. (2022), “The Right to Choose to Abort an Abortion: Should Pro-Choice Advocates Support Abortion Pill Reversal?,” The New Bioethics 28 (3): 252–267.
View in Google Scholar

Räsänen J. (2017), “Ectogenesis, Abortion and a Right to the Death of the Fetus,” Bioethics 31 (9): 697–702.
View in Google Scholar

Reader S. (2008), “Abortion, Killing, and Maternal Moral Authority,” Hypatia 23 (1): 132–149.
View in Google Scholar

Rhonheimer M. (2009), Vital Conflicts in Medical Ethics: A Virtue Approach to Craniotomy and Tubal Pregnancies, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C.
View in Google Scholar

Rodger D., Colgrove N., Blackshaw B.P. (2021), “Gestaticide: Killing the Subject of the Artificial Womb,” Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12): e53.
View in Google Scholar

Romanis E.C. (2018), “Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications,” Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11): 751–755.
View in Google Scholar

Segers S. (2021), “The Path Toward Ectogenesis: Looking Beyond the Technical Challenges,” BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1): 59.
View in Google Scholar

Sheldon S. (2003), “Unwilling Fathers and Abortion: Terminating Men’s Child Support Obligations?,” Modern Law Review 66 (2): 175–194.
View in Google Scholar

Singer P., Wells D. (1984), The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies, Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar

Smikle C., Yarrarapu S.N.S., Khetarpal S. (2020), “Asherman Syndrome,” [in:] StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL).
View in Google Scholar

Stevenson R. (2019), My Body My Choice: The Fight for Abortion Rights: 2 (illustrated edition), Orca Book Publishers, British Columbia.
View in Google Scholar

Taylor G., Galichet C. (2021), “Current Capabilities for Human Genome Editing: Report for the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Developing Global Standards for Governance and Oversight of Human Genome Editing,” URL = https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1371696/retrieve [Accessed 11.06.2022].
View in Google Scholar

Thomson J.J. (1971), “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.
View in Google Scholar

Warren M.A. (1973), “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” The Monist 57 (1): 43–61.
View in Google Scholar

Willmott C. (2022), “On the Scientific Plausibility of Transhumanism,” [in:] The Ethics of Generating Posthumans, C. MacKellar, T. Stammers (eds.), Bloomsbury Academic, London: 77–89.
View in Google Scholar