Ectogenesis and the Right to Life Discussion Note on Pruski and Playford’s, “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?”
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In this discussion note on Michal Pruski and Richard C. Playford’s “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?,” I consider whether the prospect of ectogenesis technology would make abortion impermissible. I argue that a Thomson-style defense may not become inapplicable due to the right to life being conceived as a negative right. Further, if Thomson-style defenses do become inapplicable, those who claim that ectogenesis would be an obligatory alternative to abortion cannot do so without first showing that fetuses have a right to life, something that Thomson assumed rather than argued for. I also include a discussion on ethical problems concerning what to do about children born from artificial wombs put there by those who looked to terminate their pregnancies because they sought to avoid parenthood.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Berens A.E., Nelson C.A. (2015), “The Science of Early Adversity: Is There a Role for Large
Institutions in the Care of Vulnerable Children?,” The Lancet 386 (9991): 388–398.
Blackshaw B.P., Rodger D. (2019) “Ectogenesis and the Case against the Right to the Death of the Foetus,” Bioethics 33 (1): 76–81.
Kaczor C.R. (2010), The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, Routledge, New York.
Lumos (2017a), “Children in Institutions: The Global Picture,” URL = https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2017/03/Global_Numbers.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
Lumos (2017b), “Children in Institutions: The Risks,” URL = https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2017/03/Factsheet_Lumos_Risks.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
Pruski M., Playford R.C. (2022), “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?,” Diametros 19 (73): 35–53.
Rodger D. (2021), “Why Ectogestation Is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate:
A Discussion of ‘Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion’,” Philosophy & Technology 34 (4): 1929–1935.
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.
Simkulet W. (2020) “Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (2): 93–98.
Thomson J.J. (1971), “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2021), “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FY 2011–FY 2020,” URL = https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/trends-fostercare-adoption-11thru20.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
World Health Organization (2021) “Abortion,” URL= https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion [Accessed 17.12.2022].