Last week I have described how I think it would be plausible for us to see in the near future the coming up of partial, and eventually complete ectogenesis, which can be described has nurturing an embryo into a full grow foetus outside the natural womb. Since this is something that will likely become more and more plausible as the techniques for caring about premature babies get more and more sophisticated, it will raise an array of ethical concerns.
On the good side, and it will likely be one of its least controversial applications, it will allow to pretty much save any pregnancy from ending in a miscarriage if the foetus is healthy. While that might seem like a no brainer, even that aspect will require some moral thinking. Miscarriage tend to happen for a reason. Basically, in a natural womb, the foetus is having a fight with the mother’s womb in order to keep residency. If the foetus is too weak, the mom will “win” the fight and reject the baby. This brings into question about the ethics of raising a “weak” baby, one that “nature” would have eliminated. We could hypothesise that in many cases, it will simply be a matter of the mother’s body overreacting and rejecting the baby without any reason, but in those cases where it is actually caused by a weaker foetus, what should be done about it? There might still be a rejection from the natural womb, which would be one of the knacks that we would have to control properly, but what about that moment when we can nurture any foetus, no matter how damaged, into being born? This will bring the perilous ethical concern where a doctor is going to be forced to take the decision on whether the baby should live or not. And if it should live, is it right to let a damaged human into the world while knowing that “nature” would have let go of it before birth? This is a case that will depend on whether you consider the foetus a human being or not, and if you consider you have a moral duty to save them or not. One thing is sure, this subject will have to be discussed, and it will most likely be one of the earliest discussions to happen as technology makes it easier and easier to “save” a prematurely born baby.
Which brings to the next moral issue that such a technology might bring, and that is the issue of what is going to happen with abortion? Unlike in the case of a miscarriage, the chances are that the foetus can be saved will be much higher, therefore changing the dynamics of the debate between “abortion or complete carriage” and turning it into a debate of what should be done with the aborted foetus. While I expect that many people among the “pro-lifers” will still be strongly biased toward the mother keeping the child at any cost, there will likely be a faction that will start advocating for saving every foetus that has been removed through abortion by ectogenesis. Under some consideration, if the ethical imperative for allowing abortion is that women should have absolute choice over their own body, then it could be interpreted that once out of her body, the foetus is no longer hers and has become an independent human being that should be saved, especially if it is still healthy enough to have a normal development. However, I believe that many of the classical arguments from the abortion debate will still hold: What about the trauma of raped women who will live in the knowledge that the child of their aggressor is out there? What about the life of the child who is going to grow without parents? Is it really wise to live in a world that would generate so many orphans? I personally believe that such an issue could be solved with a solution comparable to the “unplugging” of a comatose patient: Where the family has legal ground to “unplug” such a dependant patient, a mother should have the choice not to use the services of an artificial womb. All these elements lead me to believe that the debate about abortion, while transformed by technology, will still be present.
On a more positive ground, complete ectogenesis would provide a lot of opportunities to people who can’t bear children. Whether it is for a single infertile person or for an infertile couple (gay or straight), this technology will allow bypassing the ethical issues of surrogacy and let these people have a child of their own. While there is no doubt that there will be people who will object to it on the ground that “A child should know the warmth of a mother”, I’m pretty sure every physical elements of a mother’s womb can be simulated to ensure that the foetus is as stimulated as it would have been in a natural one. When it comes to the link between mother and child, I am convinced that it would be possible for parents to visit the growing foetus on a regular basis. If seeing your unborn child slowly turning into a human being with your own eyes doesn’t create a strong bond between parents and children, I don’t know what will. The idea that it takes a woman’s “magic” for a child to grow normally has more ground in mysticism than anything else as long as the technique allows for a good enough reproduction of the natural womb. One legit concern could be that an uncaring parent, or a separating couple, could simply decide to abandon the child to the hospital and never show up on pick up day. However, such an issue would be easily solved by a legally constraining contract that would force any parent who takes the service to care for the child. The one issue that I think would be the most concerning is that of the availability of the technique. If the costs are high, it is likely that only the wealthy will have access to such a technology, therefore making the gap between the rich and the poor class even higher. In my opinion, a society that has the technical means for ectogenesis should also have the social means to make it available to anyone who needs it.
Finally, I think that the most revolutionary application of such a technology, if truly made available for everyone, is to give the potential to any woman to have a child without the health and economic burden of pregnancy. While it would still be necessary to care for the child once it were born, I believe that removing women as essential for child rearing has the potential to dramatically change the way society sees the place of women and would do a lot to bring equality in man-woman relationships. The symbol of child bearing has been repeatedly used to mysticise and oppress women into being the only people capable of child care and such a technology would go a long way to prove that line of thinking wrong. In my opinion, this could possibly be the greatest benefit that ectogenesis would bring to society.
In conclusion, ectogenesis is a procedure that would create many ethical debates among society, but in the end, if it is given as an option to every potential parent, I believe it has the potential to change de world for the better.
the transhumanist chick 
Me thinks the abortion debate could get a turn for the very sour indeed. Let us imagine that ectogenesis becomes an available possibility that is at least as reliable as endogenesis, then, many people, myself included, would conceivably want to get a surgery to become mechanically infertile, at around the same age as I would get my hepatitis B vaccine, because it would be an entirely reasonable choice to avoid unwanted pregnancies, given that I would be possible to retrieve gametes directly from my gonads in a fertility clinic.
However, it would still be valid for a person, to not get such a surgery, for whatever reason. But let’s say then that such a person would then get an unwanted pregnancy, then some assholes would conceivably argue the flawed, yet unfortunately compelling proposition that, «if they didn’t get their fertility fixed when they were 7, then, in their foolishness, they deserve to get pregnant», much in the same way today’s assholes claim that «people who fail to use contraception and get pregnant deserve their fate and shouldn’t be allowed an abortion».
….
Aside from considerations that involve assholes, I believe that the right question to ask is : is a parent-less life, on average, a life worth living ? Is a person conceived in violence and unwanted by their parents statistically likely to live a life filled with [whatever it is that makes life worth living] to the extent that it counterbalances the setback of the conditions of their conception ?
If the answer to that question is «yes», then the ethical decision to take is to allow every life conceived in violence a chance at existence, provided that the net life worth of that person’s life doesn’t exceed the net loss of value in that person’s conceiver’s own life. This wouldn’t be a change from the current ethical considerations.
What does change is that the availability of ectogenesis substantially decreases the expected loss of value from the conceiver’s own life, to the extent, I think, where it might be possible to see the conditions where enforcing ectogenesis for rape-children would contribute to a net gain in life-value for the world.
Opponents to this viewpoint could contest this argument because it implies a commitment to a consequentialist or a welfarist conception of ethics – a conception that suffers from some aphorical philosophical problems. Opponents to welfarism usually endorse a virtue-based or duty-based conception of ethics. However, even proponent of virtue-ethics or deontologism accept that «a good person acts in such a way as to cause good consequences» and that there is such a thing as a «duty to promote good and make lives that are worth living». So it is not clear that challenging welfarism can really avoid the question.
Yet, it is possible to argue that an embryo is committing a grave moral fault by threatening to destroy a large amount of welfare from the life of their endogenitor. A moral fault so dire that it is deserving of death should their endogenitor so choose. Such a claim would then need to argue that an embryo has some degree of moral responsibility over their own existence – a challenging and controversial proposition, to be sure, but one that can still be done.
LikeLike
There is another pro-choice argument that I suspect is more felt than expressed, the right of a mother to determine whether she has a child, without regard for any physical rights to control of her body, and even if she and her presumed partner are spared the time, expense, emotional involvement of raising that child.
We already face the ethical dilemma of life support for premature babies. We can keep them alive at ever-younger ages, but the earlier the birth, the greater the likelihood and severity of developmental damage and lifelong disability. The tendency is to save a life at any cost, to us or to it. Should this be a parent’s choice, rather than a doctor or politician’s?
Ectogenetic (?) technology, universally available through a public system such as that in Quebec, would perhaps reduce class differences. But ironically, extant class differences will delay this technology. One can already rent a proven womb in India for around $3000.
Ian
LikeLike
I have mentioned in the first post to my blog “Transhumanism and social activism” that contraception could be seen as one example where technology served a clear humanistic purpose by freeing women from the burden of forced motherhood. And as Annaelle has mentioned above, such a technology, coupled with efficient pluripotent cell induction could allow for every human who desires it to chose to become completely infertile and have 100% control on when and how they wish to have children.
And yes, the dilemma might become more and more pronounced as technology will evolve. However, I also believe that technology could allow for the dilemma not to be one by putting the means to fix the potential problems to a fetus before they become serious. Ectogenesis would likely be much more efficient at keeping a fetus safe from harm than the current neonatal technology presently allows. There is then the issue of any harm that might be done between the moment when the danger of miscarriage is detected and when the fetus is safely displaced into an artificial womb.
Hurray to you third point. My only hope is that we will shift into a more collective type of society as we slowly discover the potential of human endeavor.
LikeLike