Reviewing the womb

Abstract

Throughout most of human history women have been defined by their biological role in reproduction, seen first and foremost as gestators, which has led to the reproductive system being subjected to outside interference. The womb was perceived as dangerous and an object which husbands, doctors and the state had a legitimate interest in controlling. In this article, we consider how notions of conflict surrounding the womb have endured over time. We demonstrate how concerns seemingly generated by the invisibility of reproduction and the inaccessibility of the womb have translated into similar arguments for controlling women, as technology increases the accessibility of the female body and the womb. Developments in reproductive medicine, from in vitro fertilisation (IVF) to surrogacy, have enabled women and men who would otherwise have been childless to become parents. Uterus transplants and ‘artificial wombs’ could provide additional alternatives to natural gestation. An era of ‘womb technology’ dawns. Some argue that such technology providing an alternative to ‘natural’ gestation could be a source of liberation for female persons because reproduction will no longer be something necessarily confined to the female body. ‘Womb technology’, however, also has the potential to exacerbate the labelling of the female body as a source of danger and an ‘imperfect’ site of gestation, thus replaying rudimentary and regressive arguments about controlling female behaviour. We argue that pernicious narratives about control, conflict and the womb must be addressed in the face of these technological developments.

Assisted gestative technologies

“…However, to couch a right to use an artificial placenta in these terms has problematic implications. It does not reflect the lived experiences of all pregnant people (though some feel this way)46 and denigrates claims made about the value of pursuing pregnancy/gestation and thus potentially access to other forms of AGT 46. This framing could have a serious negative impact on how pregnant people are treated because ‘alternatives’ are available 46 47.…”

“…It does not reflect the lived experiences of all pregnant people (though some feel this way)46 and denigrates claims made about the value of pursuing pregnancy/gestation and thus potentially access to other forms of AGT 46. This framing could have a serious negative impact on how pregnant people are treated because ‘alternatives’ are available 46 47. Pain and suffering in pregnancy/childbirth would consequently not be attended to/treated as willingly (and note there are already problems with the extent to which pain is not appropriately treated in birth,48 especially among minorities)49 given that it could be conceptualised as a choice a person has made.…”

“…There has also been discussion on the limits of any (potential) moral right to seek assistance with gestation. Concerns about the invasiveness of the fetal extraction process for gestation extra uterum in an artificial placenta are most often raised as reasons why artificial placentas are not an alternative to abortion.,6 23 46 55 56 These same concerns, however, might also be raised when questioning whether it is justified in instances when pregnancy is progressing well, but a person wants to opt-out of pregnancy in favour of extra uterum gestation. Alghrani has questioned whether partial ectogestation should be restricted only to those pregnant persons who have a demonstrable medical need for assistance with gestation during their pregnancy 57.…”

The path toward ectogenesis: looking beyond the technical challenges

“…Against this several reasons can be given why ectogenesis might complicate rather than end the abortion issue [ 92 ]. First there is some indication that women, regardless of their personal views on abortion, may be unsympathetic to ectogenesis as a ‘solution’ to abortion [ 34 ].…”

Why Ectogestation Is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate: a Discussion of ‘Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion’

“…Ectogestation, if completed around the time that most abortions are completed, would entail that women with an unintended pregnancy are spared the responsibilities and challenges of an extended period of pregnancy, but if one intends to give one's child up for adoption-for the child's long-term benefit-then why not opt for completing the pregnancy without all of the additional risks? The artificial womb technology being developed is aimed primarily at reducing neonatal mortality caused by premature birth (Partridge et al 2017) and would likely be utilised by women experiencing a pregnancy that poses a risk to their own health (Romanis et al 2020). It is not being developed as an alternative to abortion as the technology is not expected to be within the purview of early pregnancy.…”