The Pros and Cons of Artificial Wombs

Artificial womb technology mimics the womb's internal environment by providing laboratory-made amniotic fluid and oxygenation via an oxygenator connected to the fetal umbilical cord.

The technology works by simulating uterine environmental conditions akin to if the neonate had never been born. This contrasts with the artificial conditions utilized to sustain life under intensive care. Artificial womb technology is designed to replace the natural function of the maternal womb rather than facilitate a newborn rescue.

The idea of artificial womb technology inevitably draws ethical debate regarding the benefits and harms to the fetus, parents, and society. Additional legal implications over the status of the fetus and associated discussion about the appropriate terminology to be used also come into question. One proposal for describing the product inside an artificial womb (i.e., to distinguish this from the natural fetus or neonate) is 'gestateling.'

The pros and cons of artificial womb technology

The prospect of utilizing artificial womb technology for a fetus aged 22–25 weeks is very real. Indeed, artificial wombs are already in development. One benefit of this is the hope that the artificial womb may reduce the risks of morbidity and mortality.

In addition, artificial womb technology could benefit maternal health and spare parents the distress of seeing their premature infant hooked up to a ventilator in intensive care. A downside would be the mother having to undergo a Caesarean section.

Moving away from the pros and cons for the fetus or 'gestateling' and the parents and looking at how the technology might affect society at large, benefits can be envisaged in terms of cost savings in reducing comorbidities in neonates.

However, artificial womb technology could increase the need for intensive care for infants who would not otherwise have survived without this intervention. Another point on the plus side for artificial womb technology is the advantage of a clearer understanding of fetal physiology and development. Indeed, this technology looks set to increase our capacity for visualizing gestation.

A distinction must be made between partial ectogenesis for medical management of neonates needing intensive care and thus medical management, and non-medical reasons (such as avoiding pregnancy). This notion is not feasible at present (though the IVF fetus is viable from weeks 0-4 and is not inconceivable) but has nonetheless drawn much interest.

The notion of complete ectogenesis remains, at present, an abstract concept. Yet the very idea of it has drawn the interest of the world media and captured the minds of the public.

This does not stop us from speculating on the potential pros and cons of artificial womb technology in connection with complete ectogenesis. The concept has been catapulted into the heart of the debate over abortion. Artificial womb technology offers up the potential to be an alternative to abortion, and this benefit is not lost on pro-choice advocates.

Some feminists have pointed out the inherent dangers of this fact. The debate is complex, and others have pointed out the potential of this futuristic technology for liberating women and enhancing gender equality.

In the workplace, realizing artificial womb technology could enable parenthood without the usual need for a leave of absence for a pregnancy. Others have raised concerns over the potential for the devaluation of pregnancy and the associated risks of losing female empowerment.

Another group drawn to the debate on artificial wombs are transhumanists who see technology as a means for improving human quality of life.

The prospect of artificial wombs for humans does not seem far away. However, beyond the hype there are many pros and cons to consider, in addition to a host of legal and ethical implications.