Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has brought us some modern possibilities that are sometimes viewed as repugnant. In vitro fertilization has become a standard part of treatment for some kinds of infertility. It also makes possible gestational surrogacy, in which the surrogate may or may not be paid, and the legality of both those things (surrogacy and commercial surrogacy) varies around the world.
There's a still nascent technology of artificial wombs--probably not coming to a hospital near you anytime soon--that raise questions about abortion. But it's not too early to ask if a new technology could help resolve an old ethical question (while perhaps creating new ones...).
The NY Times takes up the story:
The Abortion Debate Is Stuck. Are Artificial Wombs the Answer?
The technology would allow fetuses to develop outside the female womb so women would no longer have to be pregnant. By Zoltan Istvan
"Could an emerging technology reshape the battle lines in the abortion debate? Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, that fight has been defined by the interlocking, absolute values of choice and life: For some, a woman’s right to choose trumps any claim to a right to life by the fetus; for others, it’s the reverse. But what if we could separate those two — what if a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy no longer meant terminating the fetus itself?
...
"Artificial human wombs are still far in the future, and there are of course other ethical issues to consider. But for now, the technology is developed enough to raise new questions for the abortion debate.
"In a 2017 issue of the journal Bioethics, two philosophers, Jeremy V. Davis, a visiting professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and Eric Mathison, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, argue that while a woman has a right to remove a fetus from her body, she does not have the right to kill it. The problem is that, for now, the latter is inherent in the former.
"Their argument builds upon that of the pro-choice philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson, who famously argued in her 1971 paper “A Defense of Abortion” that women have a right to not carry a fetus for nine months — but that women do not have a right to be guaranteed the death of the fetus.
...
"Biobag technology could be available for humans in as little as one to three years, according to Dr. Alan Flake, a fetal surgeon in charge of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia artificial womb experiments. Another team performing ectogenesis research at the University of Michigan also believes they could have devices ready for humans in a similar time frame."
**************
In an article published in 2017, also in the NYT, Dr Flake thought these questions would arise only in the more distant future:
Weighing the Ethics of Artificial Wombs
"Dr. Flake agreed that what the field did not need was another intervention for premature infants that creates more problems than it solves. “This system will either work and work very well, or I won’t apply it,” he said."
There's a still nascent technology of artificial wombs--probably not coming to a hospital near you anytime soon--that raise questions about abortion. But it's not too early to ask if a new technology could help resolve an old ethical question (while perhaps creating new ones...).
The NY Times takes up the story:
The Abortion Debate Is Stuck. Are Artificial Wombs the Answer?
The technology would allow fetuses to develop outside the female womb so women would no longer have to be pregnant. By Zoltan Istvan
"Could an emerging technology reshape the battle lines in the abortion debate? Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, that fight has been defined by the interlocking, absolute values of choice and life: For some, a woman’s right to choose trumps any claim to a right to life by the fetus; for others, it’s the reverse. But what if we could separate those two — what if a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy no longer meant terminating the fetus itself?
...
"Artificial human wombs are still far in the future, and there are of course other ethical issues to consider. But for now, the technology is developed enough to raise new questions for the abortion debate.
"In a 2017 issue of the journal Bioethics, two philosophers, Jeremy V. Davis, a visiting professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and Eric Mathison, a postdoctoral associate at Baylor College of Medicine, argue that while a woman has a right to remove a fetus from her body, she does not have the right to kill it. The problem is that, for now, the latter is inherent in the former.
"Their argument builds upon that of the pro-choice philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson, who famously argued in her 1971 paper “A Defense of Abortion” that women have a right to not carry a fetus for nine months — but that women do not have a right to be guaranteed the death of the fetus.
...
"Biobag technology could be available for humans in as little as one to three years, according to Dr. Alan Flake, a fetal surgeon in charge of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia artificial womb experiments. Another team performing ectogenesis research at the University of Michigan also believes they could have devices ready for humans in a similar time frame."
**************
In an article published in 2017, also in the NYT, Dr Flake thought these questions would arise only in the more distant future:
Weighing the Ethics of Artificial Wombs
"Dr. Flake agreed that what the field did not need was another intervention for premature infants that creates more problems than it solves. “This system will either work and work very well, or I won’t apply it,” he said."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment