January
20
 

Is pregnancy unethical? Yes, says UK bioethicist

Here is contrarian bioethics at its best. Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women. If it happens neither women nor men would be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.

This is the radical suggestion made by a leading British bioethicist, Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia.

Artificial gestation, or ectogenesis,  is currently science fiction, but it may be possible. Dr Smajdor believes that in a truly liberal society pregnancy and childbirth should not be tolerated:

Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.

Pregnancy is barbaric, Dr Smajdor contends – an illness so serious that it is comparable to measles, which is also occasionally fatal but does not last nine months.

I suggest that there is a strong case for prioritizing research into ectogenesis as an alternative to pregnancy. I conclude by asking the reader the following: if you did not know whether you would be a man or a woman, would you prefer to be born into Society A, in which women bear all the burdens and risks of pregnancy, or Society B, in which ectogenesis has been perfected.

Her article in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is a reply to a critique of an article which she published in 2007, “The moral imperative for ectogenesis”. ~ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, January  

Editor's note: Dr Smajdor is a philosopher, not a bio-engineer. She is not involved in developing or manufacturing artificial wombs. Her comments are purely speculative. 



This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

comments powered by Disqus
 

 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed

 Best of the web

 Recent Posts
Are chimpanzees persons?
20 Dec 2014
What did Udo Schuklenk really say about neonatal euthanasia?
20 Dec 2014
The Optimist: I have lived in a golden age, says US bioethicist
20 Dec 2014
The Pessimist: Editor of leading bioethics journal mourns “failure” of bioethics
20 Dec 2014
Book closes on stem cell saga
20 Dec 2014