Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right and Unfair Aspects of Artificial Womb Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Being and Value in Technology

Abstract

In this contribution, I will defend the view of AWT (artificial-womb technology) as free reproductive choice and argue that ectogenesis technology should become a morally acceptable option. The chapter is divided in two parts. In the first part, I shall point out arguments against and in favour, advantages and advantages, of AWT. In the second part, I shall show how artificial-womb can be seen as a technology that might be used also by women who are not infertile and for whom pregnancy is not a risk and a tool for partially ending the unequal division of reproductive labour.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albury, R. (1984, Spring). Reproductive Technology and Feminism. Australian Left Review, 89, 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amoretti, C., & Vassallo, N. (2017). Philosophy of Sex and Gender in Gender Medicine. Special issue of Topoi, 36(3), 473–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti, R., Duelli, K. R., & Minden, S. (Eds.). (1984). Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badinter, E. (1981). The Myth of Motherhood: An Historical View of the Maternal Instinct. Souvenir Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brassington, I. (2009). The Glass Womb. In F. Simonstein (Ed.), Reprogen-Ethics and the Future of Gender. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulletti, C., Jasonni, V. M., Lubicz, S., et al. (1986). Extracorporeal Perfusion of the Human Uterus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 154, 683–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulletti, C., et al. (2011). The Artificial Womb. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1221, 127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burley, J. (1998). The Price of Eggs: Who Should Bear the Cost of Fertility Treatments? In J. Harris & S. Holm (Eds.), The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation (pp. 127–149). Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buuck, J. (1977). Ethics of Reproductive Engineering. Perspectives, 3(9), 545–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannold, L. (1995). Women, Ectogenesis and Ethical Theory. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavarero, A. (1995). In Spite of Plato. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavarero, A. (2000). Relating Narratives: Storytelling and Selfhood. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chavatte-Palmer, P., Levy, R., & Boileau, P. (2012). Reproduction without a uterus: State of the art of ectogenesis. Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertility, 40, 695–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G. (1985a). How the New Reproductive Technologies Could Be Used to Apply the Brothel Model of Social Control Over Women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8(4), 299–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G. (1985b). The Mother Machine: From Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G., et al. (Eds.). (1985). Man-made Women: How the New Reproductive Technologies Affect Wome. Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beauvoir, S. (2010). The Second Sex. (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.) Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, A. (1986). The Future of Mothering: Reproductive Technology and Feminist Theory. Hypatia, 1(2), 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, S., & Isaac, S. (2021). Evaluating Ectogenesis Via the Metaphysics of Pregnancy. In R. Davis-Floyd (Ed.), Birthing Techno-Sapiens: Human-Technology, Co-Evolution, and the Future of Reproduction. Routledge. chapter 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, S. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, S. (2006). Ectogenesis and the Ethics of Care. In S. Gelfand & R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Rodopi.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, S. (1978). Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, E. (1971). The Obsolescent Mother: A Scenario. Atlantic, 227, 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, M. (2010). Ethics and Ectogenesis. Australian Nursing Journal, 33(11), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal, E. (2015). Equal Opportunity and the Case for State Sponsored Ectogenesis. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly, L. L., Sutter, M. E., & Quinn, G. P. (2020). Equitable Access to Ectogenesis for Sexual and Gender Minorities. Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12723

  • Kingma, E., & Finn, S. (2020). Neonatal Incubator or Artificial Womb? Distinguishing Ectogestation and Ectogenesis Using the Metaphysics of Pregnancy. Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12733

  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language. A Semantic Approach to Literature and Art. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, H. (1987). The Sanctity-of-Life Doctrine in Medicine. A Critique. Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, R. (2005). Mass Hysteria: Medicine, Culture, and Mothers’ Bodies. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, S. (2008). An End to Abortion? A Feminist Critique of the “Ectogenetic Solution” to Abortion. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(4), 263–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorde, A. (1984). The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In Id. (Ed.), Sister Outsider (pp. 110–114). The Crossing Press, Freedom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. (2017, April 25). A Unique Womb-Like Device Could Reduce Mortality and Disability for Extremely Premature Babies. CHOP News. https://www.chop.edu/news/unique-womb-device-could-reduce-mortality-and-disability-extremely-premature-babies

  • Mullin, E. (2017, April 25). Animals Set Survival Record Inside Artificial Womb. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604261/animals-set-survival-record-inside-artificial-womb/

  • Murphy, J. (1989). Is Pregnancy Necessary? Feminist Concerns about Ectogenesis. Hypatia, 4(3), 66–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. F. (2012). Research Priorities and the Future of Pregnancy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(1), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. (1981). The Politics of Reproduction. Routledge & Kegan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, A. (1984). The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women. Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overall, C. (2015). Rethinking Abortion, Ectogenesis, and Fetal Death. Journal of Social Philosophy, 46, 126–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, E., Davey, M., Hornick, M., et al. (2017). An Extra-Uterine System to Physiologically Support the Extreme Premature Lamb. Nature Communications, 8, 15112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pence, G. (2006). What’s So Good about Natural Motherhood? In S. Gelfand & J. R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, N., & Woollett, A. (1983). The Experience of Infertility. Virago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Räsänen, J. (2017). Ectogenesis, Abortion and a Right to the Death of the Fetus. Bioethics, 31(9), 697–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. (1987). Preface. In G. Corea et al. (Eds.), Man-Made Woman: How the New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women (pp. 9–13). University of Indiana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, A. (1977). Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. Virago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanis, E. C. (2018). Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44, 751–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, R. (1987, Spring). Technology and Motherhood: Reproductive Choice Reconsidered. Signs, 12(3), 512–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satz, D. (1992). Markets in Women’s Reproductive Labor. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2(2), 107–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonstein, F., & Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. (2009). The Artificial Womb: A Pilot Study Considering People’s Views on the Artificial Womb and Ectogenesis in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(1), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1994). Rethinking Life and Death. The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. Text Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P., & Wells, D. (1984). The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P., & Wells, D. (2006). In S. Gelfand & J. R. Shook (Eds.), Ectogenesis. In Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction (pp. 9–26). Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A. (2007). The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethic, 16, 336–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A. (2012). In Defense of Ectogenesis. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smajdor, A. (2016). Ectogenesis. In H. ten Have (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, E. (2010). Not of Woman Born: How Ectogenesis Will Change the Way We View Viability, Birth, and the Status of the Unborn. Journal of Law and Health, 23, 143–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A. (2011). Feminism Psychoanalysis and Maternal Subjectivity. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takala, T. (2009). Human Before Sex? Ectogenesis as a Way to Equality. In F. Simonstein (Ed.), Reprogen-Ethics and the Future of Gender (pp. 187–195). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tonti-Filippini, N. (2003). The Embryo Rescue Debate: Impregnating Women, Ectogenesis, and Restoration from Suspended Animation. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 3(1), 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usuda, H., Watanabe, S., Saito, M., Sato, S., Musk, G., et al. (2019). Successful Use of an Artificial Placenta to Support Extremely Preterm Ovine Fetuses at the Border of Viability. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 221(1), 69.e1–69.e17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, W. (1982). Cloning, Ectogenesis, and Hybrids: Things to Come? In W. Walters & P. Singer (Eds.), Test-Tube Babies: A Guide to Moral Questions, Present Techniques and Future Possibilities. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. A. (1986). Making Babies: The New Science and Ethics of Conception by Peter Singer; Deane Wells. Ethics, 97(1), 288–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. A. (1989). The Moral Significance of Birth. Hypatia, 4, 46–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wishart, B. (1982). Motherhood within Patriarchy: A Lesbian Feminist Perspective. Third Women and Labour Conference Papers, 1, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, A. D. (2008). Wrongful Selection: Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Intentional Diminishment, and the Procreative Right. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 25(3), 475–502.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Vera Tripodi

Authors
  1. Vera Tripodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vera Tripodi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Antiquity, Philosophy and History, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy

    Enrico Terrone

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Vera Tripodi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tripodi, V. (2022). The Right and Unfair Aspects of Artificial Womb Technology. In: Terrone, E., Tripodi, V. (eds) Being and Value in Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88793-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation