Artificial Womb Technology and Abortion
An Argument-Based Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v35i1.181Keywords:
abortion, artificial wombs, ectogenesis, artificial placenta, termination of pregnancy, fetal transfer, ethicsAbstract
This paper reviewed the ethical arguments on Artificial Womb Technology (AWT) in relation to abortion, offering a better understanding of the current debate. We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature. Forty-eight articles met the predefined inclusion criteria out of 2133 screened. We identified four questions in the literature. First, how could AWT affect viability thresholds, currently used to regulate abortion access in some jurisdictions? Second, should AWT substitute abortion? Some support a substitution because it will allow to terminate the pregnancy and preserve the fetus. Others believe that abortion should be available regardless of AWT. The rights to autonomy, not to be a biological parent, to genetic privacy and to property were used in this discussion. Third, who is entitled to decide whether and how to terminate a pregnancy when AWT is available? The pregnant person alone or both parents should consent? Fourth, what are the practical implications of substituting abortion e.g. for the care management of ‘AWT infants’ in the adoption system? We concluded that the debate should focus more on the real implications of substituting abortion with the AWT currently in development. Authors supporting an abortion substitution should be more realistic when describing the consequences of their arguments.
References
Accoe, D., & Pennings, G. (2024). Navigating conflicts of reproductive rights: Unbundling parenthood and balancing competing interests. Bioethics, 38(5), 425–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13282
Adkins, V. (2021). Impact of ectogenesis on the medicalisation of pregnancy and childbirth. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(4), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-106004
Alghrani, A. (2007). The Legal and Ethical Ramifications of Ectogenesis. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law & Policy, 2(1), 189–211.
Anderson, M. L. (2023). Anti-abortionist Action Theory and the Asymmetry between Spontaneous and Induced Abortions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 48(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad011
Biggs, M. A., Gould, H., & Foster, D. G. (2013). Understanding why women seek abortions in the US. BMC Women’s Health, 13(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29
Blackshaw, B. P., & Rodger, D. (2019). Ectogenesis and the case against the right to the death of the foetus. Bioethics, 33(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12529
Brown, B. P., & Watson, K. (2023). No Substitute: The False Promise of Artificial Womb Technology as an Alternative to Abortion. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 87–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191032
Browne, T. K., Kendal, E., & Sudenkaarne, T. (2023). Feminist Concerns About Artificial Womb Technology. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191036
Bryner, B., Gray, B., Perkins, E., Davis, R., Hoffman, H., Barks, J., Owens, G., Bocks, M., Rojas-Peña, A., Hirschl, R., Bartlett, R., & Mychaliska, G. (2015). An extracorporeal artificial placenta supports extremely premature lambs for 1week. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 50(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.10.028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.10.028
Cannold, L. (1995). Women, Ectogenesis and Ethical Theory. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(1), 55–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1995.tb00119.x
Cavaliere, G. (2020). Gestation, equality and freedom: Ectogenesis as a political perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105691 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105691
Cavolo, A., De Boer, A., De Proost, L., Verweij, E. J., & Gastmans, C. (2024). Navigating the Ethical Landscape of the Artificial Placenta: A Systematic Review. Prenatal Diagnosis, pd.6711. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.6711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3309789/v2
Chae, S., Desai, S., Crowell, M., & Sedgh, G. (2017). Reasons why women have induced abortions: A synthesis of findings from 14 countries. Contraception, 96(4), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.06.014
Cohen, I. G. (2017a). Artificial Wombs and Abortion Rights. Hastings Center Report, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.730 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.730
Cohen, I. G. (2017b). Artificial wombs are coming. They could completely change the debate over abortion. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate
Cohen, I. G. (2020). Commentary on ‘Gestation, Equality and Freedom: Ectogenesis as a Political Perspective.’ Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 87–88. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105958 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105958
Davin, J., & Kaczor, C. (2005). Would artificial wombs produce more harm than good? The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 5(4), 657; author reply 658-657; author reply 658.
De Proost, L., Verweij, E. (Joanne), Geurtzen, R., Zuijdwegt, G., Verhagen, E., & Ismaili M’hamdi, H. (2023). Viability, abortion and extreme prematurity: A critique. Clinical Ethics, 18(4), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509231182000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509231182000
Dierckx De Casterlé, B., De Vliegher, K., Gastmans, C., & Mertens, E. (2021). Complex Qualitative Data Analysis: Lessons Learned From the Experiences With the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven. Qualitative Health Research, 31(6), 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320966981 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320966981
Dierckx de Casterlé, B., Gastmans, C., Bryon, E., & Denier, Y. (2012). QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.012
Fuentes, L., Kavanaugh, M. L., Frohwirth, L. F., Jerman, J., & Blades, N. (2023). “Adoption is just not for me”: How abortion patients in Michigan and New Mexico factor adoption into their pregnancy outcome decisions. Contraception: X, 5, 100090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conx.2023.100090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conx.2023.100090
Goldstein, M. A. (1978). Choice rights and abortion: The begetting choice right and state obstacles to choice in light of artificial womb technology. Southern California Law Review, 51(5), 877–921.
Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
Halliday, S., Romanis, E. C., de Proost, L., & Verweij, E. J. (2023). The (mis)use of fetal viability as the determinant of non-criminal abortion in the Netherlands and England and Wales. Medical Law Review, 31(4), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad015
Haslanger, S. (2022). The Adoption “Alternative.” Adoption & Culture, 10(2), 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.2022.0030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.2022.0030
Hendricks, P. (2018). There is no right to the death of the fetus. Bioethics, 32(6), 395–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12455 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12455
Hine, K. (2024). Partial ectogestation and the right to choose the method by which one ends one’s pregnancy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 55(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12537
Hopkins, P. D. (2008). Can Technology Fix the Abortion Problem? Ectogenesis and the Real Issues of Abortion. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22(2), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap200822222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap200822222
Horn, C. (2020a). Ectogenesis is for Feminists: Reclaiming Artificial Wombs from Antiabortion Discourse. Catalyst: Feminism, The-ory, Technoscience, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v6i1.33065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v6i1.33065
Horn, C. (2020b). Gender, gestation and ectogenesis: Self-determination for pregnant people ahead of artificial wombs. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(11), 787–788. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106156 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106156
Horn, C. (2021). Abortion Rights after Artificial Wombs: Why Decriminalisation is Needed Ahead of Ectogenesis. Medical Law Review, 29(1), 80–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa042
Howes, J., & Gastmans, C. (2021). Electronic tracking devices in dementia care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 95, 104419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104419
Humber, J. M. (1977). Abortion, Fetal Research, and the Law. Social Theory and Practice, 4(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract19774213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract19774213
Idzik, S. H.-I. (2022). “Less Abortion, More Adoption”: A Brief Discursive History of Adoption as Solution. Adoption & Culture, 10(2), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.2022.0031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ado.2022.0031
Jackson, E. (2008). Degendering Reproduction? Medical Law Review, 16(3), 346–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwn016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwn016
James, D. N. (1987). Ectogenesis: A reply to Singer and Wells. Bioethics, 1(1), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00006.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00006.x
Kaczor, C. (2005). Could Artificial Wombs End the Abortion Debate? The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 5(2), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20055248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20055248
Kaczor, C. (2018). Ectogenesis and a right to the death of the prenatal human being: A reply to Räsänen. Bioethics, 32(9), 634–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12512 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12512
Kendal, E. (2020). Pregnant people, inseminators and tissues of human origin: How ectogenesis challenges the concept of abortion. Monash Bioethics Review, 38(2), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40592-020-00122-0/METRICS DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00122-0
Kendal, E. (2022). Form, Function, Perception, and Reception: Visual Bioethics and the Artificial Womb. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 95(3), 371–377.
Kennedy, S., & Nelson, L. (2023). A Different Take on the Law and Ethics of AWT. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191044
Kirkman, M., Rowe, H., Hardiman, A., Mallett, S., & Rosenthal, D. (2009). Reasons women give for abortion: A review of the literature. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 12(6), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0084-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0084-3
Kozlov, M. (2023). Human trials of artificial wombs could start soon. Here’s what you need to know. Nature, 621(7979), 458–460. https://doi.org/10.1038/D41586-023-02901-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02901-1
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2008.05.005
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
Lupton, M. L. (1997). Artificial wombs: Medical miracle, legal nightmare. Medicine and Law, 16(3), 621–633.
Mathison, E., & Davis, J. (2017). Is There a Right to the Death of the Foetus? Bioethics, 31(4), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12331
McCullough, L., Coverdale, J., & Chervenak, F. (2007). Constructing a Systematic Review for Argument-Based Clinical Ethics Literature: The Example of Concealed Medications. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310601152206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310601152206
Mertz, M. (2019). How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper). BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 81–81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0423-5
Muhsin, S. M., Chin, A. H. B., & Padela, A. I. (2023). An Ethico-Legal Analysis of Artificial Womb Technology and Extracorporeal Gestation Based on Islamic Legal Maxims. The New Bioethics, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2023.2269638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2023.2269638
Murphy, J. S. (1989). Is Pregnancy Necessary? Feminist Concerns About Ectogenesis. Hypatia, 4(3), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00592.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00592.x
Myrhaug, H. T., Brurberg, K. G., Hov, L., & Markestad, T. (2019). Survival and Impairment of Extremely Premature Infants: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 143(2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-0933 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-0933
Overall, C. (2015). Rethinking Abortion, Ectogenesis, and Fetal Death. Journal of Social Philosophy, 46(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12090
Partridge, E. A., Davey, M. G., Hornick, M. A., & Flake, A. W. (2017). An EXTrauterine environment for neonatal development: EXTENDING fetal physiology beyond the womb. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 22(6), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.04.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.04.006
Partridge, E. A., Davey, M. G., Hornick, M. A., McGovern, P. E., Mejaddam, A. Y., Vrecenak, J. D., Mesas-Burgos, C., Olive, A., Caskey, R. C., Weiland, T. R., Han, J., Schupper, A. J., Connelly, J. T., Dysart, K. C., Rychik, J., Hedrick, H. L., Peranteau, W. H., & Flake, A. W. (2017). An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. Nature Communica-tions, 8(1), 15112–15112. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15112
Pruski, M., & Playford, R. C. (2022). Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change? Diametros, 19(73), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1794 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1794
Räsänen, J. (2017). Ectogenesis, abortion and a right to the death of the fetus. Bioethics, 31(9), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12404 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12404
Räsänen, J. (2021). Liberal Utilitarianism—Yes, But for Whom? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000894 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000894
Räsänen, J. (2023). Regulating abortion after ectogestation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 49(6), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108174
Roberts, S. C., Biggs, M. A., Chibber, K. S., Gould, H., Rocca, C. H., & Foster, D. G. (2014). Risk of violence from the man involved in the pregnancy after receiving or being denied an abortion. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 144–144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0144-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0144-z
Rodger, D. (2021). Why Ectogestation Is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate: A Discussion of ‘Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion.’ Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1929–1935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00436-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00436-1
Roesner, N. (2023). Beyond a Medicalized View of Reproduction: Recentering Pregnant People in the Ethics of Ectogenesis. The American Journal of Bioethics, 23(5), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2023.2191049
Romanis, E. C. (2019). Challenging the ‘Born Alive’ Threshold: Fetal Surgery, Artificial Wombs, and the English Approach to Legal Personhood. Medical Law Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwz014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwz014
Romanis, E. C. (2020). Is ‘viability’ viable? Abortion, conceptual confusion and the law in England and Wales and the United States. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa059
Romanis, E. C. (2021). Abortion & ‘artificial wombs’: Would ‘artificial womb’ technology legally empower non-gestating genetic progenitors to participate in decisions about how to terminate pregnancy in England and Wales? Journal of Law and the Bi-osciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab011
Romanis, E. C., & Horn, C. (2020). Artificial Wombs and the Ectogenesis Conversation: A Misplaced Focus? Technology, Abortion, and Reproductive Freedom. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 13(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.13.2.18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.13.2.18
Simkulet, W. (2020). Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105676
Simkulet, W. (2023). Ectogenesis and the Violinist. Diametros, 19(75), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1873
Simonstein, F. (2006). Artificial reproduction technologies (RTs) – all the way to the artificial womb? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 9(3), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-006-0005-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-006-0005-4
Singh, P. (2022). Ectogenesis and the Right to Life: Discussion Note on Pruski and Playford’s, “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion—What Might Change?” Diametros, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1850
Stratman, C. M. (2020). Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00427-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00427-2
Stratman, C. M. (2021). Replies to Kaczor and Rodger. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1941–1944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00439-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00439-y
Stratman, C. M. (2023). Ectogestation and the Good Samaritan Argument. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad012
The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. (n.d.). Recreating the Womb: Q&A with the researchers [Video]. Youtube. https://www.Youtube.Com/Watch?v=2xpKmyCE97A.
Vandemeulebroucke, T., Dierckx De Casterlé, B., & Gastmans, C. (2018). The use of care robots in aged care: A systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 74, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2017.08.014
Warren, M. A. (1989). The Moral Significance of Birth. Hypatia, 4(3), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00591.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00591.x
Wells, D. (1987). Ectogenesis, Justice and Utility: A Reply to James. Bioethics, 1(4), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00020.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1987.tb00020.x
Wilkinson, D. J., Villanueva‐Uy, M. E., Hayden, D., & McTavish, J. (2019). Decision‐making around resuscitation of extremely preterm infants in the Philippines: A consensus guideline. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 55(9), 1023–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14552 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14552
Yaakob, H. (2022). Setting the Boundaries of Individual Reproductive Autonomy: The Case of Artificial Womb. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13. https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.1
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dorothea Chatzikonstantinou, Alice Cavolo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit JEET (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
