SA¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½

A philosophy professor examines the ethics behind artificial womb technology

It sounds like science fiction, but artificial womb technology could allow babies to grow from their earliest stages inside high-tech pods, each equipped with synthetic amniotic fluid and balanced oxygen levels to replicate the natural environment of a womb. 

A fully-developed form of this technology, known as ectogenesis, might make it possible for embryos to grow entirely outside of a human body in the distant future. For now, researchers are designing a device to support premature babies born before 28 weeks, allowing gestation to continue in an external, controlled environment in order to improve survival rates. 

The idea of a complete, start-to-finish artificial pregnancy remains speculative, but it raises important ethical questions about how society understands pregnancy and reproduction. Assistant Professor of Philosophy Susan Kennedy explores these questions in her , Ectogenesis and the Value of Gestational Ties, where she argues that the right to gestate must be considered alongside the option of artificial wombs.

Recently, we spoke to Kennedy about artificial womb technology from a philosophical perspective and how it may challenge our traditional views of family.

In your paper, you defend a person’s moral right to gestate, even if artificial womb technology presents alternatives. What led you to explore how ectogenesis could affect a person’s right to choose traditional pregnancy?

When I first started my research, I was still looking at ectogenesis with rose-colored glasses. I thought it could be good because it offers a new option for reproduction, especially for those who cannot gestate naturally. It could also provide an alternative for pregnant people who may not want an abortion that results in the death of a fetus, since they could transfer it to an artificial womb instead. But the more I thought about it, the more I considered the snowball effect it could have on traditional pregnancy.

Since ectogenesis would completely bypass pregnancy, the biological and emotional connections between parent and child that are typically formed during this time wouldn’t happen. I realize how important pregnancy is for both the baby and the person carrying them, especially when it comes to bond-building and one’s personal flourishing. This understanding made me rethink my initial, mostly positive outlook on the technology.

When looking at ectogenesis through a philosophical lens, what ethical issues might be overlooked or not yet considered?

Imagine if we do have this “perfect womb,” as some people call it, that creates the optimal conditions for a fetus to develop and prevents all of the risks that can happen with pregnancy. At first, it sounds like a good idea, but then, it makes me wonder whether it would be wrong for someone to choose pregnancy instead? How would we look at that decision? Would we say that it is a selfish choice? Is the pregnant person not doing what is actually in the best interest of the fetus? 

From what I’ve seen, most of the clinical research discussion about this technology has focused a lot on the fetus that would be inside the artificial womb. While this is an important consideration, there hasn’t been much talk about what that experience is going to be like for the pregnant person having the C-section that then transfers the premature fetus into the pod. What happens to the pregnant person after that? What is she dealing with? Are we also including that as part of our research protocols? That is something that really concerns me. We want to make sure that we’re considering both parties here. It’s not just about what’s in the best interest of the fetus, but so too the person carrying the child.

Why do you think it is important for us to rethink our perspective of pregnancy and parenthood?

As a society, we’ve always had this idea of family and procreation, but I think that maybe we haven’t talked about pregnancy and motherhood enough. That is what is actually missing from our philosophical accounts of these topics. Merging my interests in bioethics and philosophy has given me the opportunity to explore how this emerging, almost science fiction-sounding technology actually pushes the limits of theory.

I wanted to show that even when technology provides a potentially safer or lower-risk option, pregnancy is still significant. It is an intimate, unique experience that can really contribute to a person’s flourishing, if they desire it. There’s really nothing else quite like the way the unborn and the pregnant person are connected biologically and physiologically. Pregnancy should absolutely be something that people can choose to bring fulfillment to their lives. We should really think hard about creating space for people to choose that, just like we create space for people to become parents.

Can you talk about the ways in which artificial womb technology may limit reproductive autonomy?

One concern is that people could be denied access to a legal abortion and pressured to use ectogenesis. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, states were given the power to legislate abortion and define the legal status of a fetus. Since then, we’ve seen a lot of different interpretations of what is legal from state to state. 

And when you look at the history of healthcare and child birth, there is cause for future concern. There have already been many cases where people who wanted to give birth vaginally were forced to have a C-section, even though it wasn’t obvious from clinical indications that it was necessary. Basically, doctors were ignoring what the patient wanted for their own body.  So with ectogenesis, I have concrete concerns that a person might be legally compelled to undergo a C-section and place a fetus in an artificial womb because the law or the state says it has an interest in that potential life. 

Where do we go from here? What do you hope people take away from your research?

From a moral and legal perspective, this technology is a lot to take in. There are parts that make me feel genuinely excited, even hopeful. I find myself trying to understand where this is heading and how we make sure it leads to a future that is ethically right. It’s really easy to fall into the allure of what technology promises. Sometimes what sounds like progress might not be as great as it initially seems. We’ve already seen this with AI, and the same goes for artificial wombs. 

Moving forward, I hope people ask a lot of questions. It’s important to try to find the nuance, which can be hard when our media cycle pushes everything to the extreme by saying technology will either solve or ruin everything. The truth is always somewhere in between, and the best way to get there is to stay curious.

This research has also opened up some new areas of discussion for me. I’m currently working with a colleague in the philosophy department, Erick José Ramirez, on a book that looks at how technologies like AI, extended reality, and artificial wombs are reshaping our concept of self. We tend to think of the self as tied to the biological body, as if there is a clear limit. But these new technologies disrupt that. They push us to rethink embodiment entirely. I want to explore if artificial wombs are really some extended form of embodiment, or if they are something that is totally separate. The goal of the book is to explore if there is a version of self that fits how we now understand ourselves in light of new technologies.