Reiver

Langford (2008, An end to abortion? A feminist critique of the ‘ectogenetic solution’ to abortion, Women's Studies International Forum, Vol 31, pp 263-269) makes the following comment:

Advocates of ectogenesis argue that, instead of terminating a foetus through abortion, a woman could abort her pregnancy without terminating the foetus which could be removed from her body and gestated to term. The argument that ectogenesis will end abortion dates back to the decade in which the term was coined. In 1927 Australian sexologist Norman Haire (1927, pp. 89) wrote that ectogenesis would eliminate the need for infanticide and abortion. Fifty three years later Freitas (1980) suggested that foetal adoption could entirely replace abortion, arguing that ectogenetic technology could enable fetuses to be “nurtured in warm, organic artificial wombs.” Freitas predicted that, as a consequence, abortion clinics could be superseded by “foetal adoption centres” that would become “guardians of life” as opposed to “death factories”.

When scientific reality replaces the science fiction, how do you think ectogenesis will affect the abortion debate?

__________________
Deceased

Dermot Walrusson

We don't allow euthanasia for terminally ill people and we don't have capital punishment for murderers, and yet we do allow the execution of unborn babies for the crime of being 'unwanted'. Where is the moral consistency on this? I'm not coming at this from a religious viewpoint, I'm a humanist atheist.

I wouldn't argue about early-stage abortions, but the nearer the foetus gets to being a viable baby, the less comfortable I am with the idea of permitting abortions except for medical reasons - one has to make an exception there.

So, on the face of it, ectogenesis might be a good development.