Could an artificial womb be considered moral technology?

[PatrickSebast]

By artificial womb I mean a device the simulates the environment of a mothers womb to such an extent that it allows embryos/fetuses to grow and develop without the aid of the mother.

On the positive side:

*It would allow for the circumventing of Roe V. Wade by State laws since almost all levels of fetal development could be considered “viable” and RvW allows legislatures to regulate in cases of viability.

*It could allow the child to be saved in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or especially premature cases.

*It would create an environment in which the issue of “a woman’s ultimate authority over her body” was no longer an issue in the abortion debate and abortion supporters would be forced to acknowledge they support the disposal of the unborn due solely to the desire to shun inconvenient responsibilities.

On the negative side:

*It would remove the need for natural birth and encourage some women to have all of their children be “test tube” babies.

*If the technology became completely viable and cost efficient doctors may even go so far as to discourage natural births in favor of safer and better regulated test tube births.

*If the technology developed to the point that its average cost was cheaper than that of natural births some insurance companies might refuse to pay for natural birth procedures.

So all things considered could a Catholic morally contribute to the development of such a device?

 

[RobbyS]

By artificial womb I mean a device the simulates the environment of a mothers womb to such an extent that it allows embryos/fetuses to grow and develop without the aid of the mother.

On the positive side:

*It would allow for the circumventing of Roe V. Wade by State laws since almost all levels of fetal development could be considered “viable” and RvW allows legislatures to regulate in cases of viability.

*It could allow the child to be saved in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or especially premature cases.

*It would create an environment in which the issue of “a woman’s ultimate authority over her body” was no longer an issue in the abortion debate and abortion supporters would be forced to acknowledge they support the disposal of the unborn due solely to the desire to shun inconvenient responsibilities.

On the negative side:

*It would remove the need for natural birth and encourage some women to have all of their children be “test tube” babies.

*If the technology became completely viable and cost efficient doctors may even go so far as to discourage natural births in favor of safer and better regulated test tube births.

*If the technology developed to the point that its average cost was cheaper than that of natural births some insurance companies might refuse to pay for natural birth procedures.

So all things considered could a Catholic morally contribute to the development of such a device?

Well, depends on the moral context, does it not? “Brave New World” featured such wombs. And it depicted a world–I hope I remember correctly–where child-bearing was completely separated from sexual pleasure. But of course, that means that intimacy between mothers and children is completely ended. Every child is an orphan, so to speak.

Of course , as a place to put premature children, a truly sufficient artificial would be a great boon for those who are left crippled by today’s today’s technology.

 

[1ke]

Like all technology, it is neither moral nor immoral. A thing isn’t moral or immoral. How we use things may be moral or immoral.

A gun is a neutral object. It is morallly used to hunt for food or to defend one’s country in war. It is immorally used in a robbery.

 

[Barbkw]

Reading through the Catechism concerning in-virtro fertilization; artificial wombs would be immoral as well.

Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.” (CCC 2376)

Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children (CCC 2377)

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. (CCC 2378)

 

[1ke]

Reading through the Catechism concerning in-virtro fertilization; artificial wombs would be immoral as well.

I don’t believe the catechism passage you quote supports your position in any way.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I don’t believe the catechism passage you quote supports your position in any way.

Well I think it supports the idea that purposely raising a child in such a womb would likely be considered immoral. It certainly would not consider the act of saving a premature child with one immoral though.

 

[1ke]

Well I think it supports the idea that purposely raising a child in such a womb would likely be considered immoral.

That wasn’t the question you asked.

And, the catechism passage doesn’t support that an “artificial womb” would be *intrinsically *immoral which is the assertion the other poster made. Technology is neither moral nor immoral per se.

 

[PatrickSebast]

**That wasn’t the question you asked.
**
And, the catechism passage doesn’t support that an “artificial womb” would be *intrinsically *immoral which is the assertion the other poster made. Technology is neither moral nor immoral per se.

I know, but I like to give people their crumbs every now and then.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

How is it morally different from a surrogate uterus- which is explicitly discussed in the Catechism?

 

[PatrickSebast]

How is it morally different from a surrogate uterus- which is explicitly discussed in the Catechism?

A surrogate uterus does not allow for anything besides the birth of one set of parents child through another woman.

An artificial womb would allow for a child the was naturally conceived to be removed and placed in a vessel to be cared for in cases where the child could not otherwise survive.

 

[GEddie]

Reading through the Catechism concerning in-virtro fertilization; artificial wombs would be immoral as well.

There are two issues here.

Artificial insemination and fertilization would not be ok; but, apart from that, the use of the “artificial womb” in, for example, ectopic pregnancy or prematurity, would not “a priori” be wrong.

The dubious territory begins if, for example, the woman could have a healthy, naturally-conceived fetus removed from her body and placed in the AW to gestate. I’m not sure if the Church attaches moral significance to the living-through of pregnancy itself.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure if the Church attaches moral significance to the living-through of pregnancy itself.

It does:

(1) the natural womb of the mother is a sacred place
(2) the entire process of reproduction is to remain intergrated within the persons (couple) who reproduce. Our organs are more than just functions; we are not to detach from the reproductive process in any way.