Artificial wombs are perceived to change human reproduction, the advantage to potential parents, and the possibility of gender equality and balance in the parenting roles and other related bioethical issues (Abecassis, 2016). It is believed that over the years, the concept of egg and artificial womb will become the new norm of human reproduction as opposed to incubation of fetus in the body of women, referred to as ectogenesis.

The proponents argue that it will curb the complications such as miscarriages arising from embryo implantation or hysterectomies that arise from uterine cancer. It also resolves situations where the womb has become crowded and risks of complication are foreseeable or for those unable to carry an individual child as an alternative to surrogacy (Carlston, 2008). Indisputably, reproduction would be turned into manufacturing as a biological process which seems unrealistic. The advent of it will develop improvisation on reproductive technologies in therapeutic aspects and a contribution to the achievement of gender egalitarianism that enhanced reproductive parity (Rosen, 2003). It would potentially transform the infant mortality rate and give chances to the development of premature babies.

More so, difficulty arises regarding maintenance of stability in the improvement of health and safety reproduction based on difficulty, mistake, and problems subject to the reproduction process. The entire reproduction process would thus be commodified thus the perception of a growing child as a thing. This will partially erode the mystery in the development of human beings’ livelihood (Abecassis, 2016). More so, the identity of equality is crucial. It may however be a solution for the infertile beings who may be presented with the chance of having children, including transgender women, gay couples, or those not having uterus due to complications. Through their advantageous modifications would make it easier to perform surgery on the fetus, avoid complications from external harm to the fetus, and reduce the costs associated with the premature infants especially the long-term stay at the hospitals (Carlston, 2008). This is especially regarding the huge insurance payments being experienced in the neonatal care unit expenses and other related healthcare intervention mechanisms.

Those against, argue that it would promote termination of pregnancy for its continuation (Bulletti et al., 2011). It might also contribute to an increase in the gap between the poor and the rich, such that the poor rely on gestation while the rich utilize artificial wombs, exacerbating the disparity in exposure and nutrition between pregnancies. Discrimination would thus arise in such a contextual setting.

Works cited

Abecassis, M. (2016). Artificial Wombs: the third era of human reproduction and the likely impact on French and US law. Hastings Women’s LJ, 27, 3.

Bulletti, C., Palagiano, A., Pace, C., Cerni, A., Borini, A., & de Ziegler, D. (2011). The artificial womb. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1221(1), 124-128.

Carlston, C. (2008). Artificial wombs. Harvard Science Review, 35-9.

Rosen, C. (2003). Why not artificial wombs?. The New Atlantis, (3), 67-76.