Ezekeal Weed
22 July 2020
It is a futuristic theoretical topic with many unanswered questions and many more
questions to answer. It is for those who fear to have a child because of forced regulations, and for
the people who are against abortion, it is just another way of dealing with life that is a little bit
cleaner. Now, life outside the womb is figuratively speaking, but it will be literal in this case.
Has anyone ever wondered when women have to go through pregnancy and do not want
to go through the process? Why not have them transfer their unborn child to an Artificial womb?
By choice instead of killing on the spot. If the fetus is before viable development, then the
embryo will be transferred to an En caul crib (unique womb bag). However, for the fetus that is
past viable development, the doctor will transfer them to a specialized incubator. The science is
at a developed level, especially in Lamb stages in a bag2
, and it is at a restricted level.
Simultaneously, it sounds simple since we already do transplants and cultivate cells for it if there
is a need to do so.
In the present day, there is a law in the USA (and others) that prohibits holding vitro
human embryos for longer than 14 days thanks to Warnock for making the rule3
. What if we can
adjust that to our likings? Our focus is not about the idea of cloning but birthing fetuses outside
of a human mother, safely. Many controversial options are in place that helps to prohibit the idea
of cloning primarily only humans, just a friendly reminder. This process is not for cloning.
Lastly, the USA national law has nothing against the idea of abortions, but every state do5
, about
every state has something to be said about it. We should eliminate the idea that abortion is
terrible. Because, if this idea gets acceptance, the abortion records will drop dramatically! Since
no one is getting an abortion "technically." the doctors move the developing fetus to an artificial
En caul or some kind unique incubator to be born. There will be fewer issues for the mother's
possibility if she is medically unsafe to give birth. Just maybe this invention will be sociably
accepted sooner rather than later. Even though they can still get an abortion, but in this context,
no deaths will happen pre-maturely or on purpose. So, it is like placing a crown (Ectogenesis)
over a bad tooth (abortion). Just hopefully, the practice will be very environmentally safe for the
transfer of life.
Governmental control over the human population does show in vast populous areas. We
do not want to accept it; at one time, China had the one child per household law, which had a
spike in an increased amount of abortions, then here in America, there are such regulations for
going through with pregnancies. So how much harder is it to have the government control their
population when a natural disaster occurs, they can print out babies like money. Nevertheless, in
this case, human life quality will not drop because of the uniqueness and how valuable it is. We
cannot let the government enforce direct conception and or force births along with forcing
abortions (that is another topical issue, but not for this paper). It sounds morally innocent when
there is a bank of pre- fetus than to force people to generate life. It cannot be any worse than an
egg and a sperm bank merging into a new type of bank.
Imagine the revised version of a fetal bank called that could ideally be called the AECF
Nursery "Artificial En Caul Nursery" or the Ectogenesis Nursery. Now, a little funny question,
who gets the rights of the newly born child? There are several ways we can look at this! A
relaxed look is if the mother gives her embryos or fetus to this fetal bank in case if she could not
give birth. We would safely assume she would still have the rights to the child. Because having a
surrogate mother In gestational surrogacy, they have regulation set up for the intended mother
with their genetic materials by giving them the full parental rights4
. Another outlook, but a very
confusing one would be if she did not want the child at all? Would the child be aborted? If the
Ectogenesis Nursery decides not to bring the fetus till term, the abortion would be on them
instead of the mother.
Hopefully, they would not tell her if she did not want to know by having her sign an
anonymously outlook agreement (more so like terminating her rights to the child, appropriately).
It is only to protect the mother's mental mind, not knowing where the unborn will end up, kind of
like Schrödinger's cat's thought, it is best to keep thinking of that way than knowing the mother
"really" aborted her unborn child. Let us say this agreement exists. It would primarily state that if
the Nurseries received an embryo or fetus without an intending mother by legal means, they have
the right to do an abortion or grow the fetus till term. Then, to give the child to an adoption or
foster program (this will generate these programs to expand once more, but again they are either
privately or governmentally funded, so a small issue). Not one point, she will know the option
the Labs had picked hence Schrödinger's cat.
Though, there should be a cap for how many fetuses till term vs. embryo till term ratio.
These nurseries absolutely cannot overpopulate on children without mothers, because eventually
there will be no more space. The ratio depends on the amount of population wanting a child vs. if
kids can go into these children's care programs. The Nursery needs a focus on when it is ok to
abort a fetus or to grow the fetus. Just a thought, it looks worse when there are aborted corpses
(murder), then there are aborted embryos ("failed attempt"). So, their focus should be to grow the
humanoid fetus till term and for qualifying reasons to abort the embryos and for emergencies
only to abort the fetus.
Scientifically speaking, It would be best to transfer the fetus as a fetus instead of an
embryo. Reasons for this is because the hardest part of cellular life has concluded during the
embryonic stages of life, so, now the fetus only has to grow into a viable version with given
nutrition. Not stating to wait till the fetus is at the timeframe to be transferred, just saying that it
would be the best opportunity for the fetus to grow healthier.
People may think it can bring up a moral issue like the one during the present time now.
People have complained about morals for the fetus's rights vs. body rights for the predetermined
mother, just a little side note. Mothers have rights to their kids till the age of 18. They are
allowed to do what they legally can do to the child, by enforcing the child to do things. So in a
way that is taking away the rights of the child.
Now, it is irritating to think of the rights of a non born child because they exhibit no
societal contribution. They do the opposite. When the mother nowadays is forced. They will
have to take off work, which slows down production. Then they would always be tired, which
again slows the production down. If the mother is poor and wants the child to live, she may break
laws then get caught, which takes away from the social contributions, or if the mother becomes
depressed and trapped only doing mother things, it is just not right. Males will never have to go
through this, so why do males have the highest authority? Positive side note, there should never
be a girl younger than 18 to be stuck with to give birth because of regulations. If it is that case,
then give the unborn fetus or developing embryo to a Nursery. Yes, that is an excuse for an
argument, but it just needs to be clearly stated.
Let us go back and theorize, what if there is a corrupt government that gets control of this
scientific development! They would most likely make babies for slavery or an organ farm like
the movie "The Island 2005"1
. It is sad to say, but that stuff already exists. Now, it would make it
easier for these types of governments to get there hands on but at the same time. We have human
rights for the world. These lousy government will be found and taken care of, understandable
that is just a big whopping hope. So, that means we will need heavy use of access restrictions.
Covered by the government but not controlled by it. These private companies need to have
paperwork to ensure the safety of all living beings birthed into a viable or living human baby.
Just like everything we have, there are rules/regulations/laws. Then we also have services, let us
make this artificial womb a thing and make it harder for the wrong power of use. We can deal
with the problems and fix them along the way.
Here is a refreshment of what was gone over. A lamb born by the En caul crib,
Governmental control of population with restrictions of both the positive and the negatives. Then
who gets the rights to the unborn fetus, the protection of the women's mental mind of needing to
abort, and a few current issues of why aborting is angelic and or sinister. Ok, for a moment, we
are not ignorant. We have many pros and many more cons, but in the world, many things have
more cons than pros. So how terrible can it be to neglect the artificial womb (En caul)?
Works cited
1. Bay, Micheal. 「The Island.」 IMDb, IMDb.com, 20 July 2005, m.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/.
2. David P. "Hello, Dolly, Dolly, Dolly . . .: Human Cloning Hasn't Yet Arrived, but Worrying
about it is Up to Speed. CLONES AND CLONES Facts and Fantasies about Human
Cloning. Edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Cass R. Sunstein. 351 Pp. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company. $26.95. THE ETHICS OF HUMAN CLONING by Leon R. Kass
and James Q. Wilson. 101 Pp. Washington: The AEI Press. $16.95. Hello, Dolly, Dolly,
Dolly . ." New York Times (1923-Current file), Sep 06, 1998, pp. 2. ProQuest,
https://pac.lfpl.org:2089/docview/109987486?accountid=3730.
3. Hurlbut, J Benjamin, et al. "Revisiting the Warnock rule." Nature Biotechnology, vol. 35, no.
11, 2017, p. 1029+. Gale Academic OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A513866499/AONE?u=kctcsjcc&sid=AONE&xid=d644d
de0. Accessed 20 July 2020.
4. 「Intended Parents FAQs.」 Surrogate.com, surrogate.com/intended-parents/the-surrogacyprocess/intended-parents-faq/.
5. Milligan, Susan. 「A Guide to Recent State Abortion Laws.」 U.S. News & World
Report, U.S. News & World Report, 27 June 2019, 12:09pm,
www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-27/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-bystate.