Feminism in the Time of the Technological Womb

---

The artificial womb. The embryo outside the mother. Ectogenesis, if we’re being technical. I was first exposed to this exploratory reproductive technology as a thought experiment during an undergrad gender studies class, and it’s been running in slow circles in my head since. In broad strokes, ectogenesis is a gestational technology that enables a fetus to develop outside the human body in an artificial incubator. I couldn’t tell you exactly why this concept tattooed itself in my imagination so many years ago. Maybe something about the otherworldliness of seeing images of a womb exhaling, pulsating in time with a growing heartbeat? Maybe its immediate world-bending, feminist implications?

Either way, it’s lodged itself in both my brain and reproductive discourse writ large. Ectogenesis, first introduced by J.B.S. Haldane in 1924, is currently enjoying a resurgence amidst the dire reproductive threats posed by the Trump administration.^[1] At times like these, when reductionist assignments of gender and identity are endorsed on the national policy stage, it is natural to seek shelter in escapist possibilities. Feminist thinkers and scholars have long located hope in ectogenesis, with many seminal critics celebrating its immense emancipatory potential. The writer Shulaminth Firestone decried the tyranny of reproduction and celebrated the radical potential of ectogenesis to challenge gender relations.^[2] One of the most enduring cultural associations in our collective unconscious is between woman and womb. Woman is mother, origin, life-giver. Ecotogeneis represents an existential disruption to this ancient synonymity. With ectogenesis, the tie is cut. What do we do with the woman that remains?

We remain far from unlocking the full promise of ectogenesis. The technology is largely nascent – researchers have been able to successfully grow animal embryos in artificial environments only for short periods. And so, before it fully emerges, let us use ectogenesis as a case study in bioethics – specifically, how to respond to enormously consequential reproductive technology without allowing commodification. The legacy of intervention and technologies being used to visit obstetric violence on pregnant people is one in which ectogenesis is inevitably entangled. But there is yet a way to deliver on the promise of this technology while still acting as sentinels against its exploitation. Ultimately, ectogenesis asks an age-old question with renewed urgency: how should humanity respond to scientific progress?

Who technology is made by and for matters. Technology always embodies the values of its creator. Reproductive technologies in particular are inextricably connected to questions of women’s autonomy and rights, and are thus ripe with opportunities for abuse. Before diving too deeply into the particulars of ectogenesis and its bioethical ramifications, let’s first examine the development of modern contraceptives and the role of power dynamics and profit in reproductive technology. Understanding this history provides essential context for evaluating new reproductive technologies. For example, the pill first emerged as a by-product of the pursuit of population control, and once it became obvious that this nascent field offered both prestige and profit, development and funding surged.^[3] During early clinical trials of the pill, many women of color were often used as obstetric guinea pigs. This phrase refers to the unethical and often coercive way these women were selected to test the pill, without fully informed consent, or any real regard for their health and well-being. Black women, in particular, were disproportionately involved in early clinical trials. These women were subjected to testing without proper informed consent, and many suffered serious side effects such as blood clots, strokes, and even death. After these experimental trials, contraceptive technology quickly became a male-dominated industry: it was controlled by men, populated by men, and run by men. The lack of women in decision-making positions was reflected in the preponderance of birth control devices that targeted women.^[4] This episode in reproductive technology demonstrates that the very groups targeted by advances are often barred from positions of power; their interests and priorities are not reflected in the decisions being made.

The mainstreaming of ectogenesis would have profound consequences for the most controversial bioethical questions of our age. Undeniably, emerging technologies like ectogenesis would offer unique advantages. The opportunity to have a completely external womb represents freedom and choice for many couples. Just as IVF before it, ectogenesis makes reproduction accessible to infertile and struggling couples who would have previously been unable to start their families – it offers gay, trans, and older couples the chance to have children safely.

However, it is important to locate these opportunities within the larger landscape of reproduction in America, particularly in relation to abortion debates. Technology has already played a key role in reshaping the abortion controversy; indeed, it has been co-opted by the pro-life movement as further evidence that life begins at conception. Ultrasound technology – the ability to view the fetus progressing through various stages of development – personified embryos at a scale never before experienced. Expectant parents gave the embryo personality traits, quirks, and idiosyncrasies.^[5] Just the rough ability to depict the outline of an embryo revolutionized the relationship between parent and fetus; ectogenesis would thus transform this relationship at an unprecedented scale.

Moreover, ectogenesis would fundamentally change the abortion debate. At present, the debate has been framed as an intractable problem of absolutely clashing values and priorities. However, ectogenesis would mean that, for the first time, pregnancy can be detached from women. An embryo could survive outside of the mother’s body; this simple fact would have a cascading effect on debates over autonomy, genetic privacy, choice, and freedom. For example, there is the risk that pro-life legislators and activists would embrace ectogenesis as a means of circumventing the ethical questions at the heart of the abortion debate. In a worst case scenario, instead of women being forced to carry fetuses inside their body, they would be forced to have these fetuses removed and subsequently gestated outside their bodies. And although the pregnancy would be divorced from the body, ectogenesis would certainly not resolve material issues related to raising and providing for the child after birth.

Today, the burden of reproduction belongs predominantly to cisgendered women’s bodies – ectogenesis would thus change a truth that has stood for all of human history. Again, this would translate into unprecedented social consequences, this time in the realm of feminism and womanhood. Despite resistance to the concept of biology as fate, there exists today a pervasive linkage between womanhood and motherhood in our society, and pregnancy is a powerful physical signifier of this connection. Women have historically spent most of their lives in the birthing bed, fulfilling their reproductive expectations.^[6] With the advent of human ectogenesis, women would be able to separate themselves from the process of pregnancy and lessen risks to their physical health. This physical freedom could have more widespread liberating effects. Gender hierarchies built upon the unequal division of reproductive labor would be deeply challenged as the most profound biological difference between the sexes is equalized. Parental and care-taking roles could be more equal, and as such, artificial wombs means that women would be able to pursue professional and personal interests that go well beyond their reproductive ability.

But it would be simplistic to view the promise of ectogenesis as an unmitigated boon for womankind. Pregnancy situated inside a woman’s body raises issues of bodily autonomy, giving pro-choice women a rallying point and moral imperative. If and when a fetus can survive outside of the maternal and reproductive body, questions of reproductive justice become more muddled and nuanced. Society at large and politicians would need to grapple with questions of what rights we assign to these embryos, and what sort of legislation best answers our most pressing questions. We already live in a political climate in which state judiciaries have deemed embryos to be unborn children.^[7]

Moreover, there is the risk that artificial wombs would devalue the role and place of women in pregnancy. The relationship between mother and fetus would be altered and diminished, and might lead to a perception of mother/surrogate disposability. The bond between mother and fetus, central to prenatal development, cannot be overlooked. Research by Marshall Klaus and John Kennell has demonstrated the profound and lasting impact of maternal-fetal attachment on the emotional and psychological well-being of the child.^[8] The tactile and hormonal connections formed through pregnancy create a foundation for a child’s emotional health that artificial wombs, despite their potential, cannot replicate at this time. The mother’s role in this process extends beyond mere gestation, influencing both the physical and emotional development of the child in ways that an external womb might diminish or disrupt. If ectogenesis were to become a reality, it could risk detaching the mother from the vital, nurturing relationship that is integral to the child’s lifelong development.

It is also essential to consider questions of power and wealth differentials in technological advances. For example, as examinations of surrogacy across the Global South demonstrate, exploitative and ethically dubious practices often emerge in the wake of technological progress.^[9] In the case of these surrogates, the rich are able to use disadvantaged populations to fulfill their own needs, and oftentimes do not act in the best interests of these vulnerable demographics. In a perfect world, ectogenesis would help the women that are today disproportionately limited in their access to maternal healthcare. However, if history is any indication, access to technological advances is not equitably distributed. Today, Black women’s maternal mortality rate is three times that of white women – a disparity that persists despite adequate technology, pointing to systemic inequities rather than technological gaps.^[10] Like most past reproductive technologies, ectogenesis will likely be an expensive medical procedure, thus creating a financial barrier to its access. One could make the argument that there are more impactful ways to improve maternal healthcare than focusing on niche technological innovations.^[11]

With technological advances, it is important to have oversight and accountability to control for its unforeseen consequences. Federal regulations and rules play a critical role in this endeavor. However, the United States has been historically reticent on issuing clear guidelines surrounding reproductive technology. Many point to the reluctance of politicians and legislators to take an unequivocal stance on the moral issues inevitably raised by discussions of reproductive technology.^[12] However, such a status quo is untenable; technology continues to advance and push the boundaries of possibility, and in response, those in positions of power need to grapple with difficult issues. Policy cannot wait for posterity to settle these urgent questions. Yet, while regulation is undeniably necessary to ensure the responsible development and deployment of reproductive technologies, one must question whether it is desirable for the current federal administration to take the leading role in overseeing such advancements. There is a real concern that under this admin, regulatory frameworks could be co-opted to serve interests that do not prioritize the well-being of women. It is essential that any regulatory oversight not only safeguards technological progress but also protects against the exploitation of women’s bodies and autonomy. Vigilance is required to ensure that policy is shaped not by right-wing agendas, but by the fundamental goal of safeguarding reproductive justice and a woman’s dignity.

Admittedly, these are difficult waters to wade into: these issues touch upon deeply personal and yet political questions about what it means to have—or to be—a family. However, the steady march of technological progress necessitates a cohort of physicians, ethicists, interest groups, and politicians rising to confront these challenges. It is incumbent to us to examine the larger medical system and broader structures of social repression to empower women to make fully informed reproductive choices.

Notes

1. J. B. S. Haldane, Daedalus: Science and the Future (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1924). ↑
2. Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1970). ↑
3. B. Hartmann, “Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: Shaping Contraceptive Technology,” in Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control, 161–175 (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2016). ↑
4. Margaret Marsh and Wanda Ronner, The Pursuit of Parenthood: Reproductive Technology from Test-Tube Babies to Uterus Transplants (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019). ↑
5. Jillian Duquaine-Watson, “A Brief History of Obstetric Ultrasound & Its Uses” (The University of Texas at Dallas. 2021). ↑
6. Judith W. Leavitt, Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America, 1750-1950 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). ↑
7. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Frozen Embryo Destruction and Potential Travel Restrictions for Surrogacy Arrangements.” Accessed March 2, 2025. https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/legally-speaking/frozen-embryo-destruction-and–potential-travel-restrictions-for-surrogacy-arrangements2/. ↑
8. John H. Kennell and Marshall H. Klaus, “Mother-Infant Bonding: Weighing the Evidence,” Science 189, no. 4202 (1975): 47–51. ↑
9. PBS NewsHour, “Indian Surrogacy Helps Lift Some Poor, but Raises Ethical Issues,” YouTube (2011). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeNZrfWiI9o. ↑
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021,” National Center for Health Statistics, March 16, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm. ↑
11. J. Block, “Arranged Birth,” in Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care. (Boston: Da Capo Press, 2007). ↑
12. Marsh and Ronner, The Pursuit of Parenthood (2019). ↑

---

Featured image caption: Photo by Jorge Chan.