{"id":298803,"date":"2023-09-18T12:40:01","date_gmt":"2023-09-18T17:40:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=298803"},"modified":"2023-09-17T16:53:37","modified_gmt":"2023-09-17T21:53:37","slug":"scientists-human-trials-artificial-wombs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/scientists-human-trials-artificial-wombs\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientists look to begin human trials for artificial wombs"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In 2017, researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) announced<\/a> they had successfully been able to keep premature lambs alive through ectogenesis \u2014 an artificial womb. Now, six years later, they are requesting to move forward to human trials, which could have massive repercussions.<\/p>\n

Nature reported<\/a> that CHOP researchers have requested approval to test their Extra-uterine Environment for Newborn Development, or EXTEND, device, on humans. For now, the team cautioned that it is not meant to support life from conception through birth; rather, they are hoping to increase survival chances of micro-preemies.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf it\u2019s as successful as we think it can be, ultimately, the majority of pregnancies that are predicted at-risk for extreme prematurity would be delivered early onto our system rather than being delivered premature onto a ventilator,” Alan Flake, a fetal surgeon, said in 2017.<\/p>\n

A panel of advisors for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will meet next week, and many people in the medical field are interested. \u201cThis is definitely an exciting step and it\u2019s been a long time coming,\u201d Kelly Werner, a bioethicist and neonatologist at Columbia University Medical Center, told Nature. \u201cClinicians who work with premature babies will be closely following this meeting.”<\/p>\n

There is still much debate surrounding the notion of human trials, but it could be a groundbreaking development that can save many lives. Yet as prenatal testing, a pro-life tool, was hijacked<\/a> by the abortion industry, there are concerns that artificial wombs could be hijacked for an unethical purpose as well. However, the concern is largely coming from the pro-abortion movement for now.<\/p>\n

When the technology first surfaced, many applauded it as a way to eliminate the abortion debate entirely. Women who didn’t want to be pregnant wouldn’t have to be; they could separate themselves from their babies, even before viability, without having to kill them. It was a win-win situation… except, for abortion advocates, it wasn’t.<\/p>\n

At Wired<\/a>, pro-abortion writers argued that abortion should still be permitted even if artificial wombs existed because women might be “psychologically harmed” if she lives with the guilt of having a child she chooses not to raise. Of course, Wired had no concern about any potential guilt over ending a child’s life by abortion. The outlet wrote:<\/p>\n

Even if a legal system has absolved a biological mother of legal obligations toward her biological child, she might still feel a sense of obligation toward the child or guilt toward herself, for not enshrining the self-sacrificing qualities often idealized and associated with motherhood. <\/em><\/p>\n

Living with these emotions could cause the biological mother psychological harm, and she might also be at risk of encountering related social stigma. <\/em><\/p>\n

Future legislation will need to guarantee that ectogenesis is a choice rather than a new form of coercion. The right to abortion will need to be recentered in law around the value of reproductive autonomy and the right not to become a biological parent against one\u2019s will, as opposed to fetus viability.<\/em><\/p>\n