Last week the buzz around some FaceBook groups was all about
recent
advances in the technology of artificial wombs. With reservations, we think that this could
be a good thing. It has the potential to
address certain concerns that come up when discussing a “pro-life economic
agenda” geared toward removing all economic pressure or justification for
abortion.
First, technology qua
technology is morally neutral. It all
depends on what you do with it. We can
see no moral objection to an artificial womb to save the life of an infant who
would otherwise die. It is, as far as we
can see, no different from an artificial heart or lung. It would, in our opinion, be morally permitted
under the principle of double effect.
(The principle of double effect is an ethical doctrine that
originates in Thomas Aquinas’s analysis of a killing in self-defense in the Summa Theologica. We don’t need to get
into self-defense for our purposes here; we can content ourselves with
summarizing the principle.
(The principle of double effect applies when carrying out an
act that is ordinarily either good or morally indifferent, but which has
unintended bad “side effects.” For example, surgery causes pain and endangers
the patient’s life, but the intent, to repair or remove a diseased or injured
organ, is good; surgery considered by itself is morally neutral.
(For an act to be morally licit [i.e., “allowed”] under the principle of double effect, four conditions
must be met:
(1. The act must either be good or morally indifferent, i.e., the act cannot be inherently or
objectively evil in and of itself.
(2. The bad side effect must not be the means by which the
good effect is achieved [i.e., it
must be an actual side effect].
(3. The good effect must be what is intended. The bad side
effect must be unintended. [This isn’t exactly
the same as #2.]
(4. The good effect must be at least as significant or
important as the bad effect; i.e.,
the good must either equal or surpass the bad.
(There is a fifth condition in social justice: we cannot
allow the cause(s) that forced such a choice on us to remain. We have the duty
to organize in social justice to restructure the institutions of the social
order that were causing, or allowing others to cause, the situation that forced
us to choose something bad.)
Once we get into reasons other than saving a life, things
get a little more gray. Viable embryos
that would otherwise be destroyed? This
is a somewhat tougher call, but we would go with prudence and say, Bring them
to term in an artificial womb. Should
they have been conceived? In the opinion
of some people, no — but they were conceived, they are, in terms of “being,”
human, and to kill them would, given the presumption of humanity, therefore be
objectively evil.
Cases of conception due to rape or incest, or where the
mother's life is in danger, bring up a similar case. This is even grayer (or blacker, if you
prefer). The first two are the hardest
call. If the alternative were abortion
without recourse, our opinion would be that an artificial womb might be
permitted as an expedient, although with certain reservations.
The last, the case of a mother’s life being in danger, is
easier. Assuming that the mother’s life
really is in danger, there is a clear medical justification for bringing the
infant to term outside the mother's womb.
Other reasons, e.g.,
career, convenience, laziness, or anything else, would, probably, fall into the
area of things that are considered immoral, but which human law probably would allow
for the sake of expedience. It is not
objectively evil for an infant to gestate outside the mother’s womb, but what
constitutes justification to do so would be one heck of a judgment call that
many people are probably not prepared to make objectively. This would in all likelihood last at least
until the social order can be restructured and more people are encouraged by
the institutional environment to act in conformity with their own nature, which
includes having children naturally instead of growing them in a bottle.
#30#
