The headline seemed small and innocuous, peeping at me from the Sci-Tech section of the newspaper - my eye scanned the page, and suddenly I did a double-take. I read it again to be sure I wasn't missing something, but no, the words were the same: "Cornell Ob-Gyn Develops Artificial Uterus."
I was stunned; I thought such technology was decades away. Apparently not. I scanned through other news sources to make sure this wasn't some flash-in-the-pan fringe story, but as I flipped through other papers and scrolled down the major news web sites, there it was - always there, always in small, innocuous letters buried deep in the text. Does anybody else besides me see the enormity of this innovation? What has been developed at Cornell is an artificial womb, potentially - within five to ten years - capable of developing a human fetus completely independent of a mother!
One of the articles I'd read on the subject made the observation that, while feminists for years have been claiming that soon we'll live in a world where men aren't necessary (thanks to cloning technology), with the artificial uterus we'll all be living in a world where we won't need women either. This tit-for-tat argument, though, completely turns a blind eye to the major debate that has just been given an entirely different dimension: abortion.
Yes, that's right - I used the "A-word." With artificial wombs, it is possible (probable, actually) that for expectant mothers who wish to end their pregnancy, medical science will soon have a way for the fetus to be removed unharmed, from the mother, and developed separately. Hence, I was surprised that the media hadn't leaped upon this story like tigers to raw meat. The artificial uterus indeed has the potential to end the abortion debate.
Or does it? Discussing this topic with a friend at lunch, she made the point that even if medical science has given women the ability to have an unborn child safely removed and separately developed, it doesn't mean that she should also abandon her court-sanctioned option of having the pregnancy terminated altogether. Her major argument to this point was that if she were pregnant and had to end the pregnancy, she would rather have the unborn child die, than have it develop separately in a laboratory and given to an adoptive couple of whom she had no knowledge. This was, of course, the argument I was expecting she would make.
The logical rejoinder to this is to point out that first, the birth-parent normally gets to meet adoptive parents before the adoption transpires in order to gain peace of mind, and second, if one were going to have an abortion, it stands to reason that the expectant mother probably didn't care all that much about the child in the first place, so why would having it removed and developed separately make any difference? These arguments - on both sides - are, of course, emotional and moral arguments, based upon logic and sentiment.
Where the rubber really meets the road on this is precedent, statute and law. With science soon able to give pregnant women a safe, convenient alternative to abortion that removes the child while letting it survive, it is entirely possible that a court - even the U.S. Supreme Court - might rule that in this new light, the practice of abortion is rendered moot. The High Court might rule that this is an alternative that satisfies both ends of the political spectrum - the mother is no longer pregnant, and the fetus is not killed. This has the potential to drive a moral wedge into the landscape of women's issues in the U.S., in that given this alternative, huge numbers of women may feel that "external development" is the perfect alternative to termination of the pregnancy, while the more hard-core element of the women's movement might feel that the fetus is still technically part of them, and it's their right to kill it if they wish. This also might drive a wedge into the religious right as well, since while some of them might feel that this new technology "solves" the abortion debate, the more conservative element of the movement might feel that, like cloning technology, the use of an artificial uterus is against natural law and ought to be outlawed. Wow - the far religious right and the hard-core feminists might actually agree on something.
Of course, the real test of this technology is what the courts will decide. It is possible that in the face of this development, the hard-core, pro-choice advocates might not have a legal leg on which to stand. While this technology is still in its infancy, it is clearly an issue that can only exacerbate the ever-raging debate on abortion in America. In the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on Roe vs. Wade, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that due to rapid advances in technology, "Roe vs. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Brace yourself, America - here it comes.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.