Abstract

According to some faithful prolife Catholic bioethicists, the potential creation of artificial womb technology (AWT) may provide an end to the abortion debate for both pro-abortion and prolife advocates. They contend that in cases where a pregnant mother desires to procure an abortion, the prolife advocate may accept partial ectogenesis (i.e., the transferring of the conceptus in utero into an artificial womb), as a licit alternative to abortion. While defenders of abortionwho have redefined the right to an abortion as a right to procure the death of the conceptus have rejected this proposal, it has found little opposition from prolife Catholics. In this paper, I argue that AWT cannot resolve the abortion debate for the faithful prolife Catholic. In the first section, I argue that the elective use of AWT is licit only when it is necessary to preserve the well-being of the conceptus or his mother. Elective partial ectogenesis (i.e., partial ectogenesis that is not medically necessary) is best described as an act of illicitly depriving the conceptus ofhis prima facie right to be gestated in his mother’s womb. In the second section, I argue that the use of AWT in lieu of abortion would further distort society’s perception of the beauty of the distinctly maternal, the importance of the mother–child relationship in pregnancy, and the distinction between the masculine and feminine which must be upheld. This paper does not answer the unresolved and important question of if and when ERDs 47 and 49 apply in light of techno-logical developments in AWT.