ANOTHER British bioethicist at the top of her game has a proposal for enlightened reproduction. According to Bioedge, Anna Smajdor (photo above) of the University of East Anglia recommends ectogenesis, or gestation with artificial wombs.

Smajdor argues that equality between men and women cannot be achieved as long as pregnancy is the norm. Writing in the January issue of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, she states:

Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.

Smajdor demonstrates shocking ignorance of the processes of reproduction, which involve a symbiosis between mother and fetus essential to the health of both.

But of course it is wrong to take this proposal seriously and even submit it to rational argument. Here is one more female ethicist with a perverse masculinity complex. Contrary to what she says, equality has gone way too far.

— Comments —

Alissa writes:

Unless the course is reversed, we will end up with a fragmented dystopian world thanks to such splendid “bioethicists.” I can just see the future and it’s out of a dystopian novel with one part of the world emeshed in liberal nonsense and the other part a non-liberal reservation. Societal separation and total segregation anyone? I think like a comment at the Orthosphere has noted, “Lifeboats, not soapboxes.” Western civilization has gone off the rails and is committing suicide and we shouldn’t waste our time saving it. We should save ourselves and those we can. I don’t doubt societal renewal but I’ve become utterly convinced that we will hit rock bottom, and I mean rock bottom, with every perversion under the sun legalized and done before renewal will hit full force. There’s something odd about our current societal cycle (perhaps the advance in technology has something to do with it?) since decline is starting to sink in but people will do everything in their power to preserve it and will keep it on life support until the very end. They just won’t let go. The delusion has not changed (it has been roughly the same for all eras) but, thanks to technology, modern delusional people have more “tools” at their disposal to attempt to carve their whims into reality.

Laura writes:

I don’t deny things are bad but I don’t take Smajdor seriously. Look at her picture. Do you see an ethicist engaged in serious moral debate? Or do you see a girl looking for fun?

And we will never produce artificial wombs equal to the real thing.

Alissa writes:

Liberals endlessly talk about love and the importance of a child being reared in a “loving household” irrelevant of the sexes of the couple (or people). They talk about pleasure and how sex is ultimately about recreation. How can they turn around and create, perhaps, the greatest loveless act: having a child by IVF? Isn’t that just cold, hard reproduction? Shouldn’t children be created in the midst of love? Or maybe I’m right. The whole concept of love has been twisted.

James P. writes:

You wrote,

“I don’t take Smajdor seriously. Look at her picture. Do you see an ethicist engaged in serious moral debate? Or do you see a girl looking for fun?”

I see a picture of a “girl” who is over 40 and who needs an artificial womb if she is to reproduce at all.

Her bio says she got an MA in 1995 — my guess would be she was born no later than 1970.

David S. writes:

To Alissa, the liberal position is internally consistent: liberals think love is only an issue after the child is born. Before that, love is irrelevant to the fetus, and certainly irrelevant before conception. In this case, the person is arguing that even the nature of the environment is irrelevant to the fetus; what matters is only what happens after the child is born, or if you don’t admit that it is “born” if it was brought to term by an artificial womb, then replace “is born” with “starts to breathe.” You can disagree, but it’s a least internally consistent.

Laura writes:

I was going to say to Alissa that she was leaping to conclusions. Many liberals passionately believe in the importance of maternal attachment to a developing fetus. You’ve heard of women who even believe the music they play while they are pregnant will influence their child. I believe Smajdor’s proposal for artificial wombs would strike most liberals as creepy too. As far as the environment for conception, they tend to disregard that, especially in the case of homosexuals seeking to be parents. Regardless of whether the love felt at the moment of conception matters to the development of a child, the love embodied in a marital relationship certainly does over the long term. And by love in the latter case, I don’t mean exclusively or necessarily the feeling of love.

David S. writes:

To Laura, fair enough. Not all liberals would subscribe to my illustration of their position, and some would indeed be creeped out by this. Most would probably oppose laws against it, but many would never dream of recommending it or doing it themselves.

I actually agree with you about the importance of the love embodied in a marital relationship, though I don’t see how there’s a such thing as love disjoint from the feeling of love. If you mean love as an act, as in to “make love,” I’ve always thought of that as just a separate meaning of the word, basically a euphemism.

Laura writes:

I don’t see how there’s a such thing as love disjoint from the feeling of love.

That is one of the key differences between a conservative and a liberal. To the former, feelings come and go, but acts of fidelity, loyalty and service over the long term are what constitute the substance of love. Feelings are important, but love transcends them. One may even love someone one doesn’t particularly like. Love always at some point involves renunciation of self. To give what we feel like giving is not much of a gift.

Please follow and like us: