In the USA, abortion is still a very controversial topic when compared with Europe. And it is only going to get worse as technology improves. I want to talk about some ethical question that I foresee coming up in the not too distant future.

Before we begin, I want to give my opinion on abortion as a disclaimer. I believe that abortion should be legal. I believe it is woman’s right to choose and she can do whatever she wants with her body.

In the USA, the divide between those who want abortion to be legal and illegal is approximately 57% to 39% respectively. Which I am glad about, but it still could be better. This large voting block has enough power to pressure politicians to make it harder, and in some cases impossible for a woman to get an abortion. Which I find repugnant.

One way in which technology may add fuel to the fire of this debate is the concept of ectogenesis, or artificial wombs. The ability to gestate an embryo outside the human body will have far reaching effects.

The concept will raise innumerable questions such as: will deeply religious people demand that aborted fetuses be placed in these artificial wombs? If so, will the tax payer pay for it, or will they demand that women pay for it them themselves and thus add an obstacle to getting an abortion? Will people accept the idea of artificial wombs in the first place? Many people are opposed to IVF, will they oppose artificial wombs on the same grounds? If it is okay to terminate a pregnancy up to a certain point, will the same rules apply?

These are all questions that we will have to grapple with. Not just individually, but as a society as well.

There will also be corporate ethics to consider. What happens if there is a power cut and a fetus in an artificial womb does not survive? Who would be responsible? The corporation? The power grid technicians? What would be the legal ramifications of such a situation? No doubt a whole new branch of legislation will need to be introduced. Corporate money is already a cancer in our political system, would corporations try to introduce legislation that would benefit them? Would the biological parents of the fetus be able to sue in this case?

I’m sorry if I am giving you more questions than answers, but that is the nature of speculation. All you can have is questions and opinions.

I’m now going to give two examples of very controversial hypothetical situations that I would like your input on. Please leave your ideas in the comments section.

First: Lets say that a couple begin the process of having a baby with a corporation that is selling access to an artificial womb. They combine there genetic information and they place it within and it begins to grow. Now lets say that all of a sudden, the couple change their minds due to financial and personal matters and they would like the embryos destroyed. Its before the abortion threshold. Could the corporation deny them the right to destroy the embryos on religious grounds, the same way that companies can deny services or particular goods based on religion? It is the couples baby and genetic information, do they have the right to terminate it? Or does the company have the right to deny them that procedure?

Second: Lets say we have the same starting situation as before. There is a couple with an embryo in an artificial womb. But this time, the couple breaks up and only one of the parents wants to terminate the artificial pregnancy, the other parent wants to take it to full term and raise it as a single parent. This is very similar to the current situation going on with Sofia Vergara and her ex, Nick Loeb. In this situation, whose rights take precedence? Is it the person who wants to keep it or terminate it?

As you can see, these are all very complicated matters and it will take a while before we can fully address these questions in the context of societal change. But hopefully us transhumanists will be able to have a head start and lead the charge in these discussions.

Thank you for your time

Jacob Daniels