Is an artificial uterus a tool to free women?

While it is undeniable that the uterus can still benefit a lot of people, it does not necessarily act as a tool to release women.

Pregnancy and childbirth are a happy, natural, and fulfilling experience, but sometimes a tremendous physical pain for some women. Artificial wombs may help with these situations. However, whether this technology will be a tool to free women from the obligation to give birth is still controversial.

Not everyone agrees that blood, sweat, and tears are necessary and indisputable life. For example, radical feminist Shulamith Firestone once wrote in the book 'Dialectic of gender' - The Dialectic of Sex (1970). She had a 'less generous' view of this arduous process of extinction, or comparison to 'pooping out a pumpkin'.

Illustration of 9-week-old fetus - (Photo by Stocktrek / Getty)

Regardless of the 'nature' of pregnancy, no one can deny that the development of artificial womb technology will completely change the debate.

The first is the health benefits: for women at risk of pregnancy who can transfer the fetus to the uterus, this technology will help the fetus' development continue. Similarly, the fetus at risk of preterm birth can be transferred to the artificial uterus to complete the normal development cycle.

Second, technology can bring important social benefits to women. According to Firestone, the artificial uterus would eliminate an important condition currently holding women back. With this technology, sex does not mean much in reproduction.

Despite the undisputed biological differences between the sexes, Ms. Shulamith Firestone argued that it was unfair for women to give birth as natural. If the fetus develops in an artificial womb, the woman will be freed from the obligation to give birth and be free to pursue her interests and desires.

Infertile or infertile people can count on this technology. (Photo: Getty).

In addition to the aforementioned benefits, the artificial womb seems to have a different appeal to the majority. Infertile or infertile people can count on this technology.

So, in 2017, when researchers successfully developed eight sheep fetuses in vesicles simulating the conditions of the sheep womb, they received considerable media attention.

Despite the researchers' remarkable efforts, their findings only recall the development of artificial wombs in humans. And through this process, decades-old debates like Firestone's were brought back to focus.

It is true that Firestone's claims are still supported by contemporary feminists, such as the philosopher Anna Smajdor expressed in the article 'The moral urgency of artificial development' (2007). But the excitement of artificial womb obscures the fact that: in fact, the potential of this release technology is quite limited.

The artificial uterus can guarantee gender equality in reproduction, as it is limited to pregnancy. But after childbirth, most women breastfeed, express milk, raise and educate the baby.

Others may still take care of a child considered to be a mother's, but society will be dissatisfied with women who do not support their children on their own.

In this context, the artificial uterus does not offer a clear solution to the social prejudices that are involved in reproductive oppression in the first place.

This also raises a bigger problem in favor of a feminist career. The artificial uterus promises to ease women's physical pressure during childbirth, but it does not solve the conceptual problem - that is, it does not challenge the patriarchal values ​​currently present. in social. In fact, a closer look at artificial uterine technology also suggests that it could be detrimental to women's liberation efforts.

In his essay, philosopher Suki Finn describes two models of pregnancy, which are also current Western insights into the process.

The first model describes the fetus as part of the pregnancy, like an arm, leg or kidney. The second model, which describes the fetus and the pregnant woman as two separate entities - this model is more culturally dominant.

As Finn points out, through this model people compared pregnancy to 'having a cake in the microwave'. In addition, Finn describes the fetus as an astronaut floating in an empty, dark space instead of being attached to the wall of the uterus.

In everyday life, understanding of reproduction in the second model is relatively harmless; but it will be unfavorable in many other ways.

Sociologist Amrita Pande demonstrated this in her 2010 study of the surrogacy industry which is banned in India.

Maternity hospitals have taken advantage of the development of inhumane prenatal care services, one of which is surrogacy.

After birth, most women breastfeed, express milk, raise and educate their babies.

The rationality of the reproductive process depends on the concept we use to understand them. For example, the idea of ​​using an artificial uterus to replace some or all stages of pregnancy is assuming that the fetus and pregnancy can actually be separated. In the same way that reproductive biologist Roger Gosden called the uterus the "intelligent incubator" in 'Baby Design' (1999).

In the current context, the loss of pregnancy and the decline in the relationship of mother and fetus are contrary to the feminist issue.

While it is undeniable that the uterus can still benefit many people, of which women are only a part. But not necessarily it will act as a tool to liberate women.

For now, certainly, the uterus can alleviate the physical pain some women face. However, if the prevailing patriarchal model cannot be resolved, the overall liberating potential of technology is still limited.