The Times of London reports:

The first human trial of an artificial womb could take place this year, experts believe, raising hopes that the technology could dramatically improve the survival rates of very premature babies.

The term “artificial womb” recalls images of dystopian baby factories, but Alan Flake, one of the medical doctors overseeing the initiative, dismissed the idea of babies being grown in bio-bags from the embryonic stage, as a replacement for pregnancy, as a “pipe dream.”

The idea is that a premature infant would be placed in a fluid-filled “bio-bag,” basically an advanced incubator that imitates the conditions of the mother’s womb.

The baby would be supplied with oxygen and nutrients via an artificial placenta attached to its umbilical cord while its lungs remain filled with liquid, as they are in a natural womb. The aim is to improve survival rates, which stand at just 10 per cent for babies born at 22 weeks.

The technique has been pioneered by a group based at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in the United States who have carried out hundreds of successful trial runs using lambs.

This technology, if successful, could transform neonatal intensive care for the better. However, it’s hard to ignore the adjacent ethical issues. Remember the pro-life argument that “if wombs had windows,” abortion would be untenable?

Could the infant in the bio-bag be aborted? Once the baby is in the bag, the mother’s arguments for abortion based on bodily autonomy wouldn’t stand. But what if the child was handicapped? Would the child have the same rights as a born child or the same rights as an unborn child (which is to say, not many)?