The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unwanted Pregnancies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,936 times Debate No: 69455
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




Ectogenesis is the process of removing a fetus from a mother and placing it into an artificial womb. This artificial womb will nourish and protect the baby, much like the body of a mother; in cases of rape, incest, and abusive relationships, the mother would not have to abort the fetus, and rather place it into this artificial womb. I AM NOT SAYING ABORTION SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL AS A RESULT OF ECTOGENESIS. The artificial womb would give women with unwanted pregnancies the chance to not carry a baby for nine months. This is about fairness between the sexes. This is about more choices for young mothers in tough positions.


Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973.2 Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters.
Debate Round No. 1


Yikes! It looks like my opponent does not understand my question.
To clarify: This is not a debate for or against abortion. This is a debate over the overall effects of ectogenesis on women with unplanned pregnancies. My opponent refrained from using the word "ectogenesis" in his entire argument; this leads me to believe he is not, in fact, aware of the original statement, posted above: "Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unwanted Pregnancies." It is quite difficult to refute a procedure without even using the procedure"s name.

To respond to Con, I will assume he is equating abortion with ectogenesis.
To retain some semblance of organization, I will list my arguments.

1."Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973." Note: topic of the debate, ectogenesis, is not mentioned.
Please define your use of the term "unregulated"" it is quite ambiguous. Do you support forced ultrasounds? Do you support government oversight in every abortion clinic? Do you support Louisiana"s recently passed law that will enable women who regret their abortion to sue their doctor for "unlimited sums?"(1).. And I hardly think it is appropriate to compare the "abortion industry" to other industries. Abortion is not remotely related to a dental procedure or a breast implant.
"The number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year". One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women"nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year." (2) I am in no way minimizing the 347 deaths that resulted from "botched procedures," caused by legal abortions. However, in one single year, 1930, we see clearly that nearly 8 times as many women died from illegal abortions; more deaths than the 40 years of legal abortions combined. It is safe to say, limiting access to safe abortion procedures is more perilous than legalized abortion.

2.Here we go" the infamous "cancer is caused by abortion claim." Actually: "Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women (aside from skin cancer), and it"s the second leading cancer killer in women" scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." (3) This directly contradicts your claim, which interestingly comes from a biased source, an organization against abortion. "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice also reviewed the available evidence in 2003 and again in 2009. In 2009, the Committee said. "Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no casual relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."" (3) It must be said that this information comes from the American Cancer Society, an organization with no connection at all to pro-choice or pro-life interest groups.

Now I will state my arguments supporting ectogenesis. Note: I realize the arguments above appear to support abortion. On the contrary, ectogenesis is an alternative to abortion; to reiterate, this discussion is not about abortion. I merely stated facts in response to my opponent.

1.Abortion: a medical procedure done to end a pregnancy. It is what most people think of when they hear "abortion."
Ectogenesis: "raising a fetus outside the body in an artificial womb." (4)
Please note the differences.

2.Background: Dr. Helen Hung-Ching Liu, Director of Reproductive Endocrine Laboratory at the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility" grew a human embryo, for ten days in an artificial womb. As complicated as it is, her goal is a functioning external womb." (4)

3.To recall my previous statement: "Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unplanned Pregnancies"" I believe truly that this procedure- which differs greatly from an abortion because the pregnancy is not terminated, it is continued in an artificial womb- will help women with unplanned pregnancies. I recognize the ambiguity of the term "help"- to aid my opponent, I will narrow the definition: "help" as in, present more choices for women with unplanned pregnancies. Simply, will ectogenesis help or hurt these women?

4.I realize that ectogenesis is not a perfected procedure- because of the ethical and political minefields that surround artificial wombs, the research process is extremely slow-moving. If it helps, assume that women have access to these artificial wombs now. Picture a young woman who must make a choice- keep the fetus inside her body for nine months, abort the baby, or- a new choice is presented- she may choose to have the fetus transferred to an artificial womb. Is this new option good? Or bad?

5.Finally, I would like to mention some arguments against ectogenesis which I find rest on unsound logic.
a."Artificial wombs would make women feel useless." Oh dear. This assumes that all women feel "useful" simply because of their ability to bear children. Does this mean men, who cannot give birth, feel useless already? Does this mean infertile women are useless? I hope we all know that the worth of a person does not rest on their ability to give birth.
b."Ectogenesis would convince all conservative lawmakers to outlaw abortion, because this gives pregnant women another option that does not involve terminating the fetus." Ectogenesis is about more options for women, not replacing the options already present. My personal beliefs concerning abortion have no place in this argument. And in my experience, conservative lawmakers are an unpredictable bunch :)
c."Ectogenesis will result in too many unwanted children." There are millions of couples in the U.S. alone who are waiting to adopt a child. There are also many same-sex couples who would love to adopt a child.

Thank you for reading! I came back from another District Band rehearsal that lasted 8 hours, so I apologize if my arguments seem scattered. To my opponent: please discuss the matter at hand :)



mgajjar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright, my opponent forfeited. I will begin where I left off.
There are many benefits to ectogenesis, and I believe the possible moral implications are outweighed by the good the procedure can bring to society. I found a compiled list of some advantages to ectogenesis:
1.Artificial wombs would allow women with damaged uteruses but with viable ovaries to have their own genetic children without resorting to surrogacy
2.Premature babies could be placed in artificial wombs instead of incubators- this lowers the risk of poor respiratory development
3.This would allow women who do not want to physically carry a child to have their own baby
4.Artificial wombs would be a possible alternative to abortion
Assuming the last advantage leads to many unwanted children (who would have, in other cases, been aborted) there are many, many families throughout the world who would love to look after these children.
There are about 123,000 orphans in America alone.
"There are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption."
While there are many orphans already in America alone, there are many, many more couples waiting to adopt. Therefore, the "too many unwanted children" argument is invalid.
In summation, despite the moral and theoretical arguments against ectogenesis, the procedure will ultimately help pregnant women by opening up more options.
Note: in my above argument, my computer converted some commas to quotation marks"oops" Anyways, thank you for reading! I hope over the next few decades we will see a rise in acceptance and research for ectogenesis! :)


mgajjar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by QueenEsther 3 years ago
Looks like my computer converted some commas to quotation marks.. Please disregard! Thank you!
Posted by QueenEsther 3 years ago
I want to discuss the pros and cons of such a procedure- simply, is ectogenesis a positive development for society? The points below are some examples of cons. It is a basic argument of good/bad, helpful/damaging for the women and fetuses involved
Posted by Meepz14 3 years ago
I'm not entirely clear on what you want to debate here. In your previous comment you've outlined the main points from the opposing sides, are you looking to discuss these points or others?
Posted by QueenEsther 3 years ago
I think it is fair to say many women do want the problem to "go away". However, many women with unwanted pregnancies are in difficult financial situations, are in abusive relationships, or are young and trying to get an education. They may want to have their baby, at a later time. This is not a debate over abortion, it is a debate over ectogenesis.
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
* However
Posted by Chuz-Life 3 years ago
Obviously, I would love to see medical technology advance to this point. Hoever, in my past debates on the subject (including embryonic transfers to other women) . . . women who generally demand abortions do not want the child to survive. Period.

If they are having an affair and get pregnant, sleeping with someone they just don't want a child with, etc. They want that abortionist to make sure the problem "goes away." Having the child survive the abortion is not on their wish list at all.
Posted by QueenEsther 3 years ago
I have discussed this with friends. The arguments against it, which I consider viable, are:

-This will cause more problems for both the mother, later on, and the baby, with no parents
-There will be too many unwanted children
-Conservative lawmakers will insist that abortion be made illegal, due to this new choice for pregnant women
-It is simply never going to be scientifically possible, due to expenses
-It is simply never going to be legal, due to the ethical implications

There are more arguments, I would enjoy discussing. Thanks!
Posted by Beagle_hugs 3 years ago
Is this about technical feasibility within a short time horizon? I don't see how this can be opposed on grounds other than irrelevance (e.g. if it can't be available before other options preclude it adding any value), unless someone wants to argue that there are some moral or developmental reasons for not doing it.
Posted by QueenEsther 3 years ago
Simply, women are the ones who become pregnant. Men are not. Women must, if they become pregnant, make the choice to keep the baby or abort it. Men do not have to make that choice. Ectogenesis gives women more choices. That is what I support.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
Can you explain this quote " This is about fairness between the sexes. "
No votes have been placed for this debate.