Ectogenesis is the growth of an organism entirely outside of a natural environment. Achieving such growth for a human child has been a dream of biologists for decades now. What was once a dream might soon be a reality however. With recent biotechnological breakthroughs having us quite close to being able to create new human life, no natural womb necessary.

Just this past April, researchers working at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia revealed their successful development of a new highly advanced artificial womb. Their new BioBag technology is a far leap forward from current incubators and would allow us to save premature babies born as early as just 22 weeks. But the recent scientific leaps don’t stop there. With another team at Cambridge University recently having successfully kept a human embryo alive outside the body for just under two weeks using a mix of chemicals and nutrients that mimic conditions inside the womb. In fact there was no reason to believe the embryo would not have just kept on living and growing, had the team not been forced to stop the experiment short. Due to a law preventing keeping an embryo alive in a lab for more than 14 days’ time. The science is here, but the laws still need to catch up it seems.

The combination of the two team’s research though along with other similar breakthroughs in recent years, has many believing we are on the cusp of being able to bring a child to full term outside the womb. Achieving completely external human ectogenesis. The benefits of this seem obvious. Beyond just saving the lives of many premature babies, it could also be the solution for naturally infertile couples, enable older parents to have kids, and offer a safer alternative to childbirth for both mother and offspring in many cases.


All these benefits though, haven’t prevented some from already raising alarm over perceived gender equality concerns this technology might bring into question. When women are stripped from their roles as birth giver, both parents truly become equal for the first time. To put it simply, a woman would no longer be required if a Man wanted to have a child. A benefit Woman already make use of today, with anonymous sperm donors. The ramifications of this technology don’t stop there though, with the amount of change ectogenesis would ripple down through our society being as of yet not fully imaginable.

For example, it would almost instantly reopen the abortion issue. In a case today where the father wants to keep the child but the mother doesn’t he has almost no option to save the child’s life. In a society where the baby can be easily and safely removed from the mother at any stage of the pregnancy, would this still be the case? At a minimum the technology would certainly re-energize the abortion debate in general and likely be the final death toll for Roe V. Wade. Some Feminists have even already expressed their panic at the idea that abortion laws could possibly be changed to forced extraction of the undesired child rather than simply killing it.

Other Feminists simply seem wary of handing “over women’s sacred birthing ability to science.” Even Female scientists seem conflicted in this regard. Julien Murphy in her book Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics writes that ectogenesis has caused much “disagreement among Feminists.” Other women are alarmed too. Author Ann Oakley writes in her book, The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women, “that ectogenesis encourages long-standing misogynistic medical practices appropriating women’s wombs for science’s sake.”

In fact there are an increasing amount of Feminist writers sounding the early warning bells over this technology. In a piece entitled, The Artificial Womb Will Change Feminism Forever author Samantha Allen writes, “the artificial womb will undoubtedly improve the lives of some women who opt to use it, but the separation of childbirth from a woman’s body will also give the anti-feminist Right terrifying new points of leverage at a crucial moment in feminist history.” To put this in perspective, Samantha fully admits that the technology will help many women, but then immediately raises objections against it because it might hurt “the cause”.

She goes on to warn that Men Rights Activists are “poised and ready to celebrate the additional distance that ectogenesis would place between a woman and her child.” She attacks such activists for their seeming celebration of ectogenesis technology, but then herself in a rather stunningly hypocritical move. Makes positive mention of the infamous Atlantic “The End of Men” article which celebrated sperm selection techniques being used only to create new girls, spelling the slow death of the male gender.

Ignoring her own hypocrisy, she then wraps up her thoughts with this gem. “Feminists face new enemies in the 21st century: a vocal group of male activists embittered by the political successes of feminism over the past few decades and a religious Right that is desperate to regain a foothold in the abortion debate after 40 years of Roe v. Wade. The womb may become artificial by the end of the century but it will still be the battleground for feminist politics.” Instead of focusing on the amazing amount of both men and women this technology could help. Or simply the amount of lives it will directly save. All this writer and many others like her seem to care about is how it will affect their cult of modern Feminism.

The priority for these women is not to save lives, or even the overall betterment of them. But rather only the continued advancement of what has become a collectivist and borderline cultish philosophy that too often advocates not gender equality, but Female supremacy. This isn’t the first or last time we will see women standing in opposition to scientific research. Thankfully cooler heads normally prevail, which is why science and society with it always move forward despite the voices raising their objections.


Liked or hated this? Let me know either way at @Jack_Kenrick or on Facebook

  • Safi Karim

    I think it will be a great day when women donate eggs the same as men donate sperm. Even though there will still be “natural”, non-mechanical births, the fact that it wouldn’t be necessary for a woman to carry the child and give birth seems like it would be a great step towards equality, especially on the matter of father’s rights and male disposability

    celebrate the additional distance that ectogenesis would place between a woman and her child

    This is a distance that fathers already have with their children. Mothers also having it is only equality, not oppression. Of course, since this equality would take away the unequal advantage women have in their ability to use the “only women can have children” trump card, of course feminists aren’t happy. I think it’s observable that many of them are very selective in what areas they want equality in

    • Jack Kenrick

      In absolute agreement.
      There is no reason for sane rational women to be afraid of this.
      It benefits everyone.

    • Vasile Andrei

      this technology and many like it will “free” the women from childbirth
      it is after all a feminist dream….
      but again, feminism is a made up thing, they contradict themselves all the time while still insisting that OTHERS should listen to their demented hypocritical doctrine

      • Mark Neil

        women, and feminists, have never wanted to be “free” of childbirth. They have simply scapegoated it for nearly everything because they believed that roles could never be taken away from them… and the more they can use it to make more and more demands, the stronger their negotiating position was…until suddenly their dominion over that role is threatened.. and like so many despots, when their power is threatened, they lash out.

    • Shadeburst

      Yes, but harvesting ova is not as simple as harvesting sperm… and, I believe, not nearly as enjoyable.

      • Vasile Andrei

        is quite simple
        and it is done daily during any regular IFV procedure
        it is painless, and it last less than 30 minutes

        also, today there are countless women that freeze their eggs for future IFV procedures

        simple, quick painless and safe

      • Daniel

        It is getting simpler. With IVM (in vitro maturation) it costs a third of actual price of IVF and it can be done in a much shorter time

  • Vasile Andrei

    the future will not wait for people
    from sexbots of all types of genders to artificial wombs and more everything will change and people must adapt

    right now the feminists are stuck in 60’s
    they battle an invisible “patriarchy” that once was at the core of western values, but it was long dead (hint, the 80’s kill it)
    they battle with wage gaps, when in reality they cannot barely understand the dual income system that is in place today
    they still want alimony for life and child custody, while frowning about 50-50 shared parenting (in the same time cry about men that “don’t share the responsibility”)
    they lament when a woman does 1/3 of jail time a man does for the same crime, yet celebrate that more women are out there, active, not in the house…

    no one believes them anymore, they are out of touch and out of date

    but, just like any “-istm” it can still do a ton of damage to all, women, men, gays and families…. not to mention the harm they can inflict on children

    • Mark Neil

      Wait wait wait… sex robots with artificial wombs? well, that’s an interesting future indeed.

  • My body my choice will expand to her eggs and her theoretical womb? lol! Meanwhile spermjacking is legal because you “relinquish your rights to your sperm when it leaves your body.” But a woman can just reassume ownership of the egg or its subsequent progeny at anytime. How quickly will this BS get shut down should some feminist try to take down some wealthy political donor?

    • Mark Neil

      I believe there is already legal precedent against what you’re claiming here. Not 100% certain, but pretty sure. I remember a court case where the egg had been fertilized by a couple, and the man wanted to do something with it, the woman wanted something else, and the court ruled in the man’s favour. Sorry I don’t remember more of the details, but if she got to “reassume” ownership of it, then she would have won that case.

  • Ryan England

    Samantha Allen fails feminism forever. The early radical feminists back in the 1960s were very explicitly in favor of “the separation of childbirth from a woman’s body.” In fact, it was exactly what their ultimate end game was, the end of biological motherhood.

  • Mark Neil

    The feminist opposition to this is the threat to their power. Right now, so much of the authority they claim, as well as the scapegoats for the issues they demand resolution for, is based on the biological dependence on women to reproduce. from the idea that women, alone, should get to choose whether a pregnancy carries to term (since she’s the one carrying it), regardless of a man’s interests, and that a man should be required to then pay for life for the results of that choice…to scapegoating the wage on gap it, asserting women get paid less because they are forced to take time off to give birth, something men can’t do. Remove that element and most of their arguments crumble, most of their demands fall flat. This technology is a threat to their source of power, and they know it.

    Their objections over abortion also demonstrate the lie that it is about a woman’s safety…no… these feminists are showing here that it is about control… about a means of avoiding personal responsibility, while they persist in demanding men get no such options. And I suspect the idea of a man being able to court order a transfer of infant to this technology, and then requiring the woman to pay child support for the resultant child, absolutely terrifies these feminists, given how desperately they have tied child support laws to the child, and the control over whether a child is brought to term, or not, they have fostered.

  • ralf

    It would lead to more actual equality between men and women. That is of course a nightmare for feminist.
    For the same reason feminist have opposed the male birth control pill.
    All feminist wants is power and money. Women or even equality are non of their concern.

  • Deplorable MAGA Were-Covfefe

    This is going to be part of cloning tech.

  • Ectogenesis_Chronicler

    Such a beautiful future… Too sad that I’ll probably be dead when this is completed. I would like to have a baby without the risk of losing the daily contact after a divorce…