Lancaster Medical School, Faculty of Health & Medicine, Furness College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Bioethics. 2020 Sep;34(7):727-734. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12789. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
In a recent article in this journal, Kathryn MacKay advances a defence of ectogenesis that is grounded in this technology's potential to end-or at least mitigate the effects of-gender-based oppression. MacKay raises important issues concerning the socialization of women as 'mothers', and the harms that this socialization causes. She also considers ectogenesis as an ethically preferable alternative to gestational surrogacy and uterine transplantation, one that is less harmful to women and less subject to being co-opted to further oppressive ends. In this article, I challenge some of the assumptions that underlie MacKay's case in favour of ectogenesis by questioning whether the relationship between women's capacity to gestate and birth children and gender-based oppression is as strong as MacKay makes it out to be. I subsequently argue that-even if MacKay's reading of this relationship is accurate-ectogenesis is not a desirable means to end gender-based oppression. It embodies a strategy that could be used to pursue liberating projects that follow what Iris Marion Young defines as 'the ideal of assimilation', but that must be resisted. I then concur with MacKay's contention that ectogenesis is better than gestational surrogacy and uterine transplantation. My argument is that many of the problematic issues that MacKay herself sees as features of these practices will not disappear with ectogenesis. Finally, I conclude that MacKay's narrow focus on women's biology and ectogenesis as a solution to gender-based oppression results in the overlooking of broader systemic issues that contribute to the upholding of oppressive norms.
在本刊最近的一篇文章中，凯瑟琳·麦凯为体外生殖辩护，其依据是这种技术有潜力结束——或者至少减轻——基于性别的压迫的影响。麦凯提出了一些关于女性作为“母亲”被社会化的重要问题，以及这种社会化带来的危害。她还将体外生殖视为代孕和子宫移植的一种更合乎伦理的替代方案，这种方案对女性的伤害更小，也不太可能被用来进一步推行压迫性的目的。在本文中，我通过质疑女性生育和分娩孩子的能力与基于性别的压迫之间的关系是否像麦凯所说的那样紧密，对麦凯支持体外生殖的论点中的一些假设提出了挑战。我随后认为，即使麦凯对这种关系的解读是准确的，体外生殖也不是结束基于性别的压迫的理想手段。它体现了一种可以用来追求解放项目的策略，这些项目遵循艾丽斯·马里恩·杨所定义的“同化理想”，但必须抵制这种策略。我随后同意麦凯的观点，即体外生殖优于代孕和子宫移植。我的论点是，麦凯自己认为这些做法的特征的许多有问题的问题不会随着体外生殖的出现而消失。最后，我得出结论，麦凯将重点狭隘地放在女性的生物学和体外生殖作为解决基于性别的压迫的方法上，导致她忽视了导致压迫性规范得以维持的更广泛的系统性问题。
