Jolie Zhou

This article challenges a subtle critique of ectogenesis—what I call the “social coercion argument” (SCA). The SCA holds that if ectogenesis becomes a standard gestational option, those who prefer pregnancy might be pressured into adopting it, thereby infringing on their autonomy and reinforcing inequality. On this view, ectogenesis might not be a morally sound solution to gender inequality. I first analyze the SCA within the liberal framework that underpins it. While its descriptive claim—that future women who prefer pregnancy may face pressure—may be valid, it cannot justify discounting the emancipatory potential of ectogenesis. I then examine some women’s preference for pregnancy over ectogenesis through feminist insights into adaptive preferences (APs). I argue that such preferences may be harmful and shaped by injustice, suggesting that gestational preferences are dynamic, and that addressing gender inequality requires strategies beyond cultural and social inclusivity. I conclude that the SCA’s core concern should be separated from the ethical evaluation of ectogenesis and addressed by continually “levelling up” choices.

This paper argues that biostatistical theory (BST) cannot categorically exclude pregnancy from pathology. Common harmful conditions in typical pregnancies are integral to the notion of pregnancy per se. Given this definition, there are two potential ways to classify pregnancy as non-pathological within the BST: (i) most common conditions in pregnancy are not pathological within the appropriate reference class; or (ii) pregnancy’s reproductive value counterbalances its pathological survival harms, rendering it non-pathological. I challenge both views, arguing that non-pregnant women of the same age should be the reference class, making pregnancy a survival pathology that cannot be offset by reproductive value.

Debate on whether ectogenesis is a morally desirable solution to gender inequality often starts by analyzing whether gender inequality has been caused by (i) reproductive differences between the sexes or (ii) social structures. I term these two sides the biological model and the social model. Without taking either side, this article contends that both models provide a fragile foundation for assessing the moral desirability of ectogenesis. I draw on Ronald Dworkin's luck egalitarian theory and Ron Amundson's perspective to demonstrate that both models are inherently interactionist and share the view that society's inadequate response to female reproductive traits is crucial in gender oppression. Actions on either biological or social factors are prima facie valid. Meanwhile, neither model can conclusively determine whether ectogenesis is morally desirable.

In her recent paper, Emanuele Mangione proposes combining maternal spindle transfer (MST) and reciprocal effortless in vitro fertilisation (ReIVF) to enable both females to have genetic and gestational ties with the same child, which can particularly benefit lesbian couples. This response rejects Mangione’s proposal for the reason that the additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF, compared with the reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA), are unnecessary. ROPA is currently the most effective method for redistributing biological ties within lesbian couples, allowing one member to provide the egg and the other to carry the fetus. The additional biological ties created by MST+ReIVF are quantitatively too small to significantly enhance parental bonding or couple relationships, and their potential harms to both prospective parents and children outweigh any minor benefits. Furthermore, like ROPA, MST+ReIVF fails to address deeper feminist concerns. Therefore, I propose a new idea: combining in vitro gametogenesis with ectogenesis, which can offer far more reproductive choices and greater potential to address deeper feminist concerns than MST+ReIVF.