“If somebody wants an abortion, nobody should override their decision”: Modern Canadian perspectives on abortion in relation to artificial womb technology

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SSM. Qualitative research in health Pub Date : 2025-01-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100529
Srishti Hukku , Lisa L. Wynn , Angel M. Foster
{"title":"“If somebody wants an abortion, nobody should override their decision”: Modern Canadian perspectives on abortion in relation to artificial womb technology","authors":"Srishti Hukku ,&nbsp;Lisa L. Wynn ,&nbsp;Angel M. Foster","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent advancements in artificial womb technology (AWT) – extrauterine gestation – have led to significant bioethical debates on the future of access to abortion. Anthropologists have leveraged concepts of stratified reproduction and reproductive governance to shed light on how different individuals are encouraged/discouraged to reproduce and how key actors such as the state mobilize the capacity for reproduction. As such, we aimed to explore the perspectives of Canadian citizens on the provision of abortion services if AWT were to become a reality. From September 2020 to February 2021, we conducted a qualitative bilingual community-based survey with 343 Canadian citizens and 41 semi-structured in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents in English and French. We analyzed the survey data using descriptive statistics and the interviews for content and themes using inductive and deductive techniques. Our study found that when assessing the potentiality of AWT, participants centered reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, and family planning in decision-making. Participants further expressed that any efforts at governance of AWT should ensure that the technology complements, rather than curtails, existing methods of reproduction and assisted reproduction, and enhances choice for those desiring parenthood. For our participants, AWT was seen as a medical device that had the potential to improve lives while ensuring that abortion-seekers’ rights to control their bodies and reproduction were not impeded. Our study demonstrates that the current ban against the development and use of AWT is a form of <em>gestational stratification</em> that privileges those with access to a uterus for gestation which limits reproductive choice. Policymakers and legislators should consider these perspectives when developing policies and regulations at the intersection of abortion and new assisted human reproduction technologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advancements in artificial womb technology (AWT) – extrauterine gestation – have led to significant bioethical debates on the future of access to abortion. Anthropologists have leveraged concepts of stratified reproduction and reproductive governance to shed light on how different individuals are encouraged/discouraged to reproduce and how key actors such as the state mobilize the capacity for reproduction. As such, we aimed to explore the perspectives of Canadian citizens on the provision of abortion services if AWT were to become a reality. From September 2020 to February 2021, we conducted a qualitative bilingual community-based survey with 343 Canadian citizens and 41 semi-structured in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents in English and French. We analyzed the survey data using descriptive statistics and the interviews for content and themes using inductive and deductive techniques. Our study found that when assessing the potentiality of AWT, participants centered reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, and family planning in decision-making. Participants further expressed that any efforts at governance of AWT should ensure that the technology complements, rather than curtails, existing methods of reproduction and assisted reproduction, and enhances choice for those desiring parenthood. For our participants, AWT was seen as a medical device that had the potential to improve lives while ensuring that abortion-seekers’ rights to control their bodies and reproduction were not impeded. Our study demonstrates that the current ban against the development and use of AWT is a form of gestational stratification that privileges those with access to a uterus for gestation which limits reproductive choice. Policymakers and legislators should consider these perspectives when developing policies and regulations at the intersection of abortion and new assisted human reproduction technologies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
期刊最新文献
The sociodynamics of chemsex: Stakeholders’ perspectives in France - Results from the ANRS-PaacX study Matrones as accompagnateurs: A model for accompaniment Anticipatory moral distress in machine learning-based clinical decision support tool development: A qualitative analysis “This year is not about carrying the heaviest burden”- a qualitative study on Black women’s postpartum experiences Why ‘inclusive policymaking’ is needed during crises: COVID-19 and social divisions in Austria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1