In machina: A cursory consideration of artificial wombs and the South African ethico-legal landscape

Main Article Content

S Soni

Abstract





Preterm birth, defined by the World Health Organization as any birth occurring before 37 weeks of gestation, remains a significant global health challenge, contributing to high rates of neonatal mortality and long‐term complications. In this context, artificial womb technology – or ectogenesis – offers a transformative intervention capable of sustaining extra‐uterine gestation and improving outcomes for extremely preterm infants. This article explores the legal, ethical and societal implications of introducing artificial wombs in South Africa, where existing laws regulating pregnancy, birth and personhood are ill‐equipped to address this technological shift. In particular, the definitional limits of the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, the conditional nature of the nasciturus fiction, and the ambiguity surrounding parental authority and legal guardianship over gestatelings, is analysed. I argue for the development of a bespoke legal framework to regulate ectogenesis, rather than amending existing pregnancy or birth legislation, and propose a set of principles to guide future regulation. Additionally, I highlight how access to artificial wombs may reinforce healthcare inequality if limited to private medical settings. By proactively addressing the legal and policy challenges posed by ectogenesis, South Africa can advance a rights‐based approach to reproductive healthcare while preparing for the ethical and legal complexities of this emerging technology.


This article utilised a qualitative, doctrinal research methodology based on desktop analysis. The research involved the critical examination of primary legal sources such as constitutional provisions, statutes and relevant South African case law. Secondary sources included scholarly articles in medical law, bioethics and reproductive justice, particularly those addressing emerging technologies, e.g. ectogenesis. Comparative perspectives from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States were also consulted to contextualise the legal challenges within broader international debates. Sources were selected using targeted searches of legal databases and peer‐reviewed journals, with priority given to academic work that engages directly with the ethical, legal and regulatory dimensions of artificial womb technology.





Article Details

Section

Research Articles

Author Biography

S Soni, School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Senior Lecturer, School of Law 

How to Cite

In machina: A cursory consideration of artificial wombs and the South African ethico-legal landscape. (2025). South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 18(2), e2818. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.2025.v18i2.2818

References

1. World Health Organization. Preterm birth – key facts. Geneva: WHO, 2023. https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/preterm‐birth (accessed 22 November 2023).

2. WorldHealthOrganization,UNICEF,LondonSchoolofHygiene&TropicalMedicine. Born too soon: Decade of action on preterm birth. Geneva: WHO, 2023. https:// www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073890 (accessed 1 September 2024).

3. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Oza S, et al. Every newborn: Progress, priorities, and potential beyond survival. Lancet 2014;384(9938):189‐205.

4. Romanis EC. Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human reproduction: Conceptual differences and potential implications. J Med Ethics 2018;44:751‐755. 5. Willyard C. Everything you need to know about artificial wombs. MIT Technol Rev 29 September 2023. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/29/1080538/ everything‐you‐need‐to‐know‐about‐artificial‐wombs/ (accessed 1 September

2024).

6. Romanis EC. Artificial womb technology and the frontiers of human

reproduction: Conceptual differences and legal consequences. Medical Law

Review 2020;28(4):738‐753.

7. Dutch Health Council. Ectogenesis: Artificial wombs and the future of neonatal

care. The Hague, 2019.

8. Kipnis K. Does ectogenesis spell the end of abortion? Theoretical Medicine and

Bioethics 2003;24(1):45‐63.

9. United States Food and Drug Administration. Pediatric Advisory Committee

Meeting: Artificial placenta support technology – first‐in‐human protocol considerations. 19 September 2023. https://www.fda.gov/advisory‐committees/ pediatric‐advisory‐committee/presentations‐september‐19‐2023‐meeting‐ pediatric‐advisory‐committee (accessed 1 September 2024).

10. Kozlov M. Human trials of artificial wombs could start soon: Here’s what you need to know. Nature 14 September 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586‐ 023‐02901‐1 (accessed 22 November 2024).

11. Romanis EC. The ethical and legal status of ‘fetonates’ or ‘gestatelings’. Am J Bioeth 2023;23(5):90‐92.

12. AB & Another v Minister of Social Development & Another [2016] ZACC 43.

13. Christian Lawyers Association v Minister of Health 1998 (4) SA 1113 (T).

14. Christian Lawyers Association of South Africa & Others v Minister of Health &

Others 1998 (11) BCLR 1434 (T).

15. McQuoid‐Mason DJ. Terminating the pregnancy of a brain‐dead mother: Does a

fetus have a right to life? The law in South Africa. S Afr J Bioeth Law 2014;7(2):44‐56. 16. Ex parte Boedel Steenkamp 1962 (3) SA 954 (O).

17. De Bie FR, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, et al. Ethics considerations regarding

artificial womb technology for the fetonate. Am J Bioeth 2023;23(5):67‐78.

18. Pickles C. Termination‐of‐pregnancy rights and foetal interests in continued existence in South Africa: The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act 92 of

1996. PER 2012;15(5).

19. SA government. Births and Deaths Registration Act No. 51 of 1992.

20. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and

related health problems, 10th rev (ICD‐10). Vol. 2. Geneva: WHO; 2010.

21. Romanis EC. Challenging the ‘born alive’ threshold: Fetal surgery, artificial wombs, and the English approach to legal personhood. Med Law Rev 2020;28(1):93‐123. 22. Romanis EC. Partial ectogenesis: Freedom, equality and political perspective.

J Med Ethics 2020;46(2):89‐90.

23. Fraser v Children’s Court, Pretoria North 1997 (2) SA 261 (CC).

24. SA government. Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act No. 92 of 1996.

25. Kendal E. Equal opportunity and the case for state‐supported ectogenesis. J Med

Ethics 2017;43(11):710‐714.

26. Cavaliere G. Gestation, equality and freedom: Ectogenesis as a political

perspective. J Med Ethics 2020;46(2):76‐82.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.