Work continues apace toward the goal of gestating babies outside a woman’s body. Scientists have now implanted human embryos in “organoids” made of tissues that mimic the uterine lining. From, “Researchers are Getting Organoids Pregnant,” published in the MIT Technology Review:

In three papers published this week by Cell Press, scientists are reporting what they call the most accurate efforts yet to mimic the first moments of pregnancy in the lab. They’ve taken human embryos from IVF centers and let these merge with “organoids” made of endometrial cells, which form the lining of the uterus.

The reports—two from China and a third involving a collaboration among researchers in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the US—show how scientists are using engineered tissues to better understand early pregnancy and potentially improve IVF outcomes…

In each case, the experiments were stopped when the embryos were two weeks old, if not sooner. That is due to legal and ethical rules that typically restrict scientists from going any further than 14 days.

First, a semantical point. The organoids weren’t “pregnant.” That seems unduly anthropomorphizing to me. They mimicked natural processes. If gestating machines ever are used to mature human embryos and fetuses outside a woman’s body, as mechanisms, they won’t be “pregnant” either.

Second, and more importantly, the 14-day rule no longer really exists. It was instituted during the old embryonic stem cell research controversy to give (false) assurance that experiments on human embryos would remain limited. But that was really just a ruse that outlawed what could not yet be done. As soon as embryos could be maintained longer, the rule was repealed — just as many of us predicted it would be.

Which brings me to my primary concern. What is the limiting principle that can be applied to experimenting on unborn human beings? Is it their size? Their time in existence? Is it birth? We have been told by some bioethicists that a born baby is no different morally than a fetus, so why stop there?

This isn’t just an abstract concern. Vermont passed a law depriving every unborn human being of any and all rights. From the law:

A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus shall not have independent rights under Vermont law.

Notice, this statutory deprivation is not connected to whether the unborn baby exists in a woman’s body. So, it has nothing to do with “choice.” Simply put, Vermont’s law deprives all unborn life of any moral value that born people are bound to respect.

So, once scientists can get beyond experimental artificial implantation into experimental artificial gestation, what’s to stop them from pursuing it to its fullest extent? Experimenting on 3-month fetuses can teach us a lot about miscarriages, right? Ditto 6-month fetuses.

And, if we can artificially gestate fetuses to that stage, why can’t we harvest them for their organs? Such a utilitarian scheme has already been proposed. Repeatedly.

Don’t worry, Wesley. They’ll institute guidelines against going too far!

Well, what is too far in this day and age? Viable fetuses can already be killed in many jurisdictions through the ninth month. China is the land where ethics go to die, so even if something can’t be done here, researchers will just go there.

Moreover, even if ethical prohibitions are put in place, they will only outlaw those outcomes that researchers cannot yet achieve, not what they can. Even then, those rules will be as permanent as the 14-day rule was.

Frankly, why bother going through the motions? There is always a reason for cutting edge experimentation. Gaining knowledge. Preventing miscarriages. Satisfying life’s yearnings. Learning how to engage in eugenic enhancements of children. Enabling novel family formation. And more.

So, again: What is the limiting principle to experimentation on embryos and fetuses? It clearly isn’t being human. If we don’t find one, I believe that anything-goes biotech will propel us toward the dystopia predicted in Blade Runner. Won’t moral anarchy be fun?