“If somebody wants an abortion, nobody should override their decision”: Modern Canadian perspectives on abortion in relation to artificial womb technology
Bibliographic record
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 centred 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".