Article info
PDFOriginal research
Gestaticide: killing the subject of the artificial womb
- Correspondence to Daniel Rodger, Allied Health Sciences, London South Bank University, School of Health and Social Care, London SE1 0AA, UK; daniel.rodger{at}lsbu.ac.uk
Citation
Gestaticide: killing the subject of the artificial womb
Publication history
- Received July 17, 2020
- Revised September 30, 2020
- Accepted October 2, 2020
- First published October 30, 2020.
Online issue publication
January 07, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (7 January 2022).
- Previous version (7 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Subjects of ectogenesis: are ‘gestatelings’ fetuses, newborns or neither?
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- Limitations on personhood arguments for abortion and ‘after-birth abortion’
- Conventional revolution: the ethical implications of the natural progress of neonatal intensive care to artificial wombs
- Decision making and modes of death in a tertiary neonatal unit
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Abortion, infanticide and allowing babies to die, 40 years on
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva