In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled “Experimental Pregnancy.” It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study’s limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics’ approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit “Experimental Pregnancy” and offer two ways in which Bob’s analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy’s presumed exceptionalism.

在本文中，我回顾了 Bob Veatch 在黑斯廷斯中心报告创刊号上发表的一篇重要文章，题为“实验性怀孕”。这是一份对 Goldzieher 研究的报告和优雅的分析，在该研究中，近 400 名女性在未经同意或未披露安慰剂使用的情况下被随机分配接受激素避孕药或安慰剂，导致多次怀孕。注意到这项研究的知名度有限，我首先考虑的是主导生物伦理学怀孕和研究方法的叙述：沙利度胺和二乙基苯甾醇 (DES)。这些叙述促进了对避免胎儿风险的狭隘关注，而排除了其他伦理相关的考虑。然后我重新审视“实验性怀孕”并提供两种方式，鲍勃的分析可以作为重要的纠正，首先，通过突出研究对象（怀孕或可能怀孕的人），其次，