Reproduction in the News
Introduction
Science and technology are marching forward into the brave new world with increasing rapidity. The proverbial Moore’s Law, prophesying the doubling of the speed of computer chips every six months (Moore’s Law), remains true to this date. As a corollary, increased use of the computing power and consequent technology allows medical science to unravel mysteries hitherto opaque to man. The biggest mystery to man has always been the mystery of procreation. As with most things man did not understand to begin with, he gave procreation a divine status. Children were literally the gift of God. However, with the progress in science, man came to understand the biological aspects of reproduction, and the processes behind chromosomes, embryos and fertility. With increasing access to technology, people are now enabled to make informed choices regarding their offspring. They can plan as to when they wish to have children. They can surmount the barrier of infertility by accessing sperms or renting wombs. The technology and science that goes behind the unfettering of the mysteries of fertility and reproduction undoubtedly set man free to design a universe in his own image- a universe with minimized defects and lower chances of failure. However, there are unintended consequences of tampering with nature. The thesis of this paper is that unless society finds answers to the anomalies that the march of technology throws up, the world would soon find itself in an amorphous zone of moral ambiguity.
The Origin of Sperms
Sperms, the contribution to a baby from the father, are one of the building blocks of conception. With advances in reproduction technology, it is possible for childless couples to access sperm banks for artificial insemination. Such sperm banks are helpful in cases the male member of a couple is unable to provide healthy sperms for reproduction. As a concept, sperm banks undoubtedly meet the need for childless couples hobbled by lack of healthy sperm to try to produce a baby. However, there are various unintended consequences and ethically gray areas when accessing sperms from other sources. There is a case where a donor altered his profile to ensure that the sperm he donated became socially acceptable, and that he had a better chance of making money by selling his sperms to a sperm bank (Trachman). The donor, a school dropout with a felony record and a history of schizophrenia, mentioned in his profile that he had an ‘IQ of 160, a neuroscience PhD and almost perfect medical history’ (Trachman). The legal case that the couple raised against the sperm bank could not progress much, as the sperm bank maintained that its mandate was only to ascertain that the sperms it held did not contain communicable diseases. The case, therefore, highlights the lack of regulation in which sperm banks work, and the problems associated with ensuring healthy sperm donors whose profiles are true. Should sperm donors be people known to a couple wishing to access such sperms, there is the danger of the donor later seeking parental rights, or in converse, the couple seeking child support from the donor. Unknown donors could lead to fraud as highlighted in the case. It is in such binds of legality, procedure and ethics that the grand vision of seamless and magical reproduction using others’ sperms falls flat.
In another case related to sperms, a woman who lost her husband to an untimely accident is legally able to extract her husband’s sperms as much as forty-eight hours after the death of her husband (AirTalk). While the procedure is medically feasible and legally sanctioned, questions arise around the ethical and psychological dimensions that would undoubtedly hound the offspring. It is worth imagining how a child born of sperm harvested from a dead parent would consider himself. How would he come to terms with the fact that he was born of a dead father? The answers could be actually hellish for the child to contemplate, and might alter his very concept of religion and God. In fact, religion is ill equipped to answer questions like these, as religion was originally designed to answer questions related to natural conception. Bereft of a religious compass and living in an ethical void, such children would face challenging times as they grow up. Their personalities might get deformed because of the major doubts surrounding their very idea of the self and how they came into being. Therefore, while the birth of the child is a triumph of science, the real challenge of how the society and the child would come to terms with the birth remains unaddressed.
Freezing of Eggs
Facebook and Apple have come out with a policy that promises to freeze the eggs of women employees at company cost while they continue in their careers. The women could thus postpone motherhood to later in life (Parsons). The policy reflects the growing power of technology to come to the aid of women and childbirth, reflecting the realities of the modern age where career takes center stage in the life of many women when they are best placed to have babies. However, the policy also hides major social prejudices behind its announcement. It remains unsaid that society considers women who bear children as being incapable to surviving in the cut and thrust corporate world. The policy also indirectly states the choice between a baby and a career is for the woman to make, and that society would not help the woman to have the baby when she is biologically most capable to do so. Thus, while technology has advanced to allow the policy as enunciated by Apple and Facebook, existing social mores and biases have not been sufficiently overcome, leading to lopsided policies that penalize women one way or another- either on the career front, or on the biological front.
Rights of Babies Born in Vitrio
While technology allows in vitrio fertilization, society has yet to come to grips with its legal consequences. A U.S court has decreed that a child born of in vitrio fertilization after the death of the father, who is not mentioned in the father’s will, would not receive any benefits of the father’s estate (Vicini). The court justifies its stance on the logic that a will invariably reflects the father’s desire to support those who were alive while he breathed his last. While the logic might pass muster in legalistic terms, the impact on the child remains unmeasured. One can only imagine the psychological plight of the child when he would grow up. His biological brother, born a few years before him while his father was alive, would be a legal heir to his father’s estate. While the child might bear the name of his father, he would be bereft of the legal benefits of being a son. Such contradictions would challenge the very foundations of his concept of self and family, and might have serious psychological and economic repercussions.
Multiple Parents
Advances in reproductive technology are also yielding different ways in which a child can be born. A case is highlighted where a child is born of the egg and sperm of her parents, besides genetic material contributing to mitochondria donated by an aunt (Weintraub). Technically, the child has three parents. As a result, the very definition of parenthood becomes questionable. If the aunt is not recognized as a parent, then by the status of those whose sperm and egg created the child also becomes suspect. In effect, rejecting the aunt would jeopardize the status of the conventionally accepted ‘biological’ parents too. Society has yet to come to grips with such quandaries, and to answer such anomalies.
Conclusion
The cases highlighted in the paper are a small microcosm, reflecting the enormous challenges thrown up by advancing reproductive technology and practices. What is common to all the cases is the fact that while technology has surged ahead, societal norms and social structures have lagged behind. Definitions of parenthood, of being a child and of legality hark back to the more conventional ways in which humans have viewed parenthood. It is a moot point whether such concepts would survive the march of time. Society has to find new answers to questions regarding parenthood and what it means to be a child. Otherwise, we would be creating an ever-increasing population of children with a weak moral and psychological compass. The cumulative effect of such children might even threaten the very concept of humanity. Therefore, a case might exist to pause the exploitation of technology in the field of assisted reproduction, and wait for society to find answers to questions that have been thrown up. Not taking such a step would be like putting one’s head in the sand and assuming that the storms brewing over various aspects of assisted reproduction would simply blow over. It is time for social scientists, philosophers and spiritual heads to go back to the drawing board and chart a stable course for mankind to define and propagate itself.
Works Cited
AirTalk. “Legal Void Allows Post-Mortem Sperm Extraction.” SPCR.org. April 27, 2016. Web. May 2, 2016.
Moore’s Law. “Moore’s Law.”MooresLaw.org. n.d. Web. May 2, 2016.
Parsons, Sabrina. “Female Tech CEO: Egg-Freezing ‘Benefit’ Sends the Wrong Message to Women.” BusinessInsider.com. October 20, 2014. Web. May 2, 2016.
Trachman, Ellen. “I Want to Put a Baby in You: Flawed Sperm.” AboveTheLaw.com. April 27, 2016. Web. May 2, 2016.
Vicini, James. “U.S. Top Court Decides in-Vitrio Fertilization Benefits.” Reuters.com. May 21, 2012. Web. May 2, 2016.
Weintraub, Karen. “Three Biological Parents and a Baby.” Blogs.NYTimes.com. December 16, 2013. Web. May 2, 2016.
