This week in Biopolitics, we took a look at a piece by John Robertson called “Assisting Reproduction, Choosing Genes, and the Scope of Reproduction Freedom”. This piece takes a look at constitutional laws that have been created around the ideas behind assisted reproductive technologies (ART’s). These new technologies have developed over the decades with reproductive rights being a big debate. The article first takes a look at court decisions that have ultimately affected the way ART’s were used and how they are used today. In the past, these technologies were created to limit reproduction, by creating contraception and the right to have an abortion. Constitutional liberty is at hand when talking about reproductive rights and whether a woman has the right to life.
Technologies today have become much more advanced and we are now expanding instead of limiting reproductive technologies, which include in-vitro fertilization, much advancement in ART’s and genetic selection and modification. The future of the human genome and manipulating its genome expands into studying DNA and ways that it can be modified. Genetic selection is possible, but when is too much? Is there a line that needs to be drawn regarding gene choice and embryo selection? While reading this article, I thought about the big story of the past year. The “octo-mom” who decided to have six fertilized embryos placed in her, resulting in eights pre-mature newborns. Many that use IVF usually only use two to three embryos to avoid a risky multiple birth. It is sad that she made the decisions, let alone the fact that she already had six children.
The promise of creating humans that are genetically “perfect” can be very problematic. Something such as reproduction is hard to create limitations. Today, many ideas behind reproductive technologies have materials that are still fluid and loose-ended. Ideas regarding surrogacy have been looked at, in regards to paying these women and if there are any actual ties as the “mother” to the baby. With the expense of IVF, would women want to go through the grueling process to decide the genome of her child? Within genetic modification, many believe it would be used to avoid diseases.
In your second paragraph you draw attention to the "more advanced" reproductive technologies and their expansion, and then to the question of line-drawing. Given your example of "octo-mom", what do you find in Robertson's article that helps us understand what more might be pointed to (in addition to "It is sad she made the decisions [that led to the birth of eight children) as reasons to have denied her the "liberty" to have as many embryos transferred as she chose? That is, what do you make of Robertson's attempt to see whether the principles of reproductive liberty that apply to NOT having children can work the same way when it's HAVING children that's at stake? What does Robertson say that helps us understand the "promises" you point to in your final paragraph?
ReplyDelete