The readings for this week have been among
my favorites assigned for this class. I find the topic of in vitro fertilization
(IVF) to be fascinating. It amazes me that we now have the science and
technology available to be able to select for or against certain genes and to
create “savior siblings” as Tine Gammeltoft and Ayo Wahlberg termed the babies
born to donate bone marrow, blood, etc. to a sibling with a disease. I also
found it interesting to learn about the mitochondrial replacement therapy that
Gammeltoft and Wahlberg discussed so that now part of the mother’s egg can be
put into the egg from a donor, thus resulting in the baby having three genetic
parents. It’s mind boggling to think about the impact this could have on
parenting and family structures. The definition of families is certainly
changing but, up until this point at least, no matter what the family structure
was, every child had two biological parents. Now, even that is not necessarily
a given.
Another part of these readings that I found interesting was what types
of in vitro fertilization were allowed in different cultures and religions and what
was the reasoning behind those norms. I’ve done research on IVF for other
classes, but have always focused on the practicalities and implications of
selecting for or against certain traits. I’ve never really thought about how
different cultures might view IVF. Lisa Handwerker in her article about IVF in
China discussed that most people were against using donated sperm in the
procedures because it’s more important for a child to be biologically the
husband’s than the wife’s due to how Chinese culture traces lineage. For
similar reasons, Susan Kahn points out that in Jewish culture, people are
against using donated ovum because lineage is traced through the mother. In the
case of using donated ovum, many questions are raised as to how to trace
lineage and who the mother is – is the woman who donated the egg or the one who
carried and birthed the baby? Or does the baby actually have either two mothers
or no mother at all? It’s important to have a systematized way to decide who
the mother is in order to confer Jewish citizenship to those who deserve it. Finally,
in Marcia Inhorn’s article on IVF in Islamic cultures, readers see that it’s
really not lineage that is the issue, but the fear of being an adulterer if you
used either donated ovum or sperm. I think this reason for not using donated
ovum or sperm was especially shocking to me because it seems crazy to me to
call someone an adulterer when only their DNA has been mixed together in a lab.
As a Jew who is technically (in the Orthodox sense) not Jewish as I was born to a Christian mother, I was also fascinated by the lines drawn to determine Jewish identity in regards to the precise connection of the woman whose womb carries the egg, or the person who donated the egg, or both. While it seems somewhat trivial to me, legally speaking, the results of such a choice of ramifications that can allow or disallow citizenship. And it all ties back to rabbinic decision of what constitutes having a Jewish mother when these kinds of questions seemed silly and useless 30 years ago. In addition, I was interested in the relative cookie-cutter approach attempted. While Jewish lineage is mostly determined by the mother, in Muslim societies it is the father. Because these two religions conceive of the issue from opposite ends, in a sense, they view this issue and the prohibitions/legalities of reproductive technologies very different. This religious control on technological advancement seems to be a finicky road for religious leaders in each society to comprehend, since they are by all means novel ancestry considerations.
ReplyDelete