Indigenizing New Reproductive Technologies

I really enjoyed the introductory piece we read this week, “Selective Reproductive Technologies,” which outlined the various technologies that give us control over reproduction and the complex political, social and emotional implications that these practices have. One of the ideas I found most fascinating was the argument that these technologies, despite being scientifically new and innovative, actually reinforce normative, existing ideals about kinship, sex, disability, etc., instead of disrupting the status quo. For example, women in China are taking advantage of selective reproductive techniques to assure that their one allowed child is a boy because producing male offspring is the only way they can be responsible to the family collective and solidify their own identity and belonging. This has caused a demographic masculinization, which researchers have hypothesized will only further exacerbate gender discrimination. There’s this general perception that scientific developments can challenge our imaginations and upend the social order, so it’s interesting to think that it may be having the opposite effect in this situation.

The other two articles this week, “Eggs and Wombs: The Origins of Jewishness” and “Making Muslim Babies” more narrowly focus on how specific cultural/religious groups conceptualize reproduction and why they have varying attitudes about different reproductive technologies. The “Eggs and Wombs” article presented a very female-centric description of reproduction because Jewish identity is conveyed matrilineally, which in turn determines Israeli citizenship. The dichotomy of genetics and gestation in ovum-related technologies creates many ambiguities about what defines motherhood and Jewishness, and I thought it was really interesting that such an important identity marker was still up in the air in terms of how it’s determined. It’s a very difficult religious conundrum because there is no directly related precedence and individuals rabbis must make their own judgment which in turns affects personal kinship and larger, political belonging.

The Inhorn article draws upon Kahn’s work and in a similar vein explores attitudes towards IVF in a Muslim Middle East context, especially focusing on the differences in Sunni and Shi’a stances on gamete donation. In general, Sunni authorities are more strictly opposed to third party donations while Shi’a clerics allow for more flexibility, including permitting embryo implantation from a married couple to a married woman whose husband is infertile. For most Muslim infertile patients, however, third party donation is not desirable because of how it disrupts kinship and inheritance relations, as well as the potential for incest and “adultery”--despite the fact that there is no sexual relationship with the donor. Considered in conjunction with the Kahn article, it’s clear that the minutiae of differences in attitudes between religions and even sects within religions are having a real effect on how these new technologies are being accessed and put into use.