Reading reflections

"Selective Reproductive Technologies" by Gammeltoft and Wahlberg looks into the usage of SRTs around the world. While SRTs may be hailed as a way of improving a mother's or father's control and volition over parenthood, the utilization of SRTs is in fact greatly influenced by prior factors such as community, history, and cultural practices. For instance, in China and Vietnam, SRT is less individualistic and involves a great deal of community, and is embraced more readily. Those in Vietnam are especially enthusiastic because of their memories of deformed children due to the toxins used during the Vietnam war. In a way this tool for sorting out defects and disorders resembles a sort of individual-scale eugenics, which ties into the stances of other nations. In contrast to Vietnam, Japan and Germany both hold, in their collective memory, a shameful history of eugenics, and do not embrace SRT as fully.
SRT is not without its own shortcomings: male favoritism has lead to the prevention of female births in favor of sons, and has caused a gender imbalance in many regions. Beyond gender, screening for disorders often produces ambiguous results, and this creates a difficult, anxious decision for a parent considering termination of the pregnancy. It is clear that SRT usage is less about volition and more about fulfilling an obligation to produce the healthiest, most powerful child or to optimize the population.

"Reproducing Jews" takes a look at a more specific case of reproductive technology: the relationship between Jewish theology and doctrine and modern IVF and ovum donation techniques. Kahn's observations show that medicine and Judaism are harmoniously intertwined in this setting: doctors and other faculty smoothly worked side-by-side with maschgichot, the inspectors who make sure Halakha law is being followed. Notably, during oocyte pick-up procedures, care is taken to prevent uterine bleeding, which would make the woman a ritually unclean "niddah", and (once the embryo is implanted days later) cause stigmatization of her child.
Most interesting were the rabbinic conundrums surrounding the role of the ovum, and whether genetic lineage or birth is what confers motherhood. This is not helped by the fact that the old rabbinic references texts, being lacking in modern biological science, do not even mention the existence of ova. One must wonder if these technologies and Halakha will come into more conflict with further developments.

Inhorn describes an interesting divide in "Making Muslim Babies", describing how Shia and Sunni Islam in the Middle East lead to different interpretations of IVF, especially in regards to third-party gamete donation.
The Sunni stance is based on a fatwa declaring that IVF from husband to wife is allowed, but no third parties, not sperm, egg, or even a uterus. All surrogacy and sperm banks are not allowed. As a result, gamete donation is not practiced legally in the Sunni world.
On the other hand, Shia attitudes regarding gamete donation have changed since the 90s. A fatwa issued then declared that egg donation is not forbidden in and of itself, but both the donor and infertile mother must abide by religious parental codes; thus the child will inherit from the donor, and the receiver is considered adoptive. The same rationale applies for sperm donation: the child's name will come from the infertile father but will only inherit from the biological donor. The individual reasoning of "ijtihad" has led many Shiites to come to their own conclusions and form great diversity of opinion on this matter. The practice of "mutca", temporary marriage, also allows donation to occurr on a technicality (however, since polyandry is not allowed, women must additionally temporarily divorce their husband to accept sperm). As with Judaism, there is much debate on the significance of donated gametes and family identity.