The use of reproductive technologies across cultures

In this week’s readings, reproductive technologies such as IVF, embryo/sperm donation, and PGD prove problematic to how different cultures interpret previously immutable terms like maternity, and paternity, as well as introducing or augmenting moral dilemmas. Like organ transplantation, the advent of modern reproductive technology creates a gap in anthropological understanding because of the curious intermingling of the new science with the pre-existing culture.

One thing that particularly intrigued me about the four readings (I chose “The Politics of Making Modern Babies in China: Reproductive Technologies and the 'New' Eugenics” as my optional reading) was the dilemma of choice. Across the three specifically explored cultures—Israeli Jewish, Sunni/Shi’ite Muslims, and Chinese—there was an expectation for motherhood already present in the culture before the arrival of the new technologies. In some ways, that overwhelming expectation removed some aspects of choice in the situation. As Lisa Handwerker points out through her piece “The Politics of Making Babies in China”, procedures like IVF in the face of infertility, despite the considerable cost, might feel unavoidable to a Chinese wife for whom infertility could bring domestic and social shame. Even further interventions, like sex selection and testing for fetal abnormalities might seem necessary. In the presence of government policies limiting children, the pressure for that one child to be both male and exceptional is great.

But in the religious cultures of Islam and Judaism, despite there being a similar motive for a woman to bear children, the choice is not so clear. In part this lack of clarity is the result of intense scholarly debate on the part of religious leaders. Both cultures have a long history of in-depth analysis of ancient religious texts as a means to explore modern ethical problems. Though the mother and father may not directly participate in these discussions, the rabbinical interpretations and ijtihad directly affect both law and medical practice, as Susan Kahn and Marcia Inhorn made clear in their discussions of Jewish and Muslim uses of reproductive technology. And the parents do have some influence over how the ongoing discussion affects them. They may chose the rabbi or marja’ taqlid they follow, and in this way select, from a myriad of different metaphors and abstract analyses of old texts, which interpretation most aligns not only with their goals but their own moral predilections. In this way, the issue seems to be moralized in these two religious cultures in a way it is not in China. Though “new eugenics” can be seen as an ethical position, it offers little room for ambiguity in practice. The moral imperative is to produce the most superior (male) baby. However, somewhat surprisingly, through the Jewish and Islamic cultures’ reliance on ancient scripture, written in a time before any of the science involved was ever conceived of, a more dynamic and ambiguous understanding emerges.