It will be interesting to see, in the process of healthcare reform, where the money will be allocated in a theoretical public option surrounding contraceptive and pro-conceptive (ha!) technologies, and what they convey about the states attitude toward women’s bodies as reproductive vessels. The demand among elected officials for no abortion coverage, or at least the separation of its funding from the almost sacred pool of “taxpayer money” shows that the state is eager to, if required to provide substantial healthcare coverage, regulate if not by law than by limiting coverage. And presuming compliance with many state laws by covering assisted reproductive technologies, the public option would evince the nation’s overwhelming aversion to viewing women’s bodies as non-reproductive vessels, or limiting their options establishing difficult pregnancies based on fiscal demands.
Along with the assisted reproductive technologies, we must also consider the technologies that allow us to determine if an embryo will carry any chromosomal abnormalities. These technologies, the decision to use them, and to what end (termination of a pregnancy or preparation for a more care-intensive infant and child), certainly connote the ideas of eugenics and perfection, placing upon women the responsibility of improving the human race or choosing to have genetically disordered offspring. (Rapp, 2000 “Testing Women, Testing the Fetus.”)
And then there is the problem of deciding what is disordered. While Carl Elliot’s chapter on “Bringing up Baby” in “Better Than Well” deals mostly with how we perfect our children after their births, it would certainly be an appropriate place for the discussion of amniocentesis and other prenatal tests in the intersection of science with culture.
While on the one hand I believe that all health care should be available to all people, therefore supporting the coverage of assisted reproductive technologies in addition to prenatal diagnosis and contraceptive technologies, I know that limited resources will lead to a budgeting of healthcare based on cultural perceptions and beliefs about how women’s reproductive capacities should be used. However, I feel it is irresponsible to spend $20,000 to establish a pregnancy for an infertile couple when there are kids to be adopted and blood pressure meds to be paid for.
It's absolutely fascinating how reproductive technology has advanced over the years. I agree that in the past women were seen strictly as baby making machines, but now I feel like women have gained more authority and there are so many available alternatives if a couple doesn't want to go through with the traditional birthing process, but still want children.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I understand where you're coming from when you say more people should be adopting children before money is wasted on fertility procedures. However, I understand why someone would want to undergo in vitro fertilization over adoption due to my own life experience and how it has affected my family.
My parents had a baby who died of SIDS, and she would be a young teenager if she were still alive today. They tried having more kids after her death, but were never successful. Adoption was always an option, but my mom said there's nothing quite like having your very own biological child. So my parents decided to try in vitro, and although it took a few years and was very expensive back when it first became known, they ended up with a baby girl who is 10 today. This procedure helped my parents heal from the loss, and instilled new hope and a new beginning.
One last thing: I understand that with how far along these technologies are becoming, there's going to have to be an ethical line drawn somewhere eventually. I don't support gentically modifying babies/gene selection, but I'm just trying to prove a point that some of these procedures don't yet cross the line of ethics and can be beneficial in various situations.