Justifying DI
A thought-provoking article on the June 18th New York Times’ Opinionator caught my eye. In Think Before You Breed, philosophy professor Christine Overall writes:
…people are still expected to provide reasons not to have children, but no reasons are required to have them. It’s assumed that if individuals do not have children it is because they are infertile, too selfish or have just not yet gotten around to it. In any case, they owe their interlocutor an explanation. On the other hand, no one says to the proud parents of a newborn, Why did you choose to have that child? What are your reasons? The choice to procreate is not regarded as needing any thought or justification.
I couldn’t agree more with Dr. Overall’s conclusion that choosing whether or not to have children is the most significant ethical decision of most people’s lives. But there is one group of baby makers who do have to justify their decision to have a child, and furthermore explain the ethics of the decision. As the mother of two children conceived with donor sperm, I continue to be troubled by the judgments hurled at people like us. Last month’s New York Times headline, for example, – “In Choosing a Sperm Donor, a Roll of the Genetic Dice” spawned the predictable accusations via anonymous comments online:
If God made someone sterile, can that person at least accept it?
If you are infertile, perhaps nature is trying to tell you something.
And my personal favorite:
I just can’t see why people spend tens of thousands on fertility treatments when they could open the door to an orphan.
Infertility is caused, in large part, by disease. And it can happen to anyone. In women, it can result from endometriosis, fibroids, or hormonal imbalances, amongst other ills. Many men suffered childhood mumps (like my husband) or adult cancer, rendering them completely infertile. People who seek a solution for infertility, whether assisted reproductive technologies or donor gametes, are not playing God. At least no more than someone undergoing surgical repair of a blocked artery, or chemotherapy in an attempt to destroy cancer cells. Most people with a treatable disease would be astounded by any suggestion to forgo medical intervention and accept what nature, or God, is telling them. In the United States people eat themselves into various states of disease and then expect to receive surgery to help alleviate self-induced health conditions. Infertile people, on the other hand, and especially those who use a donor, are expected to justify their choice as soon as any medical intervention is required to obtain pregnancy.
My husband and I did not choose infertility. We just chose to do something about it. We could have pursued adoption, but instead we sought to create a family using donor sperm. Are we selfish? Yes, but no more than anyone having a baby. Ease of conception should not be the leading entitlement for pregnancy over adoption. That’s like saying that people with celiac disease or other gastric disorders have less of a right to eat food than people with normally functioning digestive tracts. Infertile people should not be held more accountable for children in need of a family than fertile people, simply because we cannot conceive effortlessly. I am aware that many people adopt after having their own child or children, and I’m very glad those people exist. But, as Dr. Overall points out, few people challenge the legitimacy of those would-be parents to create a biological family first.
No one judges me for purchasing new kitchen appliances. Yet, no sooner do I funnel resources toward any aspect of assisted reproductive technology then I transform into an uncaring narcissist who ought to be thinking more about orphaned children. Yes, the money we spent to become pregnant could have been put toward the cost of adopting a child. So could the money that anyone spends on a new car, a new patio, or a family trip to Disney World. I applaud people who adopt when it’s the right decision for them, whether initiated by infertility or not. But I refuse to be vilified for spending money on donor sperm and IVF, any more than a fertile couple should be vilified for having their “own” baby and then buying a new minivan.
This is really well said. My husband was really ill as a teenager and lost the ability to conceive children then. I refuse to believe that by choosing to try to get pregnant via DI we are somehow more ‘selfish’ than anyone, and really whether anyone who uses that kind of language (‘sterile’ etc) thinks about how hard that is for other people to hear.
Also, I always feel like the ignorant people who comment on those articles think somehow adoption is like waving some magic wand. Adoption is a hard, long, difficult and fraught process too. it’s not like you just go magic up some child in need. And there are a number of complex reasons why people would or would not want to try to adopt, that so often get totally overlooked.
Long comment, I know, but thank you for writing this.
I’m not sure what other people give as a reason for thinking that it is selfish but for me it would have nothing to do with the right to seek medical attention that corrects sterility or infertility. Also there is really nothing inherently wrong with donating gametes. Gametes can be donated for research or reproduction but the person does not necessarily need to abandon their obligation to raise the resulting child. Nobody would want the gametes if they did not also agree to abandon their offspring once they were born. They sign an offline agreement outside of court before their offspring is born or even conceived agreeing not to seek contact or custody with their offspring once born rather than relinquishing their obligations in a court approved adoption after the child is born. That process protects all of the parties from cooersion and it attempts to ensure that the person relinquishing is really the genetic parent an is aware of what they are doing when they sign over their obligations. They are named on the child’s birth certificate even if the law prevents the child from having that certificate there is something to fight for and laws are starting to change. They say that openness in gamete donation is trending toward an adoption model and it would probably be best if it just were handled the same as adoption after their offspring were born so all people followed the same rules resulting in the same rights. Donor offspring don’t have the same rights to legal recognition of their genetic relationships similar to adopted people and that is very unfair to them and it is not necessary in order for them to be raised by the family that wants to raise them. It could be handled in a way where they did not loose half or all their genetic family in the process of gaining a social family. What they loose has nothing to do with how great the intended parents are at raising kids. It has nothing to do with them deserving to raise kids at all its just that they should not be allowed to pay someone not to be recorded as the parent of their own offspring because doing that means the person will never be that person’s legally recognized child and because of that will never be a legally recognized sibling of the donor’s other offspring.
Do you realize that the relationships your children forge with their donor siblings will not be legally recognized? As an adult your child would not qualify for time off work to care for an ailing donor sibling and would not legally be allowed time off work to attend their sibling’s funeral. They could not claim that ailing sibling as a qualifying dependent on a tax return or help a sibling living overseas immigrate to the United States. They would not be allowed to obtain all the birth certificates of the “donors” other offspring because his name is not listed on their certificate as father. If it were they’d be allowed his birth death and marriage certificate as well as their siblings and grandparents. That right there is the right to know their family the right to know their family medical history the right to know the names of the people they all married and what their addresses were at the times these events were recorded. Your children will never have the right to any of that with their siblings no matter how well they get to know them because their genetic father is not listed on their certificates. I know that DNA does not make people good parents but it does tie their children together in a permanent way. Yes they have access to all that with their social families but none of that is medically relevant to them and also why can’t they have both? Right now they are not allowed both. Be aware of that and maybe work to help change those rules because those rules are what makes donor conception selfish. Those rules mean the child looses their family first in order to become the member of another family that is why it can be perceived as selfish. I’m sure you did not intend for that. I can’t imagine anyone would look at that and say so what. I really would like to do a good job of articulating this so that more people raising donor offspring would be ready to help them navigate these unfair laws. I help reunite their families it is very hard. So maybe the people raising the kids are not so selfish as the laws are really unfair.