At the 34th annual Scholar and Feminist Conference on Saturday, Barnard College President Debora Spar and other expert panelists expressed concerns about the lack of regulation in the field of reproductive technologies and the unanswered moral, social, and political questions that ensue.
This year’s conference, entitled, “The Politics of Reproduction: New Technologies of Life,” drew upon artists, scientists, activists, and academics for a seven-hour conversation about assisted reproductive technologies, transnational adoption, and the issues women face in motherhood. Spar, author of The Baby Business: How Money, Science and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception, delivered the opening remarks to a large audience that overflowed into an adjacent Barnard Hall room with a simulcast.
“I think we need more focus on the health issues because they’re real,” Spar said, noting that multiple births occurring from in vitro fertilization (IVF) are often dangerous for the mother and the children.
Lori Andrews, professor of law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, explained that there is an issue of “viewing women only as vessels” in the context of law. Highlighting the lack of proper care given to women, she noted that IVF technologies were tested in humans before primates—a reversal of the typical order.
Acknowledging the demand for “designer babies,” Spar referred to the classified ads in newspapers like Spectator that solicit egg donations from young, Ivy League women. The ability to select for certain traits before birth raises questions of morality and inequality regarding reproductive technologies. “Because assisted reproduction is expensive, it’s rich people who will use it,” Spar said.
Spar, who has a background in business, considered the implications of mixing money with motherhood. “Are we, by using the technologies of assistant reproduction, commodifying the experience of birth, childhood, and reproduction?” she said. “What does it mean when money is involved in the creation of a life?”
A woman’s right to choose has always been stressed in conversations about reproductive issues, but recent cases, like that of “octomom” Nadya Suleman, have brought this under scrutiny. Referring to the relatively new advent of in vitro fertilization, Spar wondered, “Have these exploding technologies pushed us to a place where we’re forced to imagine some limitations on choice?”
Sarah Franklin, professor of social studies and associate director of the Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society at the London School of Economics, gave the keynote address at the explored the relationship between reproductive technologies and feminism.
“The relation between technology and reproduction can never be separated from wider questions of women’s empowerment,” Franklin said, referring to the paradox concerning the choices associated with reproductive technologies. Some view processes like IVF as a way to control and manipulate women’s bodies, while others see it as a way to give women more options.
Despite the health risks and controversies surrounding reproductive technologies, Spar still emphasized its benefits and exciting possibilities. Single mothers and gay couples can happily raise children because reproduction is now no longer dependent upon sex. Medical miracles are now possible, Spar explained, even though they were “truly inconceivable fifteen years ago.”