Genetic links are only important for the parents, right?

August 28, 2007

Genetic links are only important for the parents, right?

In her article on transgenerational reproduction, the commentator, Ana Smajdor, points out something very interesting, ironic and important.

She discusses the recent case of the Montreal woman Melanie Boivin, who has frozen some of her eggs so that her 7-year-old infertile daughter Flavie would be able to use them someday. Smajdor points out that this kind of egg donation shows that the mother believes that the genetic link is important in having children. If Melanie Boivin had not thought that it was important to be genetically related to the child, then she wouldn't have frozen her eggs for her daughter to eventually use: "Because of course Flavie, like any other infertile person, could seek to use donated eggs if on reaching adulthood, she found herself longing to start a family."

The irony is that while Boivin believes that it's important for the child to be genetically related to the parent, the reality is that by using her mother's eggs, Flavie will be giving birth not to her own genetic daughter but to her half-sibling: in effect, Melanie Boivin will have a child with Flavie's future husband.

What a screwed up scenario. However, it's not as new as you may think. This has already happened! In her book Everything Conceivable, Liza Mundy mentions a case where the father of an infertile man donated his sperm for the son to use. The son has thus had a baby which is, in reality, his half-sibling.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: Well I must say I'm shocked, insulted and frankly mad at this callous, ignorant article. Like Mrs Boivin, I am also the mother of a Turner's girl and the conclusions you so readily "leap" to are flat out wrong.

I considered having the same procedure done and NOT because I thought it was important to have a child genetically connected to my family. Quite frankly I could care less about it. My reasons were instead:
- Financial: Finding a donor for eggs can be next to impossible not to mention the cost;
- Emotional: My daughter can not conceive and that may be something that will effect her emotionally if she really wants to simply carry a pregnancy - many women do. This could give her that chance;
- Scientific: The pregnancy has a better chance of viability if donated by a close relation.

It doesn't matter if my daughter has children, what matters is what SHE wants. Like Mrs. Boivin, I just want to give her every opportunity I can to be happy. Your article has cheapened Mrs. Boivin's painful, selfless act of love. Worse, you twisted her story into a false crusade so it would look good on your site. You should be ashamed.

D.; October 09, 2007
Anonymous said...: Certainly an act of love to endure all the pain of egg-donation, but a very misguided one because any resulting child will have to endure a pain all of its own: the pain that results when one's kinship ties are ruptured to please other people.; October 12, 2007

Stop the Baby Trade

Yes, it is a baby trade, like the slave trade of old. Babies have become consumer products, accessories to our lifestyles. They are like pets, those cute and cuddly babies. And like pets, they can be made to your liking. Just buy the sperm at your nearest sperm bank, purchase an egg from your local egg dealer, and rent a surrogate womb. And in 9 months, bring home a baby without a pregnancy, without even a dent in your schedule!

There is supply and there is demand. Babies are disposable: their value and worth depend on being "wanted". As embryos they can receive a life or death sentence based on a screening of their genetic traits. They can be frozen indefinitely, donated for research or simply killed. In the womb they can be "selectively reduced". They belong to whomever they were "intended" for.

Apparently, adults have a "right" to a baby. And before they are born, babies have no rights at all. They can be bought and sold, or traded from person to person.

Even after they are born, some of their natural rights are not recognized or respected. They had better not complain about not having their "natural" or biological parents. If they mind, they are ungrateful. After all, we cuddle them and spoil them and shower them with love - just like our pets.

Well, it's time to stop the baby trade. Infertility is tragic. So is being panhandled by your own genetic parents and being raised by biological strangers. So is being created in a laboratory only to be frozen as "surplus" or screened out and left to die because you are "unwanted".

Children have not consented to these things. Their own parents, their supposed protectors, have allowed these things to happen to them. Adults have selfishly allowed their reproductive urges to trample on the fundamental rights and needs of their own children. But now, as many of these children come of age and we hear their cries of pain, it is time to admit that what reproductive technologies have given to parents, they have also taken away from children.

Sometimes doing the right thing requires a lot of sacrifice. This is one of those times. We need to set aside our adult desires in order to protect children's rights. Let's see babies as human beings who are our equals. Let’s admit that we have no right to harm others to get what we want. Let’s stand up for those who don’t have a signature line on the consent forms, yet who will be forever affected by the decisions taken.

We will find that by protecting the weakest, we are also protecting ourselves. The rights of children are tied to the rights of adults. Children have a right to their own parents; and those parents also have a natural right to know and to educate their own biological children. These natural rights cannot be eliminated, only violated.

Let’s stand up for the natural human rights of children: their right to life from the moment of conception, their right to be carried in the womb of their own biological mother, and their right to know and be raised by their own biological parents.