Archive for the month: August 2015
The donor child members Anja and Sunny were accompanied last year for the WDR program “Menschen hautnah”. The documentary “Anonymous begotten” was already sent in March and will air again on Thursday, 20.08.2015, at 22.30 clock in WDR.
“The right to a child is not a struggle for a human right, but a slogan of consumerism.”
On July 27, 2015, the book “Child on Order: A Plea for Clear Borders” by Austrian journalist Eva Maria Bachinger has been published (Deuticke Verlag, 256 pages, ISBN 13: 978-3552062962), for which also donor children members Greta and Anne were interviewed. In contrast to the previously published books on this subject, Eva Maria Bachinger desirably takes a clear position on the ethical questions of reproductive medicine, from a child-centered and feminist perspective. It advocates clear moral and ethical boundaries and greater attention to the well-being of the child.
Particularly noteworthy about her book is that it is not about a – often expressed by conservative – discomfort at the replacement of the act of procreation by medically supported procedures. Instead, it denounces the moral weakness of advocates of an unchecked proliferation of reproductive health practices such as social freezing, egg donation, surrogacy and PID, which mask cute child photos, happy parenting images and a rhetoric of self-determination and altruism that it is a globalized industry which involves the exploitation of poorer women and downgrades children to goods. She demonstrates a reproductive medicine that argues more or less biologically as needed, and that seeks to offer all the services that are possible beyond medical indications, and a public that can not see through this obvious power gap and an ideology of the must-have -Possible-to be followed.
The alleged absoluteness of the child wish
Eva Maria Bachinger criticized in the debate on reproductive medicine that the desire to have children is often transfigured and ambivalences would be hidden (this is a reading excerpt of time online).
It is indicative that the wish to have a child is absolutely and thus resistant to considerations and limits by being described as genetically predisposed and natural. However, the argument of naturalness is used above all when a viewpoint is to be irrefutable. The irony is that reproductive medicine in particular leaves nothing to nature. Above all, such arguments justify the fact that it is unthinkable to be able to let go of the desire to have a child, and that therefore one must pursue it by all means. Childlessness is sometimes equated with a life-threatening disease when reproduction physicians point out that cancer patients and diabetics will be helped by all available means. In this feasibility doctrine is hardly broached that in an IVF, the pregnancy rate is not even 30 percent.
Lack of public criticism of the fertility industry
Ironically, methods ranging from social egg freezing to surrogate motherhood would be celebrated as a feminist victory. The legitimate question of where the self-determination of egg donors and surrogate mothers remains, it remains outside. It is particularly tragic for feminists that they would have inspired these new markets with their desire for independence because reproduction medicine meets the demand of working and older women. Even though women who entered menopause prematurely or who are infertile due to cancer are said to be the beneficiaries of egg donation, it is clear that the proportion of older women is increasing and that they are in fact the primary target group.
Bachinger rightly points out that reproductive medicine is an absolute elite topic. Above all, it is a minority of wealthy whites who reproduce themselves with this method, the only advantage of which is that they have more money. Boundaries would be crossed, reproduction would be divided, a type of supply chain would enable the outsourcing of risks and feelings as well as low costs. The social gap to low-wage countries will be skillfully used as in many industries and neatly talked with Autonomierhetorik. It is not only about national laws prohibiting certain methods, but about the fact that there are more donors and surrogate mothers in poorer countries. Go where the offer is the cheapest, even if your laws are liberal.
Since reproductive medicine follows the laws of a globalized market, it is especially astonishing that hardly any criticism is expressed by the left – criticism of the fertility industry is considered to be eschewed, homophobic, anti-progress.
The fairy tale of altruism
Remarkably clear, Eva Maria Bachinger works out the contradictory argumentation of a fertility industry, which evokes the sheer philanthropy of egg donors. Although this may happen, but the proportion is marginal.
According to Bachinger, in the case of egg donation, compensation for expenses, which includes the actual efforts and risks for the donor, is so high that it exerts a clear financial incentive to donate and endanger health. With an independent education of the donor about the health hazards can hardly be expected, as long as it earns considerably with an egg donation.
Even in the case of surrogacy prohibited in Austria and Germany, the supposedly existing altruism of the surrogate mother is always endeavored. However, information about the motives of surrogate mothers should be noted with caution, since they are usually filtered by doctors and clients. However, many other factors speak against selflessness: why should contracts with legal action be necessary? Surrogacy in the private sector is not prohibited in Austria and Germany, it is just not enforceable. Since a surrogate severely limits their self-determination and pregnancy is physically burdensome and still not completely harmless, it is logical that such an agreement mostly only with contract and money work. It is also significant that the surrogate mothers are always on the lower income scale, while the use of a surrogate mother is only an option for the wealthy both from the West and from the country itself.
Rightly, according to Bachinger, surrogacy and child labor are a phenomenon of poverty. If you were to give women the opportunity to take on meaningful, fulfilling tasks, with fair working conditions and decent wages, they would probably have access. The reality is that they do not have these possibilities. To gloss over this fact with the talk of altruism or autonomy, but was unabashed and cynical.
When invoking the altruistic donation, Bachinger’s aim is to dissolve the discomfort of commercialization and the power gap between those who can afford to use reproductive technologies and those who provide their bodies and their health. The idea that the procreation of the child is preceded by the acquisition of the semen or an ovum, that it is possible to buy a child, would be extremely contrary to its dignity. The fact that many no longer perceive the degradation of the child as a commodity as bad shows just how well-oriented and economically the society thinks in the meantime.
And the kids?
On the basis of the debate and her presentation in the media, Eva Maria Bachinger comes to the conclusion that the interests of children are being pushed into the background in the debate on reproductive freedom and the desire to have children. In Sunday speeches everyone is in favor of the children’s rights, but when it comes down to it, the rights of adults seem to be more important. Only that could explain the recurrent requirement of a right to a child or the defense of anonymous donations.
But there is no right to a child or a right to a husband or wife.
Where is the public debate??
In this respect, one can only wish this excellent book to as many readers as possible. Eva Maria Bachinger asks the right questions and gives thoughtful food for thought – and one inevitably wonders why so few have done so far.
My only criticism of this excellent book is that footnotes would have been desirable in places where comments, articles, and studies are referenced in order to be able to read them for themselves.
Regarding the observation that there is hardly any criticism of reproductive medicine from the left, it is unfortunately fitting that Eva Maria Bachinger’s book has so far only been discussed in FAZ and the world. At the same time, the topics addressed here should be of more interest to the left-leaning media, such as the South Germans, the Zeit or the taz. Presumably, however, this would mean that these newspapers would then have to critically scrutinize some of the articles published in the past about egg donation and surrogacy.
In this respect, it remains to be hoped, what the world writes in its excellent criticism of the book as a final sentence:Anyone who, as a supplier or customer of problematic reproductive medical services, will continue to work as intentionally as blue-eyed in the future will no longer have an excuse, according to Bachinger’s book.“
Co-parenting instead of sperm donation
On Time Online an interesting article about co-parenting has been published. The author has a daughter from a previous relationship, and got a second daughter – without a love affair – along with a lesbian couple. The model is of course not completely new, but is often already lived by lesbians and gays in Germany.
Unfortunately, one hears of single people and homosexual couples with a desire to have children: “How should we get a child other than with a sperm donation (or surrogate motherhood)?” Or “I want to have a child but completely for me”. I find it amazing how quickly this consumerism (which I do not have, I buy) is also justified in the desire for children.
Of course, it is harder to start looking for a person or other couple with whom you would like to have and raise a baby than to contact a seed bank (or a surrogate agency). But children are people and not objects that you can own.
I think that single people and gay and lesbian couples should consider co-parenting rather than sperm donation (or other procedures banned in Germany) in the interest of the child. As affected child would rather have had a genetic father, who was interested in me and not just “donor” wanted to be. I find particularly important the consideration of co-parenting for single people, because ideally a child should have two parents who take care of it – if only because a child is really a lot of work. But even with couples, it is better if the child from the beginning can establish a relationship with the other genetic parent.
I think the model can work if everyone involved is open and honest with each other and think of the child first. Of course, any additional person who can decide makes the situation a bit more difficult, but I think it is in the best interests of the children. Also couple relationships often do not end well because of different ideas. Maybe a parenting without love relationship even has the advantage that on a certain emotional level no tensions can occur. And, presumably, few couples will discuss as closely in advance as they imagine their parents‘ roles, like parents without a love relationship.
Only the right must now find appropriate answers for multi-parent constellations.
Related Posts
-
Archive for the month: August 2014 After our DNA-Test Family-Finder from FTDNA identified our first half-sibling pair last year in August, there is now a…
-
Celebrating New Year’s Eve 2015 in denmark on the north and baltic sea
Celebrating New Year’s Eve 2015 in Denmark on the North and Baltic Seas End the year in Denmark The Kingdom of Denmark has a remarkable history,…
-
Archive for the month: March 2013 Prof. Katzorke expresses himself unveiling in the FAZ In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 23.2.2013 an article by…
-
Archive for the month: October 2014 One and a half years after the first hit between donor and child, the second hit between another donor and a donor…