IVF DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS FUTURE BATTLES
As a society, we have become far
more tolerant of all different types of lifestyles. This is in no
small part due to the effect that post-modernism has had on
society. By destroying the notion of "normality", and
blurring traditional definitions of what the place of a man and a
woman was, etc., it was inevitable that questions that we are
currently facing would come up. Furthermore, the significant
advances in science through genetic engineering and improvements
in "artificial" methods of conception have made
possible a future where the traditional views of what constituted
a "family" would be put under the utmost pressure.
On the eve of a new millenium, it is not surprising that John
Howard, a man of tradition and "values", would be so
concerned about ensuring the view that a mother and father are
the ideal set up for a "family" (all things being
equal). What the millions of children in this country who have
been brought up by single parents in a loving environment would
think about Howard's comments is interesting. I suggest that it
is an insult of astronomic proportions - as if the person that
has come into being will be a lesser person just because he or
she doesn't have a biological parent in his or her life. It is
quite a shocking thesis when you think about the point he is
making. Because he's telling all people brought up in families
with single parents or homosexual parents that no matter what, if
all things were equal, you would be a better person and have a
better life if you had both your mother and father there. It is
laughable.
When the views and reasoning that people like John Howard hold
come under question, they quickly begin to evaporate. What
research suggests for example that if a single person had the
resources and the love that a mother and father had for a child,
that the child is still better off with a mother and father? Is
there an inbuilt genetic need for a child to be brought up by his
or her mother AND father? History would not support this, as many
primitive societies did not live with this set up (nor could they
given that many babies would presumably be unknown as to who the
father was). Or is it a gut feeling? Or is it a bi-product of up
bringing and society that we believe this to be so? Then again,
many children feel the need to "discover their roots",
and we are always told that our histories shape us. In this
respect, it may perhaps be psychologically better for the child
to learn he or she was conceived in a loving relationship, and
not through a test tube or a one night stand. Ironically, in
today's world, our histories are becoming intermingled with those
of the people we love and the societies we interact with,
resulting in a much more diffuse relationship between a person
and their "true" identity. But really, perhaps our
"roots" are more about society always ranting on about
it. As an increasing portion of our population are created
through test tubes and non-"natural" means, this search
may become less relevant and just another ordinary piece of
information that won't need Freudian theory to deconstruct.
THe issue of homosexual parenting is even more contentious.
Homosexual partners obviously have just as many, if not more
resources at their disposal than traditional family set ups. This
takes away the question of economic power in order to support a
child. So, the question shifts again to the biological question
of "knowing" who the father is. And this is all it
comes down to. I don't know enough about IVF laws, but I'm sure
there are cases where infertile men have not fathered the
children of their wives through IVF. There doesn't seem much
controversy about this. But even if this was a controversial
point, the question is one of whether a "father" AND
"mother" are NEEDED in order to bring up a child in
optimal conditions. I think that the evidence would say that as
long as a child is loved by their parents selflessly, then that
is all that counts. Love is more important than anything. A child
brought up in a loving atmosphere will be in optimal conditions.
All things being equal, I would say this is the most important
characteristic that shapes the way the child is brought up.
However, even the question of biological fathers being needed in
IVF is gradually becoming passe. Technological advances will be
able to allow a female to modify her phoetus or even the sperm of
a partner to take away diseases or even genetic predispositions
to heart failure, or dementia or physiological problems that may
beset the child. This changes the fundamental nature of the way
we "traditionally" view the conception of a human.
Radicals may argue that it is better to bring in a baby with a
severe psychological problem, or a physical defect that will kill
them in five years, but reality and history show that this will
not be the case. We simply do not and should not aspire to the
view of suffering with happiness and acceptance if that suffering
can be avoided through medical advances.
People will jump at the chance to
ensure that their child will be brought into this world without
serious impediment to their appreciation of it. Many will even
opt to build in added genetic features, such as a predisposition
to study. I can see all the aspirational middle class types (those who vote liberal and wear designer clothes
because it helps create a reflection of what you want to be and
are really not - what I would call legal artificiality) who enrol their kids at birth in prestigious private
schools being the first to take advantage of such technological
advances. In all these instances, the essential human code of the
child is altered. It may contain strains of the father and
mother, but the characteristic is changed. Surely, this change
doesn't indicate that it is essential that a mother and father
are integral, especially as we progress more towards this path.
Furthermore, the issue of cloning may make reproduction even more
clinicised, and the drive for sex will be dictated solely in
terms of pleasure (rather than procreation). It is not ironic
that the 1960s and the advent of the sexual revolution has
coincided with this monumental shift in society as to the idea of
sex, "the family", reproduction and now genetic
engineering. The consequences of the sexual revolution of the
1960s on families has been canvassed particularly well in The
Ice Storm, but the technology is
now catching up to the ideas of the sexual revolution and
post-modernism (perhaps society needed to define the way science
was going to develop), and this will continue to challenge our
perception of human worth and existence. Perhaps the idea of
"broken families" will become moot as we begin to take
the Pleasantville approach to family life (better a non
traditional family than a facade of a happy one).
The Catholic Church in particular will face its biggest crisis in
this light. Its relevancy will diminish further if it does not
take seriously the theological and philosophical and pragmatic
consequences of the advances in IVF treatment. Archbishop Pell
might score some political points now, but he will lead the
Church into oblivion if Jesus' message of compassion and love is
lost amongst the rhetoric of trying to control a society the
Church cannot control. The question that the Catholic Church
faces is one of trying to modernise within the limits of the
spirit of the words of Jesus. And if you listen carefully to the
Church, the message makes sense. The child should be the ultimate
expression of the never ending committment between a husband and
a wife, because the child is made up of both the male and female.
But what happens when the wife is barren without artificial help?
Can their relationship ever reach its ultimate expression without
children as a personification of that marriage? WHat happens if
the husband's sperm will carry a genetic defect that would need
to be corrected using another strand of DNA from another person?
The whole nature of the child changes. ANd I just don't think the
Church would object to correcting a DNA strand if the baby will
die in two years. These advances changes the idea of marriage and
child birth, which is an extremely romantic idea that has allowed
the Church to celebrate sex in a marriage situation.
Unfortunately, times are changing and when the values the Church
expresses can no longer be supported within logic (can anyone say
"the earth is flat"), then the theology needs to be
relocated. People who bag the Church outright fail to see that
the message and way of interracting with people is very good. THe
problem is often in the way the Church is slow to react to
fundamental changes.
Bishop Pell's interjection in the IVF case for example, will in
the future be looked at as another laughable thing. Why the
Church insists on doing things on the public record that will
look dated in less than a decade is beyond comprehension.
Furthermore, perhaps the Church should seriously consider the
affects of preaching religious repression on other people who may
not hold the Church's views. The Church by using its influence to
change legislation and intervene in court cases can often impose
its views on non-members. This is not the way that one goes about
inforcing a truthful Catholic or religious conviction on people.
It has also been said that IVF
babies to Lesbians and Single Mothers will create a new
"stolen generation"... and this would be true if the
child were forced away from their families and placed in abusive
institutions. IN these instances, the child is brought up in a
loving family, and one can only guess as to how serious the
question of the "missing parent" will be (as the way
IVF currently works). As I've noted, the latter will not even be
considered as more and more opt for genetic modifications.
In this discussion, you may think that perhaps the whole idea of
committed relationships resulting in child-birth are frowned
upon. Indeed, the opposite is true. Happy relationships result in
happy families. But so too does a committed loving single parent
(that this is being debated in 2000 is extraordinary). However,
realities of today indicate that something is changing in the way
we view life and the way we bring it into the world. This is only
very very early days in the grand scheme of human existence.
Longer life spans, the issue of genetic engineering and cloning
will fundamentally alter the way we perceive of our selves and of
our lives. To try and halt this progress outright, without giving
love the benefit of the doubt, is a knee jerk and ultimately
futile reaction. History has shown this to be the case, and the
future will confirm this... barring an asteroid hitting the
earth.