- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The article is quite interesting and raises some good points, but I have two issues with it. First, it somewhat uncritically presents the destruction of fetuses in a very early stage of development as an ill to be avoided. This, to me, seems to be waving the white flag on Roe v. Wade.
Second, it seems to proceed on the notion that women are entitled to bear children. News flash: they're not. Some simply will never be able, though IVF and whatnot decrease that number from what it has been traditionally. And children are entirely elective. There are many reasons why women feel they have to give birth to their own children, and all of these reasons are more about societal values and individual status than about an objective societal good. This means, naturally, that I also disagree that any insurance company should offer infertility benefits.
Finally, though I agree that some practices in fertility clinics should be limited, I don't necessarily believe they should be any more regulated than they currently are. Because, after all, this is about choice and privacy -- you choosing to have a child by any means necessary instead of pursuing other alternatives, and short of committing a crime being free to do so. A limitation on either choice or privacy in the name of ethics leads to other potentially discriminatory and intrusive judgment calls on what is or is not an ethical use of the technology -- offering IVF to married women only, for example. Or not to women above or below a certain age. Or not to lesbians.
My choice, as hinted at above, is to adopt despite the fact that I can have children. I have a variety of reasons for this, much as I suspect infertile women have their reasons for wanting to bear children. However, I find it irresponsible to assert that childbearing is a right to be subsidized by the society for the benefit of individuals.
