The Faster Family in 1971. That’s me in the front center, next to Mama.
Regular readers are aware that breaking news is by no means the forte of the
professional spinster aunt. My views on John Roberts probably won’t
congeal until sometime after Arbor Day in 2007 (although here are some
preliminary findings: JVNNIVS ROBERTVS FVCTARDVS EST), and I couldn’t
give a splat for the stunningly uncontroversial BTK killer. I try, but
I cannot change my twisty-come-lately ways. Which is why this morning I
read with some interest a four-month-old essay referencing a
two-year-old newspaper article on, what else, “unborn mothers.â€
That’s
right. Unborn mothers. A concept with which the Doctor’s sophisticated
readership is undoubtedly already familiar, but which, I confess, kind
of startled me, yokel that I am.
The story so far: some dudes in
Israel are–or at least they were in 2003; for all I know they could be
running a sports bar by now– working on a method to harvest ovarian
tissue from aborted human fetuses for the purpose of sprouting eggs for
in vitro fertilization. The goal is to eliminate the middleman, i.e.
the sentient egg donor–or as some sentimentalists may euphemize, the
“woman‖ who can cause problems down the line, in favor of an aborted
fetus egg “donor†with no pesky legal standing. Pro-life hijinks ensue.
A 2003 Guardian article
quotes the stern objections of several professional fetus-fetishists.
The remonstrances fall into two categories. One, the procedure is
“sickening†because the “dead baby†cannot give consent. Two, the
offspring of an aborted fetal “mother†would “have enormous
psychological problems.â€
Lisa Guenther brushes aside these godbag gripes. Writing in the March/April issue of Radical Philosophy, she says (I pararphrase), “Forget about the children! What about the feminists?â€
She is understandably troubled by aborted fetal “motherhood‖for
non-fetus-fetish reasons that I’ll get to in a minute–and is bummed by
the insufficiency of feminist thought to address her concerns.
“Can
we coherently defend,†she asks, “a woman’s right to terminate
pregnancy without relinquishing a feminist position from which to
critique the use of aborted fetuses in certain experimental procedures?â€
Here’s
her sticky wicket: suppose you are a pro-choice feminist in whom the
idea of aborted-fetal-motherhood induces vomiting. How to argue against
it? If you confer upon fetal tissues sufficient personhood to render
them immune from egg harvesting–i.e., turn them into legally
recognized entities from which consent for the procedure must be, but
of course cannot be, extracted–do you not also weaken the case for abortion as an option for fully-realized adult human women?
Guenther,
in pondering the biological and cultural status of “mother,†also
attacks the whole woman = uterus = biological destiny thing, with
satisfying results, one of which is this: using aborted fetal ovarian
tissue for IVF ultimately undermines the choice of the woman who has
made the decision to terminate said fetus. Her decision–or more
broadly, her status as a human being– is made irrelevant if an
instance of reproduction occurs as a result of this procedure.
Dr.
B has argued that the reproductive state is the default for women. This
notion is so distasteful to the spinster aunt ethos that I have
resolutely dug in my heels on the opposite side, but lately I am
finding this position untenable. Whether or not Dr B’s statement is biologically true is a discussion for people who did not snooze contentedly through Bio 105, but there’s no denying that it is culturally
true; patriarchy places the burden of what Guenther calls “the
much-vaunted ‘future of the species’†entirely on women as a class. She
writes:
“The absence of viable eggs is only a shortage –
and the shortage is only a problem – if women are thought to have
natural rights and/or obligations to produce offspring. When considered
in this light, the proposed procedure of growing eggs from the ovarian
tissue of aborted fetuses collapses the meaningful distinction between
woman and mother, which is otherwise maintained by access to a decent
range of reproductive choices. In so doing, it reinforces the reduction
of women to mothers – and of mothers to their reproductive organs –
which feminists have fought so hard to contest.â€
Man, if only there were a cure for reproduction. The sooner “mother†and “woman†go splitsville, the better.
[Cross-posted at Bitch.Ph.D.]
Oh, but there IS a cure for reproduction–it’s called lesbianism!
Unfortunately even a lot of lesbians these days don’t realize their good fortune…but I guarantee that lesbian sex isn’t leading to any unplanned pregnancies.
Twisty, honestly, this photo is too much! Genius.
And I’m w/ Guenther that fetal ovaries being tapped violates the rights of the “fetal donor,” or whatever you would call the woman whose genes would be spread hither and yon w/o her consent/knowledge/etc. This is deeply creepy, and the concept of a “fetal mother” has got to be the most patriarchally reductive biological determinism I’ve ever seen.
That photograph is my new favorite thing. Also, I’m carving “JVNNIVS ROBERTVS FVCTARDVS EST” over my bathroom door this evening. Great post, as ever, on an uber-creepy subject. The world is chock-full o’ people, and they all seem to be reproducing quite successfully. Even America is getting a little crowded. The future of the species certainly does not seem to be in question (at least not because of reproduction) So what possible motivation could be behind such research? I think you got it exactly right. The point is to allow men to do the one thing they have not heretofore been able to do on their own - namely, make other men. Imagine the bold new frontiers that would open up for patriarchy if they didn’t need bitches at all! All kidding aside, the implications are fairly horrifying. For those science fiction fans among you, think of the fate of the Tlielaxu women in Frank Herbert’s Dune novels: reduced to mere tanks for the manufacture of genetically engineered products by a highly religious patriarchal society.
What I want to know is, who are these scientists who have apparently never taken an ethics class? Or, like, seen a Frankenstein movie?
Twisty, you are fabulous! I would so make out with you.
Eggs shouldn’t be harvested from a fetus without the donor’s consent, same as any other use of fetal tissue. If she signs off for the fetus to be used that way, what’s the problem? If she doesn’t like the idea, let the fetus be cremated with all the others.
If you knew you were conceived with a donated egg, would you care that it came from a fetus, as opposed to an idealistic volunteer, or an underpaid hired donor, or a cadaver? An egg is an egg, so long as it’s healthy. Same difference as with sperm for artificial insemination.
1. The whole point of the Israeli research is to effect a situation where there is no consent.
There’s a whole passel of remarks on this issue in the comments to this post at Dr. B’s (see cross-post link, above)
2. Lesbianism doesn’t cure reproduction, alas.