Reproduction & Technology Expert Answer
Introduction
Technology is ever evolving in areas of media, cell-phones, medical devices and internet. With changes in the technology, the impact it makes on individuals and families is two-folded. As the technological advancement is transforming the ways families interact, it is also paving the new ways in medical area especially in reproduction assistance (Waynforth, 2018). In the past, infertility was considered as a medical condition due to which several of the academicians poured their thoughts on eradicating and fighting with the problem of infertility. However, with passing time, the focus shifted towards seeing infertility through the lens of bioethics while focusing on whether or not the couples should adopt new reproductive technologies for reproduction (Bos & Rooij, 2017). The shift was again seen as infertility and new reproductive technologies were seen under the ethical and moral issues including agenda of sex selection. However, not much of the research has been done in order to understand the concept of infertility under social sciences.
Under sociology, the concept of infertility and reproductive technologies is of upmost importance for two reasons. Firstly, it is important to understand how new medical techniques like surrogacy, sex selection and artificial insemination require public policy and legal decisions. Secondly, the role of parenting and child development in case of having children with new reproductive technologies requires a bit clearance (Bos & Rooij, 2017). Moreover, there is a strong need to see how genetic relationships and same-sex parenthood arrangements might affect the child development in case of reproduction through technology decisions.
The medical advancement in the infertility and reproduction field is coming at a rapid pace and is shaping up the family structures (Baldwin, et al., 2014). Research related to the new technologies in the field of reproductive health of women is quite important because such research is concerned with creation of future generation. Insemination, in vitro fertilization and embryos manipulation have altogether changed the concept of reproduction (Wilkinson, et al., 2019). The assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have become increasingly effective with availability of sophisticated technology in past decade. The new reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF) and infracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have been the core subject of heated debates amongst the academics, policy makers and medical ethicists (Bos & Rooij, 2017).
Given the rising concerns and attention regarding reproduction technologies under sociology and social sciences, this report will outline the impact of key reproductive technologies on families of choice and child development in the light of available recent literature. Furthermore, the impact of reproductive technology on couple’s relationship and decisions regarding pregnancy will also be outlined in the following report.
Families of Choice & Reproduction
A typical family is formed through kinship and residence that resides in one household, emphasizes on loving marriage relationship, depends on husband’s income and socializes children independently from the extended kin (Alesina & Giuliano, 2010). Kinning is defined as the process through which a new born child is brought into a permanent relationship within a group of people that are expressed in kin idiom (Carmeli, 2020). However, the process is not so much easy in the same gendered relationships like gay marriage and lesbian marriage. Lesbian and gay parented families are most often viewed under the “families of choice” concept that assumes this same-gender relationship to be self-reflexive and innovative in structure (Dempsey, 2010).
A family of choice is defined under sociology as the “intimate or close relationship that is voluntarily chosen rather than the relationship that is defined via blood or marriage” (Dempsey, 2010). As the families are increasingly becoming a matter of choice, the choices about forming intimate relationships are widening all the time (Dempsey, 2010). In this non-heterosexual world, over past decade, a growing acceptance regarding same sex marriage and partnership has been experienced widely. In the society at large, the development in this non-heterosexual world has been closely linked with how family is described and how the reproduction and conception is viewed in same-sex marriage/partnership. Under sociology, the lesbian and gay family is considered to be self-defined and is viewed as a classic example of “families of choice” (Weeks, et al., 2000).
With growing acceptance of lesbian and gay families, the demise of traditional conceptions of family and traditional way of reproduction for children has been experienced. In this instance, the role of reproductive technology is of prime importance especially for the lesbian, gay & biosexual (LGB) families (Dempsey, 2010). The research indicates that the increased confidence amongst non-heterosexuals has been asserting their competence as parents and is validating their ability to continue as a parent in today’s world. Controversially, the main factor that is pushing the trend of non-heterosexuals to become parents and define themselves as “families of choice” is due to the development of new productive technologies and access to it (Weeks, et al., 2000). With the sophisticated reproductive technologies, the conventional view of seeing conception as a product of heterosexual sex has been shunned completely due to which the possibility for non-heterosexual parenting has emerged throughout the globe.
Technology, Conception & Pregnancy
ART has become a major way of reproduction in heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. ART is the method of using non-coital technologies for initiating pregnancy amongst partners. The most widely used technology is IVF, egg donation, IUI (intra-uterine insemination), ICSI, surrogacy and genetic screening (Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2013). As ART has become a ray of hope for the infertile heterosexual couples trying to conceive, it has also become the way of experiencing parenthood in homosexual marriages where the partners are unable to reproduce with their partners due to having same sex (Anderson, 2008). As more gay and lesbians are seeking to reproduce, the conflicts over gay access to ART has been rising.
Primarily, the realistic approach towards conception and reproduction in same-sex marriage is enabled through two technologies for biological parenting i.e. insemination and surrogacy (Hodson, et al., 2017). The insemination technology affects women reproduction system through self-insemination and/or donor insemination in the medically controlled clinics. Donor and self-insemination have been affecting lesbians and making the possibility of parenting in same-sex marriage. With advancement in technology, more coupled gay women have been requesting artificial insemination through donor sperms, donor banks or physicians in order to have a child (Robertson, 2004). Till now, no laws have been formed for prohibiting the artificial insemination of single or couple women (either gay or straight) for enabling them to have a child. Technology has also enabled the gay women to become biologic parents by combining the egg donations with artificial insemination from a donor. This is done for forming a biologic relationship whereby one woman provides eggs and the other provides the gestation services (Burnett, 2006).
Surrogacy, on the other hand has appeared to be the major factor affecting gay men marriage and partnership although it also involves women (Bergman, et al., 2010). Many clinics work as a brokering company for providing the women who can bear the child of the gay men couple. In many of the cases, the surrogate also provides the egg for male while in other cases; one woman can donate egg to be fertilized with the sperm of one of the gay male partner while another woman will provide the gestation service for reproduction (Murphy, 2013). The two services are known as full surrogacy in which the egg and womb are of the same woman while the other one is known as gestational surrogacy whereby the egg and womb are of different women (Bergman, et al., 2010).
Lesbian and gay couple considering parenting face several challenges starting from finding a caregiver to options for conception, involvement of the partner, cost of the insemination/surrogacy and legal implications associated with same-sex parenthood. The access to ART is also a challenge for the lesbian and gay couples due to ethical/moral arguments against the insemination and surrogacy in social context (Dempsey, 2010). However, despite of major challenges, lesbian mothers and gay couples are becoming more visible due to increased use of high-tech options for obstetric care. It has been reported that donor insemination has been popular choice of gay couples for facilitating the conception of a child as eight out of nine gay women chose conception by coitus (McManus, et al., 2006). The impact of technology on families by choice in same-sex marriage is quite apparent as much higher numbers of gay and lesbian couples are choosing to conceive by artificial insemination and surrogacy technologies. It has to be noted that the gay couples are usually “socially infertile” instead of being infertile in medical terms (Burnett, 2006). Hence, it is logically unsurprising to understand the high rate of pregnancy amongst gay couples after using artificial insemination technology or surrogacy. It can be said that the community knowledge and the increased sophistication of insemination and surrogacy technologies have enables a vista of opportunities for non-heterosexual parenting for women and men who previously couldn’t imagine raising a child and forming a family.
Linking ART & Families of Choice
As discussed above, the lesbian and gay parented families are viewed under the lens of “families of choice” as discussed by Dempsey (2010). Kinship is much more versatile concept than “family” in describing how people perceive themselves as connected and in relationship. According to Dempsey (2010), the concept of kinship can be further explored in context of same-sex partnership who seeks to conceive through insemination or surrogacy. The concept of kinship in gay and lesbian partnership has enabled the sociologists in understanding the broader meaning of biological and genetic ties for building social relationships and sharing parenthood responsibilities.
The literature above identified that Stacey (2004) and Weeks et al. (2001) have linked up the friendship and choice as the distinctive features of forming lesbian and gay families. For instance, it has been discussed how families of choice concept has been advancing the idea of friendship that constitutes the kinship within the lives of lesbians and gay men. It has been identified that the reproductive relationships amongst the lesbian and gay couples are based on transformation of social relationships as father or mother of children to that of friendship rather than the parenthood. This is usually done for enabling parental responsibilities and entitlement of parenting to the lesbian or gay couple instead of to the genetic or gestating mother. This whole reconfiguration has been reshaping the idea of kinship based on “friendship (Stacey, 2004)”.
The research also provided evidence over the reshaping of relationships and identification of new patterns of relationships under the concept of “families of choice” that also gave birth to non-heterosexual relationships (Weeks, et al., 2000). The stories of families of choice are circulating in the economy while giving rise to the claims by non-heterosexual partners to be recognized and legitimized as full citizens of the society. The same sex commitments are not new concepts, rather the demand for equity, urge to become parent and need to be recognized have changed the landscape and definition of family in social context (Dempsey, 2010). Thus, this need for becoming and accepted as a parent by non-heterosexual partners in this society is enabled by the advancement in ART as discussed in previous sections. Hence, the families by choice and ART are strongly related to each other as per the research and literature presented above.
Conclusion
With the development of new reproductive technologies, the growing trend of non-heterosexuals wanting to become parents has been rising immensely. A society has been shaped up with realization that the conception can be achieved regardless of forming a conventional heterosexual relationship amongst two human beings. This advancement in technology is not only shaping up the societal norms regarding family structures and responsibilities, but it is also altering the opportunities for non-heterosexual partners to create intimate lives and form families of choice that include children. Both surrogacy and insemination technologies have been in demand by non-heterosexual partners for fulfilling their demand of experiencing parenthood. However, the challenges faced by the non-heterosexual partners in the pursuit of conception and reproduction remain complex in the given social structures. The challenges like legal constraints and budget limitations are still overhauling the dream of parenting in the non-heterosexual partnership. Yet, it can be said that the technologies like IVF, ICSI, IUI, surrogacy and egg donations have shaped up the role and concept of “families of choice” amongst same-sex partnership immensely.
References
Alesina, A. & Giuliano, P., 2010. The power of the family. Journal of Economic growth , 15(2), pp. 93-125.
Anderson, B. J., 2008. Lesbians, Gays, and People Living with HIV: Facing and Fighting Barriers to Assisted Reproductive. Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender , Volume 15, p. 451.
Baldwin, K., Culley, L., Hudson, N. & Mitchell., H., 2014. Reproductive technology and the life course: current debates and research in social egg freezing. Human Fertility, 17(3), pp. 170-179.
Bergman, K., Rubio, R. J., Green, R.-J. & Padrón, E., 2010. Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy: The transition to parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies , 6(2), pp. 111-141.
Bos, H. M. & Rooij, F. B. V., 2017. The influence of social and cultural factors on infertility and new reproductive technologies. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology , 28(2), pp. 65-68.
Burnett, J. A., 2006. Use of assisted reproductive technology and gay and lesbian couples: What counselors need to know. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(1), pp. 115-125.
Carmeli, D. B., 2020. Negotiating Kinship: On Disassembling Same-Sex Families with Children. Journal of GLBT Family Studies , 16(4), pp. 385-401.
Dempsey, D., 2010. onceiving and negotiating reproductive relationships: Lesbians and gay men forming families with children. Sociology, 44(6), pp. 1145-1162.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2013. Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons: a committee opinion. Fertility and sterility, 100(6), pp. 1524-1527.
Hodson, K., Meads, C. & Bewley, S., 2017. Lesbian and bisexual women’s likelihood of becoming pregnant: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 124(3), pp. 393-402.
McManus, A. J., Hunter, L. P. & Renn, H., 2006. Lesbian Experiences and Needs During Childbirth: Guidance for Health Care Providers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing , 35(1), pp. 13-23.
Murphy, D. A., 2013. The desire for parenthood: Gay men choosing to become parents through surrogacy. Journal of Family Issues, 34(8), pp. 1104-1124.
Robertson, J. A., 2004. Gay and lesbian access to assisted reproductive technology. Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 55, p. 323.
Stacey, J., 2004. Cruising to Familyland: Gay Hypergamy and Rainbow Kinship. Current Sociology , 52(2), pp. 181-197.
Waynforth, D., 2018. Effects of Conception Using Assisted Reproductive Technologies on Infant Health and Development: An Evolutionary Perspective and Analysis Using UK Millennium Cohort Data. Yale Journal Biology Medicine, 91(3), pp. 225-235.
Weeks, J., Heaphy, B. & Donovan, C., 2000. Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Wilkinson, J., Bhattacharya, S., Duffy, J. M. N. & M S Kamath, J., 2019. Reproductive medicine: still more ART than science?.. An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecolog, 126(2), pp. 138-141.
