Donor Insemination: Eugenic and Feminist Implications

Abstract

One concern regarding developments in genetics is that, when techniques such as genetic engineering become safe and affordable, people will use them for positive eugenics: to "improve" their offspring by enpowering them with exceptional qualities. Another is whether new reproductive technologies are being used to improve the condition of women or as the tools of a patriarchal system that appropriates female functions to itself and exploits women to further its own ends. Donor insemination is relevant to both of these issues. The degree to which people have used donor insemination in the past for positive eugenic purposes may give some insight into the likelihood of developing technologies being so used in the future. Donor insemination provides women with the opportunity to reproduce with only the most remote involvement of a man. To what degree do women take advantage of this to liberate themselves from male dominance? Through questionnaires and interviews, women who have used donor insemination disclosed their criteria for selecting sperm donors. The results are analyzed for the prevalence of positive eugenic criteria in the selection process and women's attitudes toward minimizing the male role in reproduction.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Culture Change

“…In most societies, male infertility remains deeply hidden because of its conflation with impotency and emasculation (Birenbaum-Carmeli et al 2000, Carmeli & Birenbaum-Carmeli 2000, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen 2009, Upton 2002. Until the early 1990s, the only solution to severe male-factor infertility was DI-the oldest of the "new" reproductive technologies, but one still shrouded in secrecy and stigma (Becker 2002;Becker et al 2005;Bharadwaj 2003;Birenbaum-Carmeli & Carmeli 2002a,b;Grace et al 2007;Hanson 2001;MacDougall et al 2007;Nachtigall et al 1997Nachtigall et al , 1998. The introduction of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in Belgium in 1992 has created new possibilities for infertile men and supplanted DI to some degree.…”

Choosing Single Motherhood?

“…From long medical and family histories to baby pictures and audio-tapes of the donor talking about himself, the European and American sperm banks give single women an opportunity to choose a particular donor. However, despite the eugenic fears that this choice may ignite (see Hanson 2001;Pennings 2000) and the consumerist connotations of 'buying' 'designer babies', the most commonly cited reason for choosing a particular donor was that he sounded 'nice' and 'friendly'. Scheib et al (2000) also found that factors such as whether the donor sounded like someone she or her child would like to get to know and whether he sounded like a good, well-rounded person, were important criteria in choosing open-identity donors.…”

Blood Is Thicker than Water: Policing Donor Insemination and the Reproduction of Whiteness

“…The fact that Nori's physician excludes her from the donor selection process for her child's father is not an uncommon experience. Almost 75 percent of physicians never allow recipients to select donor gametes (Hanson 2001). Dr. L presumes to know what Nori wants and what she would select and all but forbids her from choosing among a range of options.…”