Wendy Chavkin,
"Globalized Motherhood: Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Context"
(page 2 of 4)
Okay, so now I'm going to get over to my "Globalized Motherhood"
notion. I hope to have been persuasive that this is a worldwide
phenomenon. And what you see is that, as this has happened, we see a
dramatic increase in the use of reproductive technologies. For example,
consider the number of procedures being done. Because fertility
treatment involves a sequence of steps rather than the discrete
procedures, this is counted by "ART cycles," which the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control defines as a period of approximately two weeks that
starts "when a woman begins taking drugs to stimulate egg production or
starts ovarian monitoring with the intent of having embryos
transferred."[6]
The number of ART cycles per year more than doubled
in the decade between 1995 and 2004.[7]
Again, it's not just the U.S.
The numbers are uneven, but you see the same general pattern for many of
the other parts of the world I talked about.
As other speakers have mentioned, we have seen a dramatic increase in
recent years in ova donation.[8]
And here, you see a real spottiness—it's not increasing everywhere,
but in specific places, among specific
women. I think for the rest of the day's discussion, when people really
try to talk in a more fine-tuned way about issues of exploitation, and
issues of which women are getting which body bits from which other
women, it's a complicated story. Those of you who are Barnard and
Columbia students of privilege know that you too are being targeted, and
being asked to be ova donors. That group in Spain, that high-level
group, those are college students.
At the same time, we have also seen a dramatic increase in the
transport of babies around the world,[9]
known as intra-country
adoption. There has been a slight falling off in the last couple of
years, and that has been due partly to a variety of scandals, a variety
of concerns, and somewhat, to China becoming both concerned about some
internal pushback and also concerned about the fact that single mothers
were adopting Chinese girls, and they made that more difficult.
Nonetheless, in a kind of time parallel, we've started seeing
dramatic increase in people from one part of the world getting hold of
babies from other parts of the world. In the United States, one way we
can measure this is in the number of immigrant visas given to
infants,[10]
and this has also dramatically increased during the same
time period. If we don't just think about the movement of babies
generally, or look at specific families, but look at a national level at
the top "Sending Countries" versus "Receiving Countries," you will see
that the patterns are not simple. And the patterns don't stay exactly
steady over different five-year periods, so you see this is in real
flux. For example, the U.S. is the top receiver; that's consistent.
But otherwise it is complex. You have countries with very low fertility
rates, like China and Korea and Eastern European countries, sending
babies to countries whose fertility rates are perhaps even a little bit
higher than theirs, like the U.S. and western European countries.
The adoption scholars, and I am not one, say that the sort of ground
settings for high levels of sending were war, poverty, and gender
discrimination, which include stigma on unmarried motherhood. I think
that too has gotten more complicated in recent years.
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
4
Next page
|