Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents’ Rights
Shanley, Mary L. 2002. Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents’ Rights. 1st ed. Beacon Press.
Rating:
6
Summary:
Raises a lot of important questions, but the answers won’t satisfy everyone
The book’s aim is to explore some of the current controversies in family policy. The author gives a brief history of families and family policy, focusing on the changes that have taken place in the family that warrant updates in legislation. The topics the author discusses include: open vs. anonymous adoption, unwed fathers and their attempts to gain custody of their children, selling gametes (sperm and eggs), surrogate motherhood, and alternative family structures (e.g., gay, lesbian, etc.) and their resulting complications.
Unlike many academic books that aim to present an objective treatment of the issues without advocating one perspective or another, the author of this text does not hide her biases nor refrain from presenting her opinions on the issues. In fact, the primary goal of the book appears to be to persuade individuals involved in family policy that the author’s views are the correct views. So, what does the author think should be done in many of these situations? The author believes an individual’s right to ‘know his/her origins’ trumps the right of a biological parent to remain anonymous in the case of adoptions; ergo, she advocates open adoptions. In the case of unwed fathers, the author advocates specific guidelines that must be followed by the fathers if they want to be able to claim custody (intent to father or build a relationship with the child must be shown). The author is against the selling of gametes, does not want gamete donors to be anonymous, does not believe surrogacy contracts should be enforceable, and does not believe women should be paid for surrogate motherhood (see quote from pp. 8-10 for the author’s summary of the book contents).
Review:
To begin with, the book addresses engaging and timely topics. I found the book to be very informative and surprisingly insightful at times. I have to admit I often found my mind wandering when the author delved into the intricacies of the arguments, but much of that may have to do with the fact that family policy is not a major interest area of mine (I read the book for a class, not for pleasure). Most people that read this book will likely be specialists in family policy and will probably find the intricacies fascinating. For the family policy novice, you may want to skim the middle parts of the chapters, reading what looks interesting, and focus on the beginnings and ends of the chapter as that is where the author summarizes her arguments.
There were a few additional problems. As noted above, the arguments the author presents can become overly intricate at times, resulting in the novice in family policy getting a bit lost. Additionally, the intricacies of the arguments often involved the author repeating herself two, three, and even four times in a single chapter. She would present a policy claim (her perspective) at the beginning of the chapter, present some history or evidence for that claim in the middle of the chapter after which she would restate the claim, and then restate the claim again at the end of the chapter. The restating of the claim over and over made sure I got the point, but was also redundant and gave me the impression that the book lacked a strong organization.
Perhaps the most serious problem I have with this book is that there was no attempt to illustrate the author’s beginning or underlying assumptions. The author starts with a brief introduction about herself and why she is interested in this topic, but then she moves straight into the history of family policy and an examination of the changes in the family over the last 100 or so years. Because the author is arguing for specific policy changes, it would be nice to know upon what assumptions her perspectives lie. For example, the author could have presented her idea of ‘needing to know one’s origins’ as a starting assumption (though I would like to know the basis for the assumption as well). Admittedly, the author tries to present some of these assumptions in the form of her arguments in the chapters, but whenever someone tries to argue that one perspective or theory is better than another one, one should also recognize that there are fundamental assumptions that are driving the perspective or theory. The author does not share what her assumptions are. Additionally, it would have been nice to know the author’s ideological perspective. Was she arguing from the perspective of a Marxist-Feminist, a Conservative Secularist, an Orthodox Jew, a mainline Protestant, a Roman Catholic, etc.? Though the author’s ideology may not affect her perspective dramatically, it would help illustrate for the reader the underlying assumptions being made by the author.
I applaud the author for admitting she has opinions and perspectives and trying to develop an argument for why her views are correct. She does build somewhat convincing cases for some of her arguments. However, I disagree with a number of the author’s opinions on these issues. Interestingly, because the author does not focus on forcing her opinion on others but is also attempting to fully explore these issues, she also presents some of the counter arguments. I was surprised how often I found myself in agreement with the counter arguments. For instance, the author notes that, “Most professionals associated with assisted reproduction argued that anonymity should be the norm, because it freed the donor from any legal responsibility for the child and any apprehension that the child would seek contact with him in the future” (p. 87). The author argues that individuals have a right to know their ‘origins,’ and that the individual’s right to know their origins trumps the donor’s right to anonymity.
As is the case with many of the author’s perspectives, this is going to reduce the number of willing gamete donors. As I have yet to try to have a child, I don’t know whether I might need gamete services or other adoptive or family services. Nevertheless, I fail to see, in spite of the author’s claims, how it can be beneficial to decrease an individual’s willingness to donate gametes or provide other reproductive services. I do agree with the author that a flat fee should be paid for gamete or other reproductive services so as not to exacerbate the already rampant inequality in our society. But by removing and/or reducing the motivations for individuals to donate reproductive services (a phrase with which the author takes issue), specifically by not paying egg donors or surrogate mothers, the number of people willing to perform these services will drop dramatically. In the case of sperm donation, I can see why this isn’t a particularly big deal; men enjoy giving sperm. But in the cases of egg donation and surrogate motherhood, women should receive some remuneration for the pain and suffering that is involved. I think the author ultimately agrees that the only people that would be willing to undergo such procedures without remuneration would be family members and therefore is willing to allow some leeway here in terms of a flat fee, but she still seems to lean on the side of no remuneration, which is a position I just can’t see as feasible in a society that demands ever improving reproductive technology.
By the time I finished reading the book I found that the author had raised my level of awareness of these issues, which I hope is more her intent than to convince everyone that she is right. I was not convinced she was right, though I do better understand some of the counter arguments to some of these issues. I’m sure this is an invaluable book for experts in family policy, but unless you are an expert or thinking of becoming one, this book may be a bit more complicated than you really want.