Gattaca Response

“Does the prospect of scientific manipulations of genetics have to be a negative thing in terms of gender? Is there something to be said for ‘Liberating’ women from reproduction?”

In terms of considering scientific manipulation, in the form of eugenics, I would think that it would immediately create a response that questions whether there would be negative implications for gender. But I don’t think this has to be the case. Obviously it has been evident through history that male children in many cultures have been considered a greater ‘blessing’ than that of a female child. But this is limited to cultures and their value of male and female as part of society. Women are linked not only biologically with reproduction but in many other ways as a ‘mother’ figure or the gentler version of the sexes. But if women are no longer the only means of producing a child I don’t see that this would HAVE to be a negative thing in terms of gender. I think females have other qualities that have been recognised in society today, they represent compassion, provide a substantial portion of the workforce, and excel at jobs etc that men may not necessarily be so skilled at. I think it is key to look at male and female as the two opposite sides of a coin, they each possess what the other lacks. Women don’t just contain the capacity to reproduce while the men have every other quality. Eugenics may offer the benefits of creating the ‘perfect human offspring’ but is there one single definition of what the perfect offspring would be?
I think that there is definitely something to be said for liberating women from reproduction. Today it is commonly known that women do not want to have children until they are in their 30’s! Why, because already women have broken out of the confines of simply being considered the ‘mother’. They are pursing their rights and positions in the public sphere, previously only dominated by men. If women themselves are no longer focusing on their ‘supposed’ only real reason for existence, that of giving birth, then why would the ability to not be the only reproductive force pose a threat. I would think they would welcome it. Think of all the women out there who suffer the fate of believing themselves inadequate and enduring the pain (and shame) of not being able to give their husband a child. They are not able to reproduce, but that doesn’t mean that creating a child from their genes would be inferior. There genes are still worthy of being reproduced.
If a fear of the negative effect of scientific manipulation is present, I think it should be interpreted more from an angle of the fear of our creation no longer being natural or ‘god given’ but being reduced to that of simple gene manipulation and like that of creating robots or computers. For anyone to think that they were born in a test tube (no matter whether it was still from elements of a ‘mother’ and ‘father’) is surely a terrifying thought and would have devastatingly negative effects for the human mentality I should imagine.
And think how much a child would cost then!! Even their creation would be more expensive then what it would be from natural reproduction!! And I should think the bond between husband and wife would also be lessened.
IF there were to be negative effects for gender I’m sure they would be felt not only by the women but also THE MALE. The male as well as the mother would also be detached from his original role in the nature of reproduction. Would the father still think of himself as a father of a test tube baby? What happens if his wife was to use the genes of another man to create a child? Would the husband consider that infidelity?
Unfortunately I was unable to attend the workshop as I have been ill and didn’t get to see Gattaca, so I’m having to answer the question from a wider angle. I apologise for my absence and if you would like to see my antibiotic prescription to justify my missing the workshop feel free to ask!