The Pros And Cons Of Assisted Reproduction

It used to be assumed that when a couple decided to have a baby, it would be achieved through the natural process of sexual intercourse; the female gamete, egg, is fertilized by the male gamete, sperm, and proceeds to the grow and develop into of a child. The only way an infertile couple or parent was able to “have” a child was to adopt, thus resulting in a biologically unrelated child. “Every state in the United States has an adoption statue, and each deals with the changing or establishing parentage of an existing child” (Defining embryo donation, 2016). However, assisted reproduction processes have expanded the options and problems for couples, or even individuals, who struggle with infertility and other reproductive issues or restraints.

The scientific groundwork is expanding faster than state and federal officials can decide on and enact the needed legislature for dealing with the variety of legal issues and concerns that go hand-in-hand with these assisted reproduction processes.

Many organizations took charge, where government involvement was lacking or even nonexistent. Such organizations include, but are not limited to, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) and Parents Via Egg Donation (PVED). The ASRM deals in a large area of information collection and education about reproductive practices and research, including assisted reproduction, in the United States and many other countries (“ASRM: Infertility, Reproduction, Menopause, Andrology, Endometriosis, Diagnosis and Treatment,” n.d.). This non-profit’s guidelines help form important legislation and establish reproductive rights when states lack the public policy to deal with such matters. ASRM basically lays out the dos and don’ts of

After the Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), Supreme Court decision regarding abortion, state legislatures felt it was necessary to pass laws that restricted or banned fetus research. This was done to maintain a respect for human dignity. Twenty-five states have fetal research laws and fourteen cover only research done at the time of an abortion or suspected abortion (Andrews, 1984). In vitro (in the body) fertilization does not fall under these laws because the procedure doesn’t involve an abortion since the gametes are removed first, combined in a lab, then place in the uterus of a woman. There is no removal of the fetus/embryo from the body, there is only implantation. Embryo transfer after in vitro would be a violation. At least sixteen states have laws restricting fetal research that potentially could prohibit the process of embryo transfer (Andrews, 1984). The already fertilized egg, embryo, is in the uterus of a woman, then it is removed. This removal is synonymous to an abortion in the technical terms, even though it is placed into another woman’s uterus. Because there is a second part to embryo transferring, where it is placed into another woman’s uterus, I believe this process is not synonymous to an abortion because the fetus/embryo is not being removed to be killed. And in May 1983 a Boston district Attorney rendered