1. Amanda Iliadis
Ms. Ryan
May 1, 2013
Reproductive Technology
Human reproductive technology is developing faster than humans can handle; increasing many societal concerns.
There are many different types of reproductive technology; two of which are most common including: In Vitro Fertilization
and Surrogacy. The cost of reproductive technology is too expensive and the government will not always agree to lend a
grant to a struggling couple. Children born through manufactured methods are prone to many more risks than children
conceived the traditional way. The possible risks may include; respiratory, spinal, cardiac, growth defects, brain damage,
tissue loss, and abnormal body part sizes. In turn, these unhealthy abnormalities will continue to account for abandonment
and neglect from stressed parents. Mothers may act irrationally towards their children’s birth deficiencies. The amount of
parental or child suicides, murders , and abandonment towards children increases significantly along with these birth
deviations because parents cannot handle their disappointment in any other sensible way. The ironic nature of this is that
even though these couples went through all the trouble of bearing a child through reproductive technology instead of
adopting, most of the time they end up sending their child to an orphanage anyway or the child becomes hospitalized based
on the infant’s birth defects. These are all issues that societies all around the world are currently facing. The economy is
struggling, the government is becoming disconcerted and the children of this new generation and all the generations to come
are suffering. The future holds many innovative and interesting reproductive technologies that will only create further birth
defects and economic crisis. They will also become so far advanced within the next fifty years that humans will not be able
to control them and limit them. Scientists are working on experiments never deemed possible…that will now be spreading
across the globe. Reproductive technology will spiral out of control. Human reproductive technology is causing negative
societal concerns with the economy and irregular birth deficiencies; creating more endangered children.
Iliadis2

2. Technological reproduction is much more expensive than conceiving a child naturally; therefore adoption may be a
better option. In Vitro Fertilization costs “between $10 000 and $20 000…Surrogacy can cost between $20 000 and $40 000”
(McChonchie). One can attain a government grant for IVF. One available grant is the “Fertile Dreams Scholarship which
provides selected applicants with $10 000 to use towards IVF treatments” (McMullen). The scholarship does not guarantee
enough money towards whichever treatment the couple chooses, however it certainly does accommodate. Any treatment,
especially IVF can be “very expensive and most insurance policies won’t cover the cost” (McMullen). Based on these facts, the
best way one can go about having a child in their unfortunate circumstances is to adopt. Adoption costs may vary
depending on the country. U.S foster adoption “is the least expensive adoption route” which has an “average cost of less than
$5000” (How Much…). It can be argued that adopting from foreign countries can cost much more and also encourage one to
spend endless amounts of money. Adopting from “Korea is about $38 000…Ethiopia is about $28 00 [and] China is about
$29 000” (How Much…). Even with this knowledge, couples may still choose reproductive technology in order to produce
their child. However once they find out that there “are a growing number of resources to help manage the cost of adoption,
including tax benefits (some of which apply to public agency adoptions as well), loans, and employer benefits” they may
change their mind (Adoption Costs). There are more options for acquiring loans for adoption than there are for
reproductive technology because with the latter comes many concerns and health risks. The government does not want to
be responsible for something going terribly wrong with the procedure as it uses some government dollars. Therefore on the
whole, adopting a child is much more effective and cost-efficient than conceiving an infant with reproductive technology.
Babies are prone to a mass amount of risks when being born through reproductive technology, scientists have
claimed that infants conceived through IVF “had a risk of low birth weight about three-and-a-half times that of naturally
conceived infants, outing them at risk for breathing difficulties, brain defects or cognitive problems, anemia, [or] heart
abnormalities” (Ko,1). There was even a study conducted by Western Australian doctor which found that “one in 10 test tube
babies is born with major birth defects, such as cleft palate, heart diseases, malformed genitals, undescended testicles, Down’s
Syndrome, dislocated hip, or club foot” (Ko, 1). One scientist, Dr. Petrucci had to “end [an] experiment because the embryo
had become deformed and enlarged, a monstrosity” (Fnlee). In Denmark, researchers noted the number of “heart, spinal or
urinary tract defects, limb abnormalities and problems such as cleft palate or lip” in babies born through reproductive
technologies (Study
Iliadis3

3. ties…). It can be argued that all babies are susceptible to birth defects, even when born naturally. This is true; however the
numbers and rates of these birth defects increase along with unnatural reproduction. An article in Time Magazine last year
stated the link of IVF to more birth defects: 9% of infants born after IVF had birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies
conceived naturally (Sifferlin). These have all been very obvious and noticeable defects, however there are also problems
occurring deep inside the brain and further into the body. Many children experience “severe mental retardation, motor
defects [and] an inability to speak” (Kolata). In New York there has been an escalating amount of “childhood cancers [in] the
kidney, liver or muscles; an overgrowth of cells in the kidney and other tissues…a large tongue, abdominal wall defects and
low levels of blood sugar in infancy” (Kolata). The main verdict is that “birth defects [are] higher among infants born using
reproductive technology” (Pearson). This is just another reason why reproductive technology is lethal for the societal future.
Babies will always be prone to birth defects but by insisting on reproductive technology, those risks have been brutally
increased.
The many birth defects that are common in children born through reproductive technology is now having a huge
impact on the parent’s decision of whether or not they want to keep their baby. Here is a very common scenario: a woman
goes to a clinic to remove her ovum and her significant other’s sperm removed from their bodies to be mixed together in a
petri dish to begin fertilization of the embryo. A few days later, the couple returns and the doctor implants that embryo
back into the mother’s uterus to continue growing. Eight and a half months later the woman gives birth to a baby boy. The
child is born with a cleft lip, deformed genitals and one of their eyes is significantly bigger than the other. The mother is
horrified when the nurse hands her her baby and she tells the nurse to take it away from her…she is disgusted. The father
soon hears the news and feels almost as bad as the mother. The nurse takes the baby boy to the in-hospital nursery and
gives the mother a sedative because she cannot control her anxiety. The father and mother finally discuss what they should
do about the baby calmly. Their end result is to put the baby up for adoption because they do not know another way to
heal their child’s deformities. This event could have happened in many different ways. The parents could have gone home
and after many days of stress, murdered their child. They could have gone out one day and without thinking, slipped the
baby outside in the middle of nowhere. More positively, the parents could have tried to fix their baby’s problems by seeing a
specialist or a surgeon. The more probable of the scenarios is adoption. It can be argued that parents, no matter what way
their child is born could have these feelings of stress or anxiety. This is partly true, however because reproductive
technology opens the door to a higher risk of birth defects, more and more parents are reacting instead or being proactive.
It is only natural for parents to feel overwhelmed when their child is born with a
Iliadis4

4. birth defect. They are overcome with emotions and studies show that most do want to give up their children. A Vancouver
family physician, Will Johnston says that “you must be willing to sacrifice some to allow a few. Couples should not undergo
IVF unless…prepared to accept the child as it, with or without birth defects” (Johnston). The problem with reproductive
technology “is not with the child, but with a decision made by the parents concerning how to pursue the satisfaction of their
own desire for a child” (Pacholczyk). After completing many tests involving birth defects linked to reproductive technology,
the results imply “that couples considering [it] should talk with their doctor about the potential risks…so they can make an
informed decision” (Pearson). An informed decision is the best way to go about such a large, life-altering procedure. Society
will have further informed couples, more loving families, and decreasing amounts of orphaned children. Reproductive
technological birth defects account for many broken and abusive families in society; as well as many uncared for, neglected
children.
The future of reproductive technology is going to be far worse and seemingly impossible than could have been
fore-seen; creating greater rifts in society and a far broader range of defects occurring among children. Many scientists
around the world are already preparing for what is to come. A development biologist has already stated that “induced
pluripotent stem cells will be cultured into human sperm and ova…mean[ing] that anybody who has skin will be able to be a
genetic parent, whether they are just an embryo, a corpse, or any stage in between” (Solter). He also notes that it is possible
to test the stability of genetic modifications over many generations within just a few years by breeding human embryos in an
artificial placenta, allowing for the culture of embryos past the blastocyst stage (Solter). Dr. Richard Paulson says that “this
field has come a long way” and that “many scientists are working to perfect current methods as well as develop new ones”
(Stenson). This is an obvious statement, a very broad statement. Therefore it can be argued that these new theories of
technological reproduction should be safe and unharmful to adults and children alike, however most scientists in countless
articles have stated that the things they will be aiming to achieve are extremely difficult and risky. They know that there are
many things that can potentially go wrong. One experienced Doctor, Jean Rostand gave a lot of information away about
what has been planned for the near future in developing humans:
Iliadis5
“Here and now Homo Sapiens is in the process of becoming Homo Biologicus, a strange biped that will combine
the properties of self-reproduction without males, like the Green Fly; of fertilizing his female at a long distance, like

5. the Nautiloid Mollusk; of changing sex, like the Xiphores; of growing from cuttings, like the [Starfish]; of replacing
his missing parts, like the Newt; of developing outside the mother’s body, like a Kangaroo; and of hibernating, like
the Hedgehog” (Edwards).
Many scientists and doctors including Dr. Bernard Nathanson “believe an artificial womb will soon be perfected” (Paskal).
The idea of all these absurd enhancements is what the future definitely holds. Probably one of the most absurd and
disgusting of these enhancements is that of a science-fiction relatable experiment. It was written in an article this year,
Donald DeMarco states that “late-term aborted babies have already been kept alive for days in pressurized vessels” and he
claimed that “one Italian embryologist “has kept a female embryo alive for more than 59 days in an artificial uterus”
(DeMarco). All these delusional, abnormal reproductive technologies are coming our way. The future holds many negative
reproductive technologies that are going to create further problems in our society and increase birth deformities among new-
born infants.
Human reproductive technology is becoming increasingly more difficult to control. The societal concerns are
raising havoc all over the world and it is entirely human blamed. The many types of reproductive technologies; especially In
Vitro Fertilization and Surrogacy are increasing the number of birth defects. The expenses are sky rocketing and still cost
too much even with a Government grant. Adoption seems like the best way to go if a couple cannot conceive or if they are
scared on the risks of reproductive technology. Many parents become stressed and depressed when they see their new-born
with deviations. They kill their own child, give their child away for adoption, or throw their child out on the street.
Reproductive technologies are increasing the number of parentless, orphaned, and suicidal children. The future also holds
many interesting and scary reproductive technologies that are going to negatively impact this world. Reproductive
Technologies are rupturing the finest of societies through an increase in birth defects and economic crisis. To be a change in
the world is to fix wrong doings…to perfect what can be perfected.
Works Cited
“Adoption Costs.” Adoption.com: Domestic Adoption. Web. 20 April, 2013.

6. DeMarco, Donald. “In My Mother’s Womb.” The Catholic Church’s Defense of Natural Life. 1987.
Web.19 March, 2013.
Fnlee, Dr. “Tiny Human Life.” PDF: Pages 415-512. Web. 19 March, 2013.
“How Much Does Adoption Cost?” Building Your Family: Donor, Surrogacy, and Adoption Resources.
Web. 20 April, 2013.
Kolata, Gina. “Picture Emerging on Genetic Risks of IVF.” The New York Times: Health. 16 Feb,
2009. Web. 19 March, 2013.
Ko, Marine. “Worse Odds in a Petri Dish.” Report News Magazines (Alberta Edition). 15 April, 2002:
47. eLibrary. Web. 24 Feb, 2013.
McConchie, Daniel. “What To Consider Before Using Reproductive Technologies.” The Gospel
Coalition. 30 Jan, 2012. Web. 19 March, 2013.
McMullen, Amanda. “Government Grants for IVF.” eHow: money. Web. 19 March, 2013.
“Nature News on the Near Future of Reproduction.” Human Enchantment and Bioplotics. 28 July,
2008. Web. 19 March, 2013.
Pacholczyk, Tadeusz. “Babies in Test Tubes.” NCBC: National Catholic Bioethics Center. December,
2005. Web. 19 March, 2013.
Paskal, Tom. “Tampering with the Machinery of God.” Weekend Magazine. 18 Sept, 1971. Web. 19
March, 2013.
Pearson, Catherine. “IVF and Birth Defects Could Be Linked, New Study Finds.” Huff Post Parents

7. (Canada). 20 Oct, 2012. Web. 19 March, 2013.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “IVF Linked to More Birth Defects.” Time: Health and Family. 22 Oct, 2012.
Web. 19 March, 2013.
“Social Values and Research in Human Embryology.” Nature 231: 87-91. 1971. Web. 19 March,
2013.
Stenson, Jacqueline. ‘The Future of Baby-Making.’ 15 March, 2004. Web. 19 March, 2013.
Amanda Iliadis