Endless options for customization are one happy byproduct of 21st-century consumer culture. Streaming services, sushi bowls, blankets featuring family photos — you name it, you can customize it. Deeply disturbing, though, is the rising popularity of building a custom baby.
In vitro fertilization, also known as IVF, enables a sperm and an egg to be combined in a lab and transferred to a woman’s uterus. A lawsuit filed last week in the Los Angeles Superior Court by two gay men who were upset their surrogate gave birth to a girl, rather than two boys as requested, exposes how it can turn dark quickly.
Albert and Anthony Saniger are suing HRC Fertility for “breach of contract, medical malpractice, negligence and fraudulent concealment and violation of the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,” according to CBS Los Angeles. The Sanigers dreamed of these sons, the suit reads. They picked names. They created Gmail accounts. They were told they could choose the children’s embryos. Then, last year, they had to take home a baby girl because HRC, according to the lawsuit, “negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally transferred a female embryo to the Sanigers’ gestational carrier.”
There were multiple people exploited in this situation. The Sanigers are not among them. Rather, it’s the surrogate mother, reduced to a mere “gestational carrier,” who will face the emotional pain caused by parting with the child she carried and the potential health problems associated with a high-risk pregnancy. It’s the poor little girl who will one day have to reckon with legal records documenting her guardians’ disappointment in her existence, marking the day of her birth as a breach of contract. Will they care for her despite the “staggering” financial burden she imposes?
Others were exploited, too. The Sanigers note they faced two “unsuccessful transfers” (i.e., human embryos that died failing to implant in the womb) before the surrogate became pregnant. Couples often create more embryos than they can carry. Fertility doctors suggest millions of embryos in the United States have been discarded.
Sometimes, destruction is intentional. The Sanigers’ little girl was mercifully born. Many in similar situations are not. After implanting multiple embryos, IVF parents sometimes abort the unwanted children selectively based on gender, disability, or other medical risks.
HRC Fertility responded to the Sanigers’ lawsuit by affirming that all children are a blessing. “Every child has value and limitless potential regardless of gender,” HRC said in a statement. While correct in its response, the facility’s stated mission to help all family types “achieve their dreams of parenthood” enables exploitation, albeit unintentionally.
Protections for children, along with regard for human life, fall by the wayside in the pursuit of personal fulfillment through IVF. Are we as a society prepared to categorize human beings as a commodity, as this lawsuit does by claiming HRC violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act? And what about how this changes our view of children after birth — will we view them as gifts to be guarded or mere accessories in an adult’s life?
