In an interview with the daily newspaper, Libération, Alexis Escudero, author of the book entitled La reproduction artificielle de l’humain (Artificial Human Reproduction), referred once again to the spin-offs triggered by medically assisted procreation (MAP) including exploitation of women’s bodies, eugenics and transhumanism.
As far as the author is concerned, regardless of the debates that fuel public opinion, it is high time for MAP to be suppressed. It has been transformed into “an international child supermarket” worth 3 billion dollars in 2007, and is allowing hundreds of companies to prosper at the present time. According to the author, “freedom, which means so much, simply refers to consumer freedom,” with consumers likely to lodge complaints when the child does not meet expectations. Alexis Escudero cites the example of an American lesbian couple who “have just lodged a complaint because their daughter, born as a result of sperm donation, is of mixed race”. In the United States, increasing numbers of fertile couples are using in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Thanks to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, “parents can test their offspring for 400 disorders. They can also choose the gender of the baby”. This is also a means of perpetuating a certain number of social inequalities when “the ovules/eggs of a Yale graduate cost a lot more than those of a student at Oklahoma University” and when “wealthy fertile couples ‘select’ their future child”.
In addition to the body and baby market, questions emerge when, under the pretext of equality, “we are providing [homosexuals] with the same biological capacity as that of heterosexual subjects. Firstly, this conception of equality is that of transhumanists. It allows technology to erase biological differences”, which, for the author, constitues “a form of liberal pessimism and a renunciation of political life. Since our society is incapable of allowing men and women to live according to their differences, we allocate this task to the marketplace and technology”. It should, however, be remembered that “we cannot ignore our biological determinism, our natural limits. Nature is restrictive. But it is neither good nor bad. To liberate oneself from nature is not necessarily synonymous with freedom”.
Alexis Escudero also refers to the latest developments. In his opinion, uterus transplants, the freezing of oocytes and an artificial uterus should raise basic questions regarding social representation: Why are women ready to take such significant health risks by requesting a uterus transplant? What is the role of childless people? Why doesn’t the desire to have a child lead to adoption? On the subject of the artificial uterus, it should be noted that “in future, this technique will lead to disembodiment, emancipation of the body”, which is what transhumanists wish to impose. Today they have the actual means to reach their goal, “to create a race of superior humans through hybridisation with machines”.