Who has the right?

One of the most prominent French lay intellectuals, philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, has repeatedly conveyed her critical voice in the debate on homosexual marriages, recently extended to include the possibility of accessing medically assisted procreation techniques. Sarah Numico has interviewed her for SIR Europe. The ongoing debate in France is clearly linked to the question of man-woman relationship. Is there something new today? "There are things we have been familiar with for long, constant progress, also in recent times in our society, has led to men-women equality. There remains however an archaic mentality that is expressed in conjugal and sexual violence, conveyed in the violence of the prostitution system. But there is a new order, whereby biotechnologies transform gender difference, while procreation slowly leads to a fabrication. Candidates for parenthood take part in the process whereby anonymous parents provide biological material to ‘produce’ children, in a procedure that severs ascendant-descendant relations. This raises a set of questions: the way in which assisted procreation techniques have been handled lead to the parents’ own de-responsibility and de-personalization, deliberately preventing children from accessing their true origins. Some youths want to know where they came from. They’re not looking for their genes. They seek a face, an origin, a human story, and not a ‘biologism’. Legislators should look closely at future prospects: at the future shape of parenthood, at truthful communication to children, children’s rights, the responsibilities towards these children…".How is it possible to protect the children that are yet to be born? "The problem of democracy is that the future is not represented by political groups or unions. Nobody wishes to listen to tomorrow’s children, they don’t rally in the streets. Future generations should be prevented from having to cope with complex, difficult, alien and inhuman situations. The question ought to be the object of reflection, instead of racing at full speed towards progress, simply because something is feasible and it’s the object of personal needs". What answer should be given to those who claim a right in the name of a desire? "We should distinguish between the right to the freedom of doing something without being prevented (by men, citizens etc.), everyone has the right to have a child. Then there’s the right to have… namely, the right to a credit, whereby societies are called to provide the means, to ensure something (the right to a pension, to a job, to education, health, etc.) These are very different things. Does society have the duty to give me children if I can’t have any on my own? Society assures assistance in case of infertility, and it helps solving the problem. In the case of a homosexual couple there is no infertility, as there is no possibility. Thus there we aren’t faced with a medical problem but with problem that would not exist without the technical possibility to adopt a child (which is different, as children’s origin is not concealed: thus the right to have children with biotechnology risks being viewed as the right to hide to children their own origin, the illusion that they might be born from same-sex parents, concealing the role of the opposite sex in their birth. It’s a heavy responsibility, that deserves reflection. The problem does not stem from homosexuality but from the way in which we have decided to use the assisted procreation system, created for man-woman couples. We then made available gametes and surrogate mothers, which provides a realm of possibilities for homosexuals. The children’s status is paramount, and it must be ensured that not everyone can be entitled to the right to happiness by having children".Who is responsible for children’s protection? "The question regards legislators, who are tasked with drawing up regulations in the light of preliminary debates. A joint reflection on the quest for a common ethical code is therefore needed. Today we once more are faced with the temptation and the deception of the serpent before Adam and Eve, when he promised they ‘would be like God’ if they had eaten the apple. The Western idea of the quest for power marked by godlike ambitions is a strong myth that involves the power of technology. The idea that there is no limit to what can be done is not ethics par excellence, since ethics implies that there are things or beings than inspire respect, the need to retain the power. But if the fact that power should be limited is not accepted, it means we have reached the stage of barbarism".