COLUMN: Paying for kids has other costs

From Amanda Bergson-Shilcock's, "A Few Good Words," Fall '99 From Amanda Bergson-Shilcock's, "A Few Good Words," Fall '99Wanted: Female, athletic, at least 5'10" with 1400+ on the SAT to volunteer for risky surgery. $50,000 plus all expenses paid. Shopping for offspring is not a new concept but it has recently been taken to new heights. The catch in the recent ads is that the women must fit specific requirements, often including height, hair and eye color; ethnic background; and SAT scores. The standard explanation for the requirements is that people are purchasing the sort of children they imagine they would have created: Childless Ivy-educated seeks fertile same. The desire for a child that resembles her parents is understandable. People seem to think they can tilt the genetic odds. And, to a certain extent, they can. For example, you're statistically more likely to get a light-eyed kid if at least one of the parents visibly has that trait. But neither eye color nor intelligence is a sure bet. What kind of a burden, then, does it put on the child? The new answer to the classic "Mommy, where did I come from?" is "We bought you for $50,000," and the unspoken but obvious subtext is "And you'd better be worth it." If people sit down and make a wish list and explicitly say, "this is what I want in a child" and then the kid grows up and can't take standardized tests, what are they going to do? Sue the donor mother for false advertising? And imagine the impact on a child who learns she is being groomed to fit a blueprint. There are other considerations. What are the long-term effects of pumping a twentysomething body full of hormones and drugs to artificially induce excessive ovulation? Nobody really knows because the drugs haven't been around long enough. What about the donor's hopes for her own motherhood? What if she becomes injured or even infertile as a result of the procedure or the pharmaceuticals? Maybe she'll be placing newspaper ads of her own in 20 years. And then there are legal questions over the child's guardianship. Are we prepared to write legislation establishing the claim of the egg buyers? Such legislation implies acceptance, or at least tolerance, of families with made-to-order children. Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean we should do it. Besides, such an explicit endorsement would favor egg donation over adoption, creating new children rather than providing homes for those who already exist. Many of the children annually abandoned and aborted in the U.S. come from white, young and well-educated women. Some of these women are doubtless blue-eyed blondes who are 5'10" and scored 1450 on the SATs. I'm not suggesting that donating an egg and giving a child up for adoption are the same but there are parallels. As important as it is not to penalize people who desperately want to be parents, it is also vital to check ourselves before we as a society go headlong down a new path. There is a difference between imagining a miniature version of yourself and actually trying to construct one. Today's science allows us to embark on just such projects but science does not address the human consequences of those decisions. Already our orphanages house children who don't fit society's picture. Mentally or physically handicapped, drug-affected, HIV-infected, too old to be adopted -- the list goes on. If we approve the use of more specific criteria, the picture will get even smaller, and the number of children outside the boundaries will increase. Maybe we want this narrowly-defined ideal. But maybe we'll be giving up something we can't even fathom. If parents choose only right-handed children, will we end up without the Leonardo da Vincis or even the Steve Carltons of the world? If we select for athletic types, will we cut off the great communicators of the next generation? A child who scores a lot of goals playing soccer may make her father look good. But a child whose gift is interpersonal relationships may not look like a star until she has spent 30 years in the diplomatic corps. Designing human beings is chancy. Even as technology seems to make it possible, it's important to take a step back and ask ourselves if we can live with where we're heading.