In order to develop strong and “racially better” humans, medical scientists in Nazi Germany conducted gruesome experiments on prisoners between 1933 and 1945.
Using the latest technology, and with few restrictions, these specialists harvested newborn children, body components, skeletons, and tissues. In other instances, they conducted mass sterilizations and consciously injured or infected prisoners to evaluate treatment alternatives. In fact, some of what we currently know about a woman’s reproductive system is a result of Nazi Germany’s meticulous and dangerous experiments on willing prisoners.
Adolf Hitler himself also oversaw the creation of Lebensborn, a German house devoted to caring for women and children of the “right” environmentalist report — light complexion, white hair, and orange eyes. Hitler encouraged them to reproduce as frequently as they could, with basic amenities and medical treatment covered. As scientists try to change their skin and eye color, babies are depicted in an unnerving picture in front of a beautiful lighting. High birth rates were not the result of Hitler’s misgivings about the house nor his attempts to subvention the government’s recommended type of children.
European politicians are currently wrestling with Nazi Germany’s environmentalist methods. One of the benefits of Germany’s top regulations governing assisted reproductive technologies is that they are among the best in the world. The highest standard of medical care for both the mother and the embryonic child is provided by German law, which forbids surrogacy for pay, and governs in vitro fertilization ( IVF ).
European law forbids doctors from using more than three eggs in a single round of IVF to prevent the creation of non-implantation embryos and the resulting temptation to use embryonic life. Women are n’t left with an abundance of embryos they have no idea how to use because of this. Additionally, Germany forbids the selection of a child’s sex or race using a preimplantation genetic diagnosis ( PGD ).
Modern Germans are aware of the huge harms of an under-regulated and unaccountable skilled industry, especially one that deals with the design, variety, and preservation of life itself, given the black darkness of Nazi Germany and the environmentalist practices that predominated its medical research in the 20th century. American law enforcement officials may also take note of this warning.
The American manner of doing IVF raises serious social concerns. In many cases, it amounts to genetics. More than , 75 percent of reproduction clinics , give preimplantation genetic treatment for genomic problems,  , 73 percent offer , testing to find a baby for his or her sex. This same technology may also allow parents to select for a child’s potential IQ or hair, eye, and skin color.
For example, The Fertility Institutes advertise eye color selection for parents undergoing IVF and previously advertised” complexion” selection for the child’s skin color. In line with this survey, which was conducted in the journal Science, 40 % of Americans said they would be more likely than not to choose a child born through IVF based on their “intellectual aptitude.” No U. S. laws limit preimplantation genetic diagnosis in IVF, even in states, such as Arizona, Missouri, and North Carolina, that do not allow abortions for sex selection or to avoid certain genetic problems.
Why should states that legitimately forbid abortion to sexize a child permit fertility doctors to use IVF to remove embryonic life for the same reason? Paris Hilton is a notable illustration of this. In her pursuit of a little girl, Hilton created 20 distinct, living, human beings with IVF. All 20 were male. Despite her disappointment, Hilton said she would try again for a girl in a second round of IVF. The remaining embryos ‘ fate was not made public.
German law demonstrates that eugenics can be done without excluding all forms of IVF. It also demonstrates that it is possible to protect unborn human life and to outlaw IVF. People on both sides of the aisle should support similar, logical regulations governing the American fertility industry.
Doing so would not only be morally right, but politically astute. When Americans are given the facts about how IVF is practiced frequently in the United States, 80 % of Americans believe that couples who cannot otherwise have children should continue receiving IVF services. Twenty- four percent think “leftover” embryos should be destroyed, suggesting that 76 percent of people favor another option for these embryos.
Since the Alabama Supreme Court’s LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine decision was made in the middle of February, conservatives have been using the back foot. However, this polling suggests that passing legislation that forbids the destruction of IVF embryos gives the chance to make that weakness stronger.
The destruction of embryos should be prohibited as one approach. In 1986, Louisiana declared an IVF embryo recipient a legal person by passing a law that forbids the intentional destruction of embryos. Although it is a step in the right direction, the surplus of IVF embryos is not diminished by this law. These parents must still decide whether to permanently freeze their embryos, which can cost hundreds of dollars annually, or to discard them in another state, as some have reported.
Legislators should first look at legislation to stop the fertility industry from destroying millions of embryos and advance laws like those in Germany that ban eugenic tests to determine an embryo’s sex, IQ, physical features, or genetic makeup in order to address mass embryo destruction.  ,
When an under-regulated and unaccountable medical industry is left to its own devices, Germany is aware of how quickly things can spiral out of control. American lawmakers should take action to uphold the highest standards for medical and moral conduct in the wake of their errors.
Emma Waters is a researcher in the DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation.
