By Sierra Talavera- Brown
In the film Made In India, it is Lisa’s ultimate dream to become a mother, she “needs it to become whole.” American couple Lisa and Brian Switzer have been attempting to become pregnant for 7 years through assistive reproductive technologies such as fertility drugs and IVF. Lisa has polycystic ovarian syndrome; her uterus is cancerous but her eggs are still viable. This circumstance offers surrogacy as the only option for the couple to have a child that is genetically their own — a factor crucial in fulfilling their lifelong desire of becoming parents.
Yet, the western couple cannot afford surrogacy in the United States making procreative tourism, more specifically transnational commercial surrogacy, a feasible alternative for the couple. Within the context of the film (2007), the price of one cycle of surrogacy was as high as 100K; this price has risen considerably with current estimates ranging up to 130K. Procreative tourism is marketed as a type of “affordable health care.” In India, prices of one round of surrogacy are estimated at one-third of the cost and there is a 4x better chance of finding a surrogate than in the US — “In a country of a billion people…the surrogates are plentiful.” After exhausting all their other options for having a child that is genetically their own, the Switzers sold their house for equity to “gamble” for a baby in India.
“I’ve done this because of my poverty or else I wouldn’t have taken this step,” explains Aasia, the 27-year-old woman who goes on to carry the genetic children of Lisa and Brain. Aasia reveals to us that she is uneducated and illiterate. Her vibrant and bubbly personality contrasts against the gloomy and impoverished atmosphere of her small home that houses her husband and three children — who are the impetus for her decision to become a surrogate. Aasia sought to better the lives of her own children, especially to save her daughter’s future as “sons can earn [money] anywhere.” Aasia is confused to learn about “how a child could be conceived without a man,” revealing that her own perceptions of motherhood are central to the role of patriarchy. In India, women can only be surrogates if they are married. Women cannot opt for surrogacy if their partner refuses, creating a form of dependence and domination of their reproductive body. To further contextualize how surrogacy is perceived in India, husbands majorly refuse on the basis of another man’s sperm being inside of their wives. It is only until the agency or doctor clarifies that they are solely using the uterus to bear an “already made baby” that the husbands often reluctantly agree to sign the contract. Aasia discloses that she “made up a story” to get her husband to sign the contract and that he didn’t find out until she was 3 months pregnant.
After the implementation of multiple embryos, a practice that is now banned across many transnational agencies as unethical, Assia becomes pregnant with twins. She is scared to learn that she was carrying twins and was completely unaware of this practice. The high-risk pregnancy results in a maternal near-miss; Aasia has an antepartum hemorrhage and is rushed to the nearest hospital where she receives a C – section, ultimately delivering two premie baby girls weighing 3.3 lbs each. Antepartum hemorrhage is an obstetric emergency contributing to a significant amount of perinatal & maternal morbidity and mortality.
Within the context of the film, there was a total absence of government regulation. Besides a list of guidelines that could not be enforced, no legislation existed for surrogate’s rights. Discrepancies in payment between agencies left Aasia with around 5K, about 2K less than the Switzers were told that she would be paid. Given the lack of regulations and blurred lines of what defines motherhood, administrators at the hospital wanted to put the twins in the name of Aasia. Lisa and Brian were restricted from seeing their newborn babies, ordered to get a DNA test, and required the aid of the US embassy to get custody of their genetic children. Aasia was held in the hospital for 12 days after the delivery and felt “like a prisoner in jail.” Aasia’s motherhood, body, and the babies she gestated and bore became a battleground: exemplifying state control over women’s bodily integrity, agency, fertility, and ability to conceive. Despite the “hardships” Aasia endured, we learn at the end of the film that she inquiries with the agency to become a surrogate again.
In REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND SURROGACY: A FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE (1991), Barbara Katz Rothman rejects the concept of surrogacy: “the notion that any woman is the mother of a child that is not her own, regardless of the source of the egg and or of the sperm”(1607). She explores how reproductive technology has developed within a context of patriarchal ideology and how the perspective of men condition fundamental assumptions about relationships. Using linguistic patterns, religious traditions, and the assumptions they embody, Rothman illustrates the fundamental idea that social relationships exist in men’s seeds and that men’s children grow in women’s bodies. Yet the development of reproductive technology has confronted the matter of women’s seed — women produce genetic material and “our society says that the real relationship is the genetic relationship”(1601). Therefore Rothman argues that women are given some of the privileges of patriarchy, only to the extent that they are like men. This suggests that women’s rights to their children do not stem from gestation, birth, breastfeeding, or the continuous process of rearing a child; what makes a child “half hers” is depreciated to genetic material. Rothman bridges a connection between patriarchy, privilege, and surrogacy: women who are extended some of the privileges of patriarchy or can afford the privileges of patriarchy may also hold the potential to “have the use of wives” bodies to bear their seed. In this way, women’s rights to their children are limited by the position they find themselves within society. An example provided that supports this conclusion is how “women only came to routinely get custody of children in recent industrial times in which children were more of a liability than an asset”(1603). It was not until then did literature describing a “child’s need for their mother” appear. Rothman describes the challenges of recognizing and nurturing the perspectives of women in a society characterized by patriarchal traditions and suggests a shift towards intimacy: where “her nurturing of that child with the blood and nutrients of her body establishes her parenthood of that child”(1607).
In The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood (2008), Elly Teman also emphasizes women’s personal experiences. She argues that traditional Western assumptions about motherhood and family, and cultural anxieties about surrogacy, are revealed through the research goals, methods, and conclusions of research on surrogate mothers, their motivations for entering into surrogacy agreements, and the outcome of their participation. According to Teman, surrogacy challenges the dominant ideologies of the naturalness and normalcy of childbirth. Through three potential mothers (genetic, gestational, and social) surrogacy threatens the “indissoluble” mother-child bond, exposing “that the belief in motherhood as the natural, desired and the ultimate goal of all ‘‘normal’’ women is socially constructed” (1105). The cultural assumptions about what constitutes a “normal and natural” mother frame much of this research in a way that supports the essentialist, gendered, and majorly negative popular narratives of surrogate motherhood. Tenman describes the mechanisms by which psychosocial scholarship have constructed the surrogate as deviant, compelled by circumstance, or incapable of rationality. Yet despite imposed assumptions of denial, deception, pathology, and trauma, Tenman reports that the “overwhelming majority of surrogates do not regret their decision and they even express feelings of pride and accomplishment. (1109)” She indicates that a paradigm that diverges from present cultural assumptions is so “threatening” that researchers inherently overpower contrary evidence with preconceived categories of motherhood. These scientific conclusions silence the lived experience of women and create great implications for effective social policy. Truman suggests that we look at the way surrogates deal with cultural assumptions to uncover new patterns and meanings of motherhood.
When considering the intersectionality of these sources, I was forced to reckon with two positions: one distinctly against surrogacy, explained by the social vulnerability and exploitation of women by a capitalist patriarchal society, and another position that defends surrogacy. Asserting that surrogacy is a woman’s right to self-determination and a phenomenon of mutual help between infertile women and voluntary women.
Sources:
Barbara Katz Rothman, “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A
Feminist Perspective.” Creighton Law Review (1991): 1599-1607.
Elly Teman, “The Social Construction of surrogacy research: An
anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate
motherhood.” Social Science and Medicine 67 (2008): 1104-112.
“MADE IN INDIA.”Rebecca Haimowitz & Vaishali Sinha, 2010. https://emory.kanopy.com/video/made-India
Sierra thoroughly summarized the movie and the articles.
Rothman argues against surrogacy because she views it as a societal control over women’s procreation. In patriarchal societies, women are viewed as bearers of men’s seeds who temporarily hold and give birth to men’s children. Under these perspectives, women do not have rights to the children that she bears. Even when she is given some “privileges of patriarchy,” her rights are still limited and framed comparatively based on men’s right to the children. Women’s status and values are judged based on their ability or possibility to bear children for men. Given the long-lasting influence of patriarchal ideologies, Rothman suggests that surrogacy is another form of societal manipulation of women’s procreation, viewing women as tools for generating a desirable number of children for the society. In addition, Rothman thinks surrogacy perpetuates the notion that women bear children for “others,” not for themselves. Therefore, she objects to surrogacy and calls for a perspective that centers on women’s right to their children.
I understand and agree with her arguments but I don’t think this analysis could or should support her objection. I think her claim to some degree victimizes women as the “ultimate sufferer“ of patriarchal oppressions, who do not have control over their life and body. Rothman’s point of view implies that pregnancy should entail parenthood and a mother-child connection. In my opinion, Rothman’s claim is overgeneralizing and exaggerating the impact of one historical ideology. It demeans the autonomy of surrogate mothers. Though aimed at attacking the oppression of patriarchy, Rothman’s suggestion restricts women’s decision and freedom to utilize their own reproductive resources as they will, merely due to the concerns of patriarchy. It de-contextualizes each surrogate mother’s behavior, ignoring each individual’s motivations, feelings, explanations, and perceptions of the act.
Teman’s article reveals how the cultural assumption of normalcy and naturalness in maternity have prevailed in psychosocial research on surrogate mothers. I think this is important because, as Teman demonstrates in the end, conclusions and results from the research largely influence policy-making and distribution of social resources. I think Teman’s article reveals some underlying assumptions in Rothman’s article. Sierra is keen to point out the main distinction between these two articles.
Sierra did an incredible job summarizing and reflecting on our sources regarding surrogacy this week. Personally, I remain conflicted on my opinion of surrogacy after analyzing the different perspectives from this week. After watching “Made in India”, I understand how Lisa and Brian’s circumstances led them to outsource a surrogate. At the same time, I understand Aasia’s request for more money after what she had gone through. The most upsetting aspect of this arrangement was the lack of education the surrogates received. Perhaps my opinion accurately reflects the American value of contracts and informed consent that we have discussed previously in this course. I found it disturbing that the surrogate was not informed that so many embryos were being implanted and that a pregnancy of multiples comes with much greater risks. After seeing both perspectives in this documentary, I remain conflicted on who is in the right or what should be done differently.
Barbara Katz Rothman’s article “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective” was fascinating as it argued that surrogacy disadvantages women. Rothman claims surrogacy devalues the argument that women should have greater say regarding children as their biological role as a mother goes beyond the donation of gametes. This greatly contrasted “The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood” that argues research on surrogacy has been negatively biased by societal beliefs. From my experience in a fertility clinic with surrogates, I can definitely conclude the surrogacy can quickly become complicated. I believe surrogacy is an incredible way to give couples a child that they couldn’t have otherwise, but also fear how easily vulnerable women may be exploited by surrogacy. While I agree with some points and also have some hesitations from both articles, surrogacy must be carefully navigated to balance the interests of all parties involved.
-Samantha Feingold
Sierra did a good job summarizing and analyzing the different perspectives presented in the movie and articles about surrogacy!
With focus on Rothman’s article, I think that both Sierra, and additionally Joanne’s comment, describe Rothman’s position on surrogacy very well. Rothman generally argues that surrogacy leaves the woman without power (or with continued reduction in power) in a patriarchal society, such that surrogacy is just another way for men to control women’s bodies. We see that this is held true to a degree, considering that Aasia needed her husband’s written permission to involve herself in surrogacy. As Rothman describes, women are given some “privileges of patriarchy” in the context of surrogacy, but the infringement on the woman’s rights are still ever present and heavy. Furthermore, the fact that it is not just privileges, but “privileges of patriarchy” further contests the point that that women have privileges at all; if women have “privileges of patriarchy,” do they have any real privileges outside the realm of men? Rothman goes on to suggest that surrogacy is just another tool used to oppress women. With such a heavy dependence on the patriarchy, it is hard to clearly determine that it is a point of power and agency for a woman.
Sierra also does a wonderful job of summarizing the movie Made in India. I find that Sierra’s decision to emphasize the cost difference between American and Indian surrogacy programs and rates, and the contribution that capitalism plays in the conversations and decisions made about surrogacy, was extremely important and necessary to understand not only the context of the movie, but the context of the discussion about surrogacy in a greater setting. I believe that if we lived in a more perfect world, where capitalism did not run rampant and there was more worldly freedom and equality, surrogacy would make more sense and be less contested. When I think of surrogacy, I think of a woman volunteering her body to do what another woman cannot. This is a very altruistic and noble action. However, since the reality of the world is run on the inequality of people, surrogacy seems to be just another spoke on the wheel that continues the tradition of oppression and inequality. Not only has it become an industry for others to profit off of, but it has become a set of actions that places a price tag on a woman’s body and health, further relinquishing power and agency of the woman.
I would say that I understand why someone might consider surrogacy, both biological parents and carrying mother, but the movie “Made in India” and Rothman’s description of surrogacy in the context of patriarchy further support my opinion for why I think that surrogacy, in the current world that we live in, should be the very last option/not considered an option. This has less to do with the idea of kinship, and more to do with the surrounding circumstances involving surrogacy. In the movie, Lisa’s husband reads some comments people made online about their decision to use surrogacy. He states at one point that it is not the responsibility of infertile couples to solve the orphan problem. I agree with this statement. I would go on to say that it is everyone’s responsibility. In some way, I feel that surrogacy circumvents problems that we are having today; it is just another “solution” we have invented to avoid the problems that plague us. Again, I am not saying that surrogacy should not be allowed, or a woman/family does not have the choice to choose this option. But I think we, as collective human beings (both fertile and infertile) should take a step back and look at the greater picture. The world suffers from overpopulation, over-use of resources, and other things that you may not considered linked to something like surrogacy, such as climate change. But, as I spend more time in college, I learn more and more that everything is connected. In my very inexperienced opinion (i.e. my lack of experience in having children/making the decision to have children), we can solve a lot of the world’s problems by putting individual desires aside. For example, in the context of this unit, I do think that adoption should be considered before surrogacy. We suffer from overpopulation, and that has led to children without families and homes. Leaving them alone and just producing more children will not solve either problem. But, for this example, adoption solves many things: 1) people can get the family they have always wanted, 2) in the process of getting a family, people can help the planet with its overpopulation issue, 3) by decreasing overpopulation, we can decrease climate change significantly, 4) decreasing climate change significantly can help save the world now, and could open the future up for better technologies to support people who wish to have biological children. I know the world is not so black and white, and things do not exist in a 1 to 1 ratio. I also know that emotions are real and should never be invalidated. Therefore, I cannot say that surrogacy should be removed as an option. But, I think that having these open and frank conversations about this topic can lead to a better understanding and improvement of this, and other, systems.
Sierra eloquently and accurately summated many of the most potent points of the movie and the readings. I especially appreciated her final paragraph, which reflected on her teetering perspective and challenge with grappling the combating realities of Aasia and the Switzers.
Beginning with Rothman’s argument, I am not entirely in agreement with her perception of surrogacy. I do understand how surrogacy can be understood as an extension of the modified American patriarchy, as a woman’s agency and proclivity to choose surrogacy is likely highly informed by her socioeconomic status and immediate need. This is a valid argument and was certainly an aspect of concern that I had within the movie “Made in India.” However, I oppose the idea that the contractural obligation to give the child the surrogate bore to the family strips the surrogate of her “natural” right to the child. In actuality, I find the idea that women should not be allowed to consentingly utilize their bodies in such a way as anti-choice and likely encouraged by a patriarchal idea in and of itself. The concept that a woman will have an innate bond with a child solely due to gestation is one that was created by men, only when advantageous to them.
Very similar to Sierra, I also shared many of the same conflicting reactions when watching “Made in India.” I found some of what the Switzer’s did to be rather problematic, and it was hard for me to feel as though they were not exploiting the plight of a mother in need. However, I also empathized with their desire to have and to love their children, and did think that they were genuinely grateful for Aasia. More than anything, I found the parallels between the two mothers in the movie to be the most emotionally confounding variable. Aasia, a poor and illiterate mother offered her body, time, and safety for the benefit of her children. To Lisa Switzer, her hypothetical children were nearly as real and tangible to her as Aasia’s. The resilience with which these two mothers fought for and sacrificed for their children was incredible, and left me questioning how I could judge anyone in the situation — as both mothers so overwhelmingly desired to love and care for their children in the best way possible.
For Chris’s Question and Blog Discussion this week – I am so sorry this is late I had a mishap with technology!
Is Human Cloning Playing God?
Although human cloning may initially seem like a trivial scientific procedure, especially since IVF technologies have enabled many infertile couples to produce genetically-related children, it is a technology that could profoundly alter conceptions of children and the human body. Some members of President’s Council on Bioethics, a secular, Western committee, believed that human cloning is unethical under all circumstances, while others argued that human cloning should be permitted in the context of biomedical research. Regardless, all members of the committee viewed human cloning as an issue to be decided through the intellect and reason of living humans. In comparison, Brietowitz, a Jewish scholar, proposes that human cloning can also be viewed from the perspective of humans who may be conceived as clones. From Brietowitz’s perspective, which has roots in Judaic thought, human cloning is not construed as an “evil” manipulation of natural law. Instead, like fetuses conceived through other forms of reproductive technologies, humans who are the product of cloning would be born with independent souls that would not otherwise exist. Viewed in this way, human cloning constitues yet another “divine mystery” that precipitates the creation of a conscious being.
The benefits of human cloning technology are vast. On a societal level, human cloning technology has the potential to alleviate widescale suffering because it would allow scientists to create human embryos from which they could isolate stem cells, a feat which may contribute to the unprecedented development of therapeutic treatments for chronic disease. Privately, human cloning could provide infertile couples with a possible alternative to IVF, particularly in situations in which a couple desires to have a genetically-related child but is unwilling to do so through sexual reproduction because one partner has a significant inheritable genetic disease. Some individuals may want to clone a spouse who is dead or dying in order to maintain a connection with him or her through the child (Kass, 79).
In 2001, President George W. Bush formed a committee of seventeen influential thinkers and medical experts that he called “The President’s Council on Bioethics.” The Council was charged with the task of identifying and debating cutting-edge medical technologies that could have significant moral and ethical repercussions on American society. The committee members immediately turned to the issue of human cloning, which they believe “represents a turning point in human history” because it facilitates the transition from sexual to asexual reproduction (Kass, x). The Council divided the concept of “human cloning” into two categories based on how the technology is used: cloning to produce children and cloning for biomedical research (Kass, 43). Each definition of human cloning addresses separate moral dilemmas. Cloning for the purpose of producing children generates moral dilemmas related to individuality and identity, kinship relations and control over genetic material. Although cloning for biomedical research does not share some of the moral dilemmas that are unique to cloning to produce children, it necessitates the creation – and destruction – of human embryos in a laboratory setting.
The Council unanimously decided that cloning to produce human children is unethical because, first and foremost, it violates the ethical principles of human research. At the time that the Council was formed, every cloned mammal that scientists had successfully created struggled with significant health complications that ended its life prematurely (Kass, 89). Therefore, the Council decided that it is unethical for medical professionals to offer cloning technologies to private citizens with the knowledge that the offspring produced from this technology will most likely die as children. Even if scientists can eventually clone human embryos without significant health complications, it does not change the fact that countless of cloned human embryos will suffer during experiments intended to increase the efficacy of human cloning technologies. Put more simply, many cloned embryos will suffer and die prematurely before scientists are capable of cloning a single human embryo with a healthy lifespan. The Council acknowledged that there is no way to achieve the level of scientific progress necessary to clone human children without first conducting biomedical research on cloned human embryos. As such, any one who argues in favor of cloning to produce (healthy) children also implicitly condones the use of cloned human embryos for biomedical research (Kass, 91).
While I was researching more recent examples of cloning, I discovered that cloning technologies have advanced greatly since 2001. In China, for example, a company called Sinogene has successfully cloned over forty dogs and cats that have not yet exhibited significant health complications (Lanese, 2019). Should animal cloning technologies continue to advance rapidly, scientists may have enough evidence in the future to be confident that cloned humans will not suffer from significant health complications. If this is the case, then I think that we must reexamine the argument that cloning to produce children violates ethical medical standards.
On a moral basis, the Council unanimously opposed cloning to produce children for five reasons. Firstly, the members agreed that children produced through human cloning technology will struggle with some degree of psychological distress caused by issues related to their identities, stating that “a cloned child… is at risk of living out a life overshadowed in important ways by the life of the “original’” (Kass, 103). Secondly, the Council was concerned that human cloning would irreversably alter how society perceives children, leading to a commercialization of the human body and genetic material (Kass, 107). Thirdly, the Council believed that the implementation of human cloning could lead to a new form of eugenics in which society focuses on producing genes of “great value” to society (Kass, 109). Fourthly, human cloning would significantly disrupt traditional kinship relations (Kass, 111). Fifthly, the Council argued that cloning with the intent purpose of producing children “could distort the way we raise and view children, by carrying to full expression many regrettable tendencies already present in our culture. We are already liable to regard children largely as vehicles for our own fulfillment and ambitions… The notion of life as a gift, mysterious and limited, is under siege.” (Kass, 113).
While the Council was unanimous on the issue of cloning to produce children, it had divided opinions on the ethical costs and benefits of using cloned human embryos for biomedical research. A minority of seven members believed that the value of cloning for biomedical research outweighs the potential moral costs of harvesting commercialized human embryos.
They emphasized the fact that “human cloning could provide for the study of stem cells derived from individuals known to possess genetic diseases, and might eventually yield transplantable tissues for regenerative medicine that would escape immune rejection” (Kass, 13). To them, the destruction of human embryos is justified by the immense possibilities of stem cell research, which could alleviate the suffering of millions of living humans who struggle with chronic diseases (Kass, 128). Lastly, they suggested that strict regulatory practices, such policies mandating that research should only be done on embryos that are fourteen days old or younger, would prohibit ambitious scientists from misusing human cloning technology in unethical experiments (Kass, 142).
A majority of ten members argued that cloning human embryos for biomedical research is unethical, stating that “we find it disquieting, even somewhat ignoble, to treat what are in fact seeds of the next generation as mere raw materials for satisfying the needs of our own” (Kass, xxxiii). They agreed that developing embryos, although “undeniable mysteries,” share our humanity, and are therefore deserving of our protection (Kass, 158). The creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of research is unethical because it transforms nascent human life into scientific tools, thus dismantling our perception of the embryo as a pre-conscious being (Kass, 161). Although the majority of the Council acknowledged the fact that human cloning technologies may alleviate chronic diseases, they argued that suffering, while regrettable, is a human condition. “Human suffering from horrible diseases never comes to an end,” the members stated. “ Likewise, our willingness to use embryonic life in the cause of research, once permitted, is also unlikely to find any natural stopping point” (Kass, 163).
The argument that human cloning is unethical stems from a belief that “[it is] a fact that a child is not made, but begotten” (Kass, 99). This belief posits that it is natural for children to be begotten (through sexual reproduction) and not made (through asexual reproduction or genetic programming). As such, human cloning is unethical because it breaks natural laws that are beyond human control. Interestingly, the scientists and influential thinkers on George W. Bush’s secular council used an unscientific – even religious – belief in natural law to defend their argument that cloning is unethical. Even more interesting is the fact that Breitowitz, the author of the other reading for this week, defends human cloning from a religious standpoint.
In “What’s So Bad About Human Cloning?” Breitowitz examines contradictions about determinism within Jewish texts. The first chapter of Genesis suggests that, because man was formed in God’s image, humans possess autonomy and moral judgement. Under this assumption, “medical intervention, the manipulation of nature… is not regarded as something inherently evil” (Breitowitz, 326). From this perspective, it is not wrong to “play God.” In fact, because humans were made in the image of God, we are meant to use our moral judgement to challenge the constraints of nature. In comparison, the second chapter of Genesis provides a contrasting view of human nature that “focuses on the need for subservience and submission to the mysteries of the universe and the wonder of the Divine” (Breitowitz, 327). A cloned fetus, as a human being, is also made in the image of God, meaning that it will eventually develop the capacity to manipulate nature. Simultaneously, the fetus is subject to the “mysteries of the universe,” such as being conceived through the process of cloning. How would humans who are conceived as clones feel about their own existence in relation to the tension between challenging the constraints of nature and accepting “fate?”
Breitowitz attempts to reconcile this tension by stating that, from a Jewish perspective, “existence is considered to be preferable to nonexistence because existence has potential” (Breitowitz, 335). He is essentially arguing that humans who were conceived as clones would view their existence as more moral than their nonexistence. Viewed through this lens, human cloning is not a procedure that binds a cloned human to a donor’s past; rather, human cloning, like any other reproductive technology, gives individuals who are conceived as clones all of life’s immeasurable possibilities. Because each individual human being possesses a soul, or a “neshama,” he or she is unique, regardless of his or her genetic material (Brietowitz, 337). This is also supported by scientific arguments that an individual’s environmental influences and lived experiences contribute significantly to his or her development (Brietowitz, 338).
The debate surrounding human cloning is, like all revolutionary scientific advances, greatly influenced by how we define what it means to “play God.” Personally, I think that human cloning is unethical because, like any other groundbreaking technology, it is incredibly vulnerable to abuse. If human cloning is legalized now, we could have a distant future in which some institutions or governments may use human clones to repopulate armies or as sources of cheap labor. Experiments done on stem cells that are collected from cloned human fetuses may produce knowledge that alleviates some chronic diseases, but this same knowledge could also be used to engineer new ones. While I think that Brietowitz makes some strong arguments in favor of cloning to produce children, I do not think that he sufficiently addresses the fact that many cloned embryos will have to be destroyed during the experimental process if scientists are to make human cloning technology effective enough to produce a single healthy child.
References
Lanese, Nicoletta. “China’s First Cloned Kitten, Garlic.” The Scientist, Sept. 6, 2019,
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/chinas-first-cloned-kitten–garlic-66400.
Accessed April 18, 2021.
Leon R. Kass, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: The Report of the President’s Council on
Bioethics. (2002).
Yitzchok Breitowitz, “What’s So Bad about Human Cloning?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics
Journal, (2004): 325-341.
Chris wrote an excellent post on this week’s articles about human cloning.
As Chris pointed out, cloning could greatly challenge traditional kinship relationships and give rise to questions such as “who is the mother?” and “are the donors and clonees siblings?” On the other hand, cloning may be useful for combating chronic disease and alleviating suffering. In addition, it is a potential alternative kind of assisted reproductive strategies for people who want to have genetic related children.
I like how Chris started the second paragraph with a brief introduction of “The President’s Council on Bioethics.” The Council ruled human cloning unethical because the technology is still in development and in order to achieve “success” (i.e. normal healthy human) it will cost a lot of embryos or defective children who are created and doomed to die at a young age. It is unethical to intentionally create “embryos” or even “human,” knowing that it is going to cause harm to the people created.
Chris also provided additional information about contemporary technological advancement in animal cloning in China. I was surprised to know about this company so I looked it up on the Internet. On their website, it shows that this company was founded in Beijing, and it is a commercial animal cloning corporation with gene editing technology. They sell genetic testing products that reveal pets’ ancestry/inheritance. They do not mention that they could provide service for cloning pets commercially. However, they indeed mention that they produced the first gene editing “disease model” dog (literal translation) and the first gene editing somatic cell clone dog (literal translation) in the world. In Taobao they seem to provide a product that could clone deceased pets. It charges 250,000 Chinese yuan (38,513 dollars). No one has left a review so I am not sure whether anyone is using this service. Chris mentioned that he thinks if in the future scientists could guarantee that cloned humans will not have significant health issues, we may need to reexamine whether human cloning is ethical or not. I would not say that I agree with him. I think human cloning is not ethical because in order to achieve this “advanced state” where cloned human would survive healthily, it would require a lot of defective experimental individuals in the process. A lot of the time, scientists just could not be sure about the results because they could not know whether they are going to fail or not this time until the children are born and live to a certain age. It would be unethical and dangerous to “try to improve“ the technology because this would be at expense of human lives.
I think among the five concerns the Council proposed, it bothers me the most that human cloning would give rise to eugenics because the main aim of human cloning is to produce individuals that are genetically the same as the original one (I.e. the donor). It is dangerous because if the technology is put into use to a large extent, it may decrease human genetic diversity, which is detrimental in an evolutionary sense.
Hey Chris! I think you did an amazing job of summarizing the readings for the week and identifying quotes that really gave us a sense of the moral dilemmas within human cloning. As a political science major, I think that your concluding concerns about human cloning are interesting and relevant. With an increase in new technologies that expand our capacity to control human genetics, politics and science will continue to merge in unexpected, and sometimes disturbing, ways. In regards to the Council’s debate on the ethics of human cloning, I agree that it is ironic that they used quasi-religious conceptions of human embryos to defend their secular position. That said, I was actually relieved that they used language such as “undeniable mysteries” to describe human embryos because I personally think that it is important to bring spiritual dialogue into bioethical debates. I agree with the Councils’ consensus that cloning to produce children is unethical, although I think that their argument that parents who choose to reproduce through cloning will harm the child’s identity is one-sided. For example, I can see how someone who has suffered significant sexual abuse during her lifetime – but who still wants to be a mother – could find immense fulfillment in raising and protecting a child who is a genetic clone of herself. Like you and Jack, I think that Brietowitz’s religious argument in favor of human cloning does not adequately address all of the moral dimensions of the issue. I really liked how Brietowitz framed his paper and challenged cultural assumptions and fears about human cloning. His perspective definitely made me think a lot about the concept of natural law.
Chris, this was a great post! I appreciated your summary of the two readings and you sharing your own perspective on human cloning. I found the main three principles from the President’s Council on Bioethics to be somewhat reasonable and important because they were able to thoughtfully and practically evaluate the implications of human cloning. I agree that human cloning could open the flood gates for cloned children to feel confused with their identities, the potential for commercialization of the human body and genetic material and could lead to a new form of eugenics in where society focuses creates genes considered idea for humans. In addition, new forms of technology including enhancements of the brain and body can target disability communities and regard their lives of being of less quality and value. Also, one point made by Brietowitz that I agree would need to be addressed is the fact that humans would actually need to be experimented on in order to make human cloning an effective strategy, making the argument of research somewhat unethical.
I also agree with you’re the statement you included regarding the ethical dilemma of human cloning reading “we find it disquieting, even somewhat ignoble, to treat what are in fact seeds of the next generation as mere raw materials for satisfying the needs of our own” (Kass, xxxiii). This is a great point because experimenting on human embryos would be in theory just as unethical as experimenting on living humans. With chronic disease currently being the leading cause of death for humans, it’s inevitable that we would want to try and fix that. But there will always be human suffering and there are many other ways to lessen the effects that chronic disease has on humans. Despite this, I could understand the use of cloning for biomedical research given many of the justifications for not using this technology stem from somewhat religious beliefs. Overall, if human cloning is to be implemented, I would urge researchers to precede with caution because these methods could potentially be taken advantage of for the worst.
Chris, this was a great post! I appreciated your summary of the two readings and you sharing your own perspective on human cloning. I found the main three principles from the President’s Council on Bioethics to be somewhat reasonable and important because they were able to thoughtfully and practically evaluate the implications of human cloning. I agree that human cloning could open the flood gates for cloned children to feel confused with their identities, the potential for commercialization of the human body and genetic material and could lead to a new form of eugenics in where society focuses creates genes considered idea for humans. In addition, new forms of technology including enhancements of the brain and body can target disability communities and regard their lives of being of less quality and value. Also, one point made by Brietowitz that I agree would need to be addressed is the fact that humans would actually need to be experimented on in order to make human cloning an effective strategy, making the argument of research somewhat unethical.
I also agree with you’re the statement you included regarding the ethical dilemma of human cloning reading “we find it disquieting, even somewhat ignoble, to treat what are in fact seeds of the next generation as mere raw materials for satisfying the needs of our own” (Kass, xxxiii). This is a great point because experimenting on human embryos would be in theory just as unethical as experimenting on living humans. With chronic disease currently being the leading cause of death for humans, it’s inevitable that we would want to try and find solutions to cure sickness. But there will always be human suffering and there are many other ways to lessen the effects that chronic disease has on humans. Despite this, I could understand the use of cloning for biomedical research given many of the justifications for not using this technology stem from somewhat religious beliefs. Overall, if human cloning is to be implemented, I would urge researchers to precede with caution because these methods could potentially take advantage of humans for cheap labor and make life more disposable.
I think Chris made an excellent post. His summary of the two readings, and his own position on cloning, were well written and thought out. Furthermore, I appreciated the use of quotation in his post, such that I found the quotes to be meaningful and impactful in face of the points being made (there were no useless quotes).
Chris, through his summary of the readings, does a really good job of pointing out the potential pros and cons of cloning, including moral and medical issues. Furthermore, his use of outside resources provides a greater context for understanding the issue of cloning.
Chris depicts the Council’s (those in opposition) 5 opposed opinions to cloning to produce children; (1) “the members agreed that children produced through human cloning technology will struggle with some degree of psychological distress caused by issues related to their identities,” (2) “human cloning would irreversibly alter how society perceives children, leading to a commercialization of the human body and genetic material,” (3) “the implementation of human cloning could lead to a new form of eugenics,” (4) “human cloning would significantly disrupt traditional kinship relations,” and (5) cloning with the intent purpose of producing children “could distort the way we raise and view children, by carrying to full expression many regrettable tendencies already present in our culture.” I find that I agree with these five points of opposition and think that the cons presented in these statements far outweigh the pros. The pros, as described and stated by Chris and those on the Council in favor of cloning, include stem cell research and curing chronic/terminal diseases. I think that these are completely wonderful ideas, if we lived in a perfect world. But, that world does not exist. And, as Chris mentions, there is an extreme potential for this technology to be weaponized. In a more perfect world, we might be able to create the regulations and enforce rules and consequences that would allow for this technology to be put to good (such as for stem cell research). But, as I stated previously, we do not live in that world. In the world we live in today, we struggle to make sense of the kinship relations and struggles of people around the world. We should focus on trying to solve some of the problems we are facing, and answer some of the questions that have been plaguing us for years, instead of jumping off to a new “solution” that would just overlook the struggle we have been going through. I would make this connection; by considering cloning, it would be the equivalent of deciding to dump our trash in the ocean. The trash becomes out of sight, out of mind, but the underlying issues have not been solved, only disbursed.
In short, I believe that if we can fight and solve many of the world’s struggles first, cloning would be the next great step for humans. But, without first correcting the foundation of humanity, starting to build yet another project to “solve” our problems will be unstable and likely end in disaster.
Response to Chris’ Blog Post on Cloning:
I really enjoyed reading Chris’ summation of the two readings and appreciated that he included more recent examples that weren’t in the assigned text. I found his final analysis, mentioning his response to Brietowitz’s reading to echo many of the same sentiments of concern that I shared while reading.
Starting with Brietowitz’s perspective, I found his view both refreshing and somewhat disconcerting. I understood his take in that, the existence has potential while non-existence is void of such. Further, I agree with the sentiment that the soul of the cloned individual is not tethered to that of their “original.” While the DNA may be the same, the construction and development of a human being is not as reductive as a sequence of genes, rather a complex calculus of experiences, genetics, behaviors, and epigenetics. However, I don’t believe that either the concept of an independent soul or the argument of existence being moral in comparison to nonexistence exist appropriately outside of the religious context from which we interpret them. The potentially harmful implications of cloning, specifically cloning for the creation of children, are far too nuanced and overwhelming to justify solely within the scope of religious interpretation.
In Kass’ reading, I found The President’s Council on Bioethics to be anything but secular, and found their justifications to their points as inextricably linked to religious theories on morality and what is natural. I agree with them in that the dangers of cloning for children far outweigh the potential benefits. However, I personally sided with the seven members who where interested in the potential benefits for cloning in biomedical research. I found the rationale of the majority, stating that suffering is inherent to humanity as completely tangential to the point of medical advancements and an inappropriate assertion of medical privilege. To say that suffering should not be alleviated as it is critical to the experience of humanity is an emotionally detached perspective that lacks empathy and is not a valid criticism to medical advancements. While I fully agree that there should be highly enforced and restrictive regulations on cloning usage in the biomedical field, the testing on early embryos is personally not as overwhelming to me as the pain and mortality of living humans.
Hey Chris!
I think you did an amazing job of summarizing the readings for the week and identifying quotes that really gave us a sense of the moral dilemmas within human cloning. As a political science major, I think that your concluding concerns about human cloning are interesting and relevant. With an increase in new technologies that expand our capacity to control human genetics, politics and science will continue to merge in unexpected, and sometimes disturbing, ways.
In regards to the Council’s debate on the ethics of human cloning, I agree that it is ironic that they used quasi-religious conceptions of human embryos to defend their secular position. That said, I was actually relieved that they used language such as “undeniable mysteries” to describe human embryos because I personally think that it is important to bring spiritual dialogue into bioethical debates. I agree with the Councils’ consensus that cloning to produce children is unethical, although I think that their argument that parents who choose to reproduce through cloning will harm the child’s identity is one-sided. For example, I can see how someone who has suffered significant sexual abuse during her lifetime – but who still wants to be a mother – could find immense fulfillment in raising and protecting a child who is a genetic clone of herself.
Like you and Jack, I think that Brietowitz’s religious argument in favor of human cloning does not adequately address all of the moral dimensions of the issue. I really liked how Brietowitz framed his paper and challenged cultural assumptions and fears about human cloning. His perspective definitely made me think a lot about the concept of natural law.
Response to Chris’s Blog Post:
Chris successfully summarized our readings on Human Cloning this week. One aspect that stood out to me in particular was regarding the assumption that something is bad if it is not “natural”. I don’t think that this is an effective argument without the support of ethical principles and reasoning. I believe this connects to another premise – that testing human embryos is inherently bad – which was taken for granted, rather than established. Chris’s argument that religious reasoning was given more weight than scientific reasoning applies to both of these arguments.
While there is great value in the religious perspective of reproductive technologies, an issue arises when laws derived from that are placed on those who do not align with that religion. It is not necessarily agreed that there is anything wrong with experimentation on the cells in a human embryo, or that unnatural technology is inherently wrong. Chris’s analysis of the council as closely tied to religious reasoning is significant when compared to the previous reading, “A Defense of Abortion”. A large portion of that reading focused on the lack of connection between the premise common abortion arguments are based on and the argument itself. I felt this analysis of argumentation and ethical reasoning was applicable to views on human cloning and would have liked to see a greater emphasis on ethical principles. There needs to be arguments that hold true and remain convincing to those with differing religious beliefs that do not automatically have the same values.