X hits on this document

67 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

21 / 27

CRS-18

manufacturing process than ‘gifts’ whom their parents are prepared to accept as they are. Such an attitude toward children could also contribute to increased commercialization and industrialization of human procreation.”71 This, in turn, may fuel a new eugenics in which parents select not only whether to have a child, but which child to have.72 Others point out that these types of concerns were raised about most forms of assisted reproduction (such as in vitro fertilization and preimplantation

genetic

diagnosis),

which

have

not

led

to

objectification.

In

addition,

if

being

born

is a considered to be a benefit to the one born, “to the extent that the technology used to benefit the child ... no objectification of the child takes place.” 73

is

Familial Relationships. A complicated lineage has also been introduced as an objection to reproductive cloning: “By confounding and transgressing the natural boundaries between generations, cloning could strain the social ties between them. Fathers could become “twin brothers” to their “sons”; mothers could give birth to their genetic twins; and grandparents would also be the “genetic parents” of their grandchildren. Genetic relation to only one parent might produce special difficulties for family life.”74 Others point out that children “born through assisted reproductive technologies may also have complicated relationships to genetic, gestational, and rearing parents ... [yet] there is no evidence that confusion over family roles has harmed children born through assisted reproductive technologies, although the subject has not been carefully studied.” 75

Societal View of Children. Concerns have been voiced about the effects of cloning on society: “Cloning-to-produce-children would affect not only the direct participants but also the entire society that allows or supports this activity. Even if practiced on a small scale, it could affect the way society looks at children and set a precedent for future nontherapeutic interventions into the human genetic endowment or novel forms of control by one generation over the next.”76 This objection is rejected by others, who argue that “people can, and do, adapt in socially redeeming ways to new technologies ... [A] child born through somatic cell nuclear transfer

could be loved and accepted like any other child....

77

Issues Involved in Cloning for Therapeutic Purposes.78

Cloning for

therapeutic purposes is more broadly supported than reproductive cloning, and the issues involved are somewhat different. The safety concerns of reproductive cloning

71 Ibid., pp. xxviii-xxix. Ibid., p. xxix. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings, June 1997, p. 70. 74 President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, July 2002, p. xxix. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings, June 1997, p. 66. 76 President’s Council on Bioethics, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, July 2002, p. xxix. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings, June 1997, p. 67. 72 73 75 77

78 For purposes of this section, the term “therapeutic purposes” is meant to include the use of cloning technology for both the research underlying treatments and the treatments themselves.

Document info
Document views67
Page views67
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 16:39:42 UTC 2016
Pages27
Paragraphs464
Words13342

Comments