On Cloning - by Dave Vassilev

I think one of the moral problems that arise from cloning is when you consider the mental well being of the resulting children. As described there are a lot of purposes to cloning, but when I consider human cloning I believe it breaches the morality on some standards. Having a clone will always have reasons attached other then simply “wanting to have a child.” For example, children conceived through means other then cloning, in most cases grow up knowing they were brought onto this earth because mom and dad wanted them. However, for a cloned child no matter who they were cloned from that child will know that they were brought onto this earth because mom and dad wanted them but for another reason as well. Usually that reason will always remain with the child and to some extent will be damaging.

I also don’t think that cloning of humans can be ok for some because of some reasons and not for others. I think this is one topic that is simply immoral no matter what the circumstance. For example, let’s say a child is cloned from the DNA of a brother that needs a bone marrow donor. Also let’s assume that the parents were planning on having a second child to begin with, and that a clone would solve everyone’s problems. My initial reaction is to think that it’s ok for them to clone a child. I mean, there is a large amount of evidence suggesting that genes are not the only thing that determine what a person will be. However, in a situation where it seems that everyone wins we go back to the problem of the first one. The child growing up will always reflect on the fact that he is his brother’s copy, even if he is treated differently and acts differently. That alone takes away even if a small part of that person’s own self worth. He was purposely made as a copy of someone else.

On Surrogacy - by Jenn Damelio

Anderson argues that contractual surrogate motherhood degrades and exploits women by turning their labor into a commodity. She produces three arguments for three separate ways she feels women are violated by these contracts. First, she thinks that women are forced into alienated labor by being required to suppress their emotions towards the fetus. Secondly, women are degraded because the market’s values are put in place of her own regarding choices about her pregnancy. Thirdly, Anderson argues that women are exploited because gestation is a labor of love which cannot be compensated monetarily; it is a different type of good which cannot be bought. I would like to offer opposition to her first argument.

Anderson thinks that there are social norms associated with undergoing a pregnancy. These norms and expectations are conducive to a woman forming bonds with the fetus in her womb. The surrogacy contract, however, attempts to override these norms. It does not allow a woman to form these ties with the fetus. Therefore, women are being forced into alienated labor. However, there are other types of work where emotions may be tied to a final product, and we do not try to stop people from these types of production. Take, for example, another form of work where emotions may be strongly tied to a final product – the production of art. It seems that because art is so often a form of personal expression, there are a lot of emotions that go into the making of, say, a painting. However, oftentimes painters can be contracted to produce a piece of art, thereby creating a something to which he may have emotional ties. However, after the piece of art is completed, the artist is still expected to relinquish the painting to the contractors. Therefore, the objection of having to set aside emotional ties does not explain why there is special concern for women being alienated from her labor.

There seem to be ways that Anderson can amend her argument, though. For example, if Anderson added that as a society we may have special concerns for women simply because they may be more vulnerable to coercion, this specific objection to surrogacy may still hold. There may not be as much concern for painters as a group which has been historically vulnerable to mistreatment. Our society may feel that women hold certain other claims which make this worry a specific concern. Anderson, also, may simply feel that the emotions generated between an artist and a work of art are not as strong as the ties expected to form between a gestating mother and the fetus. However, I think this is an objection she should take into consideration when laying out her argument.

On Prenatal Testing - by Dave Burns

Again I think it is important for me to stress that I am an ardent supporter of the sciences. It never ceases to amaze me, the things that we have come to know. However I have my reservations about allowing science free reign. It is quite possible to consider and I think we should consider this type of testing akin to a death sentence for the unborn. Anyone who has "undesirable" genetic traits gets the axe. Where does one draw the line? This is no different than the Nazi attempt to create the master race, one free of "defects" and illness. Furthermore it is an affront against the dignity of human life; any existence is a gift and ultimately brings some good. If also life is the opportunity to come to know and love God we are doing something very wrong by trying to determine who should live and who should die. Now I realize that there are other uses for this kind of testing but it should absolutely not be used to weed out "undesirables" or "defective" children. Other uses might include diagnosis in order to treat or to prepare for different conditions that may occur but it must not be a tool of eugenics or "public health."

Pitfalls of Genetic Testing - by Alina Bishop

Although Hubbard and Lewontin do make some logical arguments against the actual practical value of genetic testing, I feel as though they are lacking in their argument in that they are not considering thinking of the future and the lives ahead. It is one thing to say that “DNA tests cannot usually help clinicians or benefit patients,” (emphasis on the “usually”), but it is an entirely different thing to then disregard any possible benefits of such testing. The word “usually” is important here in that it indicates that there are, at times, cases in which the genetic testing would be useful. For example: regarding breast cancer, just because there are no existing methods for prevention/treatment does not mean that there are no possible methods yet to be determined that may end up working in the future. This goes to say that the genetic testing would, in fact, be beneficial – if a woman were able to find out she has a predisposition to having breast cancer, then she would be able to live in such a way so as to take the best preventative measures against the disease. I am aware that the recommendations for prevention tactics against cancer do vary widely and there are no concrete links to their aid against cancer; yet despite these uncertainties, it can not hurt to try different methods of prevention, as the ultimate outcome could be a positive one. Therefore, by knowing that you are predisposed to a disease, you have the option to take advantage of that knowledge and work accordingly to live in a way to best ward off the disease. A more definite example would be one regarding a disease such as heart disease. To find out that you have a genetic predisposition to heart disease would then prove to you that you should stay away from high-cholesterol foods, for example, and you could then be able to live your life in such a way so as to try to prevent the occurrence of the disease.

To make their argument valid, it is no longer appropriate for them to say that such DNA tests are useless. They need to look to the future to see the long-term and preventative benefits that could come with the testing. Although it may be true that it is not currently possible to directly link genetics to the presence of a certain disease or health problem, there may be a point in time when this is possible, so it should not be disregarded. To get the link between genes and diseases down to a precise and calculated measure will take a lot of time and research, and just because there may not be a instant “perk” to such testing immediately, it is possible for the testing to be beneficial in the future. In order to reach that point, the current testing needs to continue to take place and advance towards that ultimate goal.