|
Human Cloning Commodifies Life
By Jennifer Lahl
|
 |
Whenever we treat the "parts" of human life as a raw material or a research product or something we can make a fast buck with, we run the risk of treating human life as a commodity. For that matter whenever we treat people as products that is what we are doing. Of course this strips away the dignity of the person and says something about the culture which permits this type of treatment. Human cloning is a new way of cheapening human life, stripping away the dignity of the person, and treating human life as a commodity. We take a human egg from a woman, strip out her DNA, insert the DNA from the person we are cloning and then two things can happen. The new fertilized egg is implanted into a woman, and we have manufactured a person we have chosen to give life to OR we destroy that person for research. By definition, that is what a commodity is: "Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage".
The truth of the matter
By Jennifer Lahl
New Jersey's $5 million dollar stem cell bill passed in 2004 is being put to good work. However, the journalistic reporting surrounding the controversy in stem cell research is baffling. Here from John George found online at MSNBC, right there in the beginning of the article the author writes, "Researchers believe embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to develop into many different cell types in the body, can be coaxed into treating myriad diseases, conditions and disabilities. Opponents of the research argue the process destroys the embryo and the potential for life. Since 2001, government policy limits federal research funding to 19 existing stem cell lines."
It's as if he has to say, "let's make sure this remains as political and controversial as possible. I want to be sure to do my part to cause division and not report the facts!"
But what follows next is utterly amazing as he goes onto outline all the research going on in the field of heart disease which is proving quite successful. BUT, these successes he reports on, are in adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, and the patient's own stem cells.
He continues to perpetuate the myth that we need to do embryo research, the hype that cures for diseases, conditions and disabilities are to be had, if only we didn't have a White House bent on 'limiting' federal funding. For those who care to know, Bush is the first and only president to allow federal funds on embryonic stem cell research. Clinton banned this research entirely. So the federal funds being used now are new funds, released in 2001 for this research.
Finally, George buries at the bottom of his story all the successes with alternative and ethically permissable sources of stem cells. Which may I add, are helping with treatments and cures to patients with heart disease.
The title of the piece is "Heart of the matter: N.J. scientists study stem cell-role". I just wish we could get to the truth of the matter!
Handing Over vs. Giving Back: Whose Baby is it?
By Jennifer Lahl
The practice of surrogate motherhood is as ancient as the hills. For centuries we can find stories of women having babies for other women. Until recently, surrogacy has mostly been seen as a solution for infertile couples. But today, surrogacy is sometimes practiced to allow the full time career woman to not have to interrupt her career for pregnancy and maternity leave. And in some extreme cases, surrogacy is chosen to avoid the 'hassle' of wear and tear on the woman's body.
These are cases of surrogacy for convenience sake. But wherever and whenever surrogacy is practiced you can be sure of three things. First, money is involved. And sometimes lots of it. Second, legal battles are typically part of the landscape. The legal battles are often quite messy as families battle over who rightfully and legally and ethically should be the parents. And finally abuses are rampent. Especially as it relates to exploitation of poor women by the wealthy. Some countries have laws against surrogacy.
Sweden, Spain, France and Germany for example do not allow surrogacy because of the problems that arise. Of course, the child is always caught up in the middle of those so desparate to have a child at any cost when things go bad. And that we can count on. Babies and miracles? It depends on who you ask.
Jennifer Lahl is the Founder and Executive Director of The Center forBioethics and Culture Network, is on the Advisory Board of The Center for Changing Worldviews and maintains her own blog, The Human Future.
Family Balancing
By Jennifer Lahl
The whole movement of sex selection is growing. Using the technologies used to help infertile couples have children, people are opting to use these technologies for the purpose of intentionally having a child of the sex of their own choosing. Typically, this is called family balancing (and you thought it had to do with juggling multiple tasks!). Low tech gender selection has been around for hundreds of years. You know, eat certain foods, certain times of the months and in certain positions to become pregnant with a boy or a girl. Microsort is one the main companies now, assisting couples with 'unbalanced' families. Order the pink Xsort for that little girl, or the blue Ysort for that little boy. Implications for the human future? You bet. Not to mention unbalanced human futures. Choices we make today have serious implications for choices we will not be able to make in the future.
The one child one family policy in China has boys out numbering girls 117 to 100. In parts of northern India the score card is 140 boys to every 100 girls born.
And yet, pre-implantation testing, for the sole purpose of sex selection is not only legal in the U.S., it is becoming a mainstream practice. Couples who do not have problems with infertilty are increasing joining the ranks of infertile couples at fertilty clinics. Why you ask? Because couples want the choice or right to determine the birth order and sexes of their children. So much so that they are willing to undergo costly and risky procedures just to be sure their boys and girls are born in the right order.
Matthew and Beth Mandolesi used this technology to have their son pictured here. They said they are very happy they made this choice although ethics never factored into their decision.
We certainly wouldn't want disorganized, unorderly or unbalanced families.
|
|
|
