The Implications of
Human Reproductive Cloning and Germ Line Alteration for Women and
Women's Health: Ten Mis-Conceptions
continued
6. HUMAN GENETIC MANIPULATION WILL NOT LEAD TO THE
COMMODIFICATION OF AND GENETICIZATION OF CHILDREN
We have already witnessed ways in which children have become
commodities in the 21st century; for example, this past week twin
babies were sold on the Internet to the infertile couple who bid the
highest. Genetic manipulation is likely to result in the further
commodification of children because people will begin having, what
Marcy Darnovskyxxxi and others refer to as,
"designer babies". The distinction between germ line therapy and
germ line enhancement is a very slippery slope. Advocates of germ
line alteration tell us that women will be able to design a
"superior"child through the selection of personality traits,
physical attributes, sex, and intellectual and moral qualities. The
consequences of selecting specific characteristics in a child may
lead to a devastating consequences including psychological backlash
of anger, stigma, and discrimination against any child, and
especially one who cannot or does not live up to expectations. Women
making the decisions will also face incredible pressures, moral
decisions, and potential backlash if babies do not work out as
planned. Additionally, some in the disability community argue
against any form of pre-implantation diagnosis and worry about what
that means for the further stigmatization of disabled people in our
society.xxxii The movie, Gattaca, vividly
illustrates societal impacts when one attempts to control a baby's
destiny from birth. There is an erroneous assumption that diseases,
personalities, and characteristics are all genetically pre-disposed.
Last year, A New York Times magazine article predicted a future
scenario called "The Genetic Report Card" in which a baby's first
official check-up would be in the petri dish while s/he is an
eight-cell embryo.xxxiii
7. GERMLINE ALTERATION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING CURES THE
'INCURABLY' INFERTILE AND OFFERS A LAST CHANCE FOR A GENETIC
CONNECTION. Professionals, such as lawyers and IVF doctors,
professing to speak on behalf of infertile couples make this
argument. Ironically, one of the rationalizations for human
reproductive cloning is the low success rate of IVF. While
testifying at the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning,
one well-known IVF doctor relied on the same statistics used to
convince infertile couples of IVF's success, to make his argument
that IVF's low success rates justified the need for human
reproductive cloning.
This week the media reported that of the couples who have
volunteered to be the first to try human reproductive cloning 90
percent are infertile couples and 1 percent are gay or lesbians.
xxxiv Among some women, especially infertile women
and lesbians, human reproductive cloning may be a potentially
divisive issue. In the case of infertile couples, even within
RESOLVE, a national organization for infertile couples, women are
divided about whether or not to support human reproductive cloning.
In the rare case of an infertile couple in which neither person
produces gametes, human reproductive cloning would allow for a
genetic connection that no other reproductive technology could
offer. Nevertheless, many feel this is dangerous threshold to cross
to help a few. xxxv Generally speaking, lesbians
have relied on alternative technologies and embraced many new
reproductive technologies as a form of resistance to heterosexual
nuclear families and as an opportunity for motherhood. Human
reproductive cloning offers lesbian couples, in a society that is
obsessed with biological connections and often uses this as a marker
in legal custody battles, the rare opportunity to be genetically
linked to both women -something even egg donation cannot accomplish
(With egg donation, a lesbian couple may choose one woman to supply
the egg and the other woman to carry the pregnancy to term and/or
breast feed). To date, sperm banks, especially those serving mainly
lesbians, have not taken a formal position for or against these
newest technologies.
Professionals who support reproductive cloning would like people
to believe that if anyone is against human reproductive cloning then
we are against infertile couples. An anti-reproductive cloning
position is not unsympathetic to the pain of infertility or to women
and men experiencing infertility in their lives. Infertility is a
painful life experience and even within the infertility community,
members are divided about their support or lack of support of human
reproductive cloning. In considering infertility, there are several
important points to be made. First, new reproductive technologies
never "cure" infertility but rather, they only offer temporary
solutions to infertility or treatment, which may or may not result
in a live birth. Anyone who has faced infertility problems and later
had a child, through birth or adoption, will tell you that the
infertility experience is still a part of her/his identity. Second,
there is no indication to believe that new technologies such as
human reproductive cloning will have any better "success" rates
("success" being measured by the live birth of a healthy child) than
IVF, GIFT or ZIFT. Third, while I whole-heartedly support low risk
research efforts to help infertile women, men and couples, I endorse
preventive efforts. The majority of causes of infertility are
preventable including occupational health hazards, environmental
toxins, drug-induced infertility like DES, sexually transmitted
diseases, accidents, and complications following childbirth or
abortion.
8. HUMAN GENETIC MANIPULATION INCLUDING REPRODUCTIVE CLONING WILL
RID SOCIETY OF ALL UNWANTED PREGNANCIES
Martine Rothblatt has written a book proposing "inocuseed", a
technique for banking all men's semen as a way to end teenage
pregnancies.xxxvi Each male will undergo a
vasectomy at puberty and their sperm will be stored in a bank and
reproduction will be controlled with no unwanted pregnancies.
Certainly, this suggestion is an extreme measure to prevent unwanted
pregnancies. What has happened to the promotion of condoms or other
contraceptive methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies?
9. WOMEN WHO ARE ANTI-HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING ARE
ANTI-PROCREATIVE LIBERTY AND ANTI-SCIENCE AND IN A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
In her new book, Genes, Women and Equality, Mary Briody Mahowald,
a philosopher, has outlined two feminist
positions.xxxvii 1) The feminist libertarian
position states that is women's right to pursue individual liberty
and procreative freedom. A majority of feminist libertarians would
argue that if such genetic technologies become available, women
should have access, and be free to choose among them.
xxxviii The problem with this approach is that it
fails to consider social inequalities among and between women based
on racism, classism, ableism, ethnocentrism, and sexual orientation.
Not every woman will have equal access to these technologies or will
there always be the autonomy to make a decision. For example, a
libertarian feminist fails to consider what happens if a
heterosexual couple disagree on these technologies, who makes final
decision or has the power in the relationship? 2) The feminist
egalitarian position operates from a social justice framework. It
considers the fact that a woman's autonomy is contextually located
and ones social location - class, disability, race, ethnicity,
gender influences our ability to make decisions and have access to
technologies. Thus, feminist egalitarians are not only interested in
women's access to a new technology but also how women's social
location impacts the use or misuse of that technology. If a new
technology increases inequities, women need to pay attention to
those inequalities. We, as a society, need to equalize benefits and
burdens associated with genetics for both men and women. Genetics is
neither gender neutral nor color-blind. Even if all women had access
to these technologies, we still might not want them. A feminist
egalitarian might support some gene technologies, and still reject
others, if and only if they were both equally available and women
had equality within the broader social context.
10. WOMEN WHO ARE ANTI-CLONING ARE ALSO ANTI-ABORTION.
This mis-conception has far-reaching implications for women and
women's groups. The human genome project potentially makes for
interesting political alliances or rather strange bedfellows. For
example, both the religious right led by the Vatican and the
democratic progressive movement are anti-germ line alteration and
anti-human reproductive cloning. But the Vatican does not
distinguish between reproductive cloning and non-reproductive
cloning or stem cell research. They are opposed to stem cell
research on the grounds that such research, although not
necessarily, may involve embryos or aborted fetuses. Many women and
women's organizations support stem cell research even while they are
opposed to human reproductive cloning. Furthermore, they do not want
to be aligned with the Vatican's anti-abortion position. Rather, we
prefer to collaborate with like-minded people who support a women's
right, whenever necessary, to have a safe and legal abortion. The
challenge for women and women's groups is how to work with other
groups, on a policy that is both anti-germ line alteration and
anti-human reproductive cloning but which is clearly not
anti-abortion rights. (I am deliberately refraining from using the
word "choice" since pro-reproductive cloning professionals use this
word to mean procreative liberty.)
There is another interesting twist. Scientists and doctors in
support of human reproductive cloning, I believe, inadvertently feed
into anti-abortion politics by further delineating the separation of
a fetus from the woman. This is ironic because human reproductive
cloning may actually further the need for safe and legal abortions
at a historical juncture when this legal right is being threatened.
If human reproductive cloning occurs, we may be performing more late
term abortions, also inflammatorily referred to as "partial birth
abortions", than we have had to do in the past. Brigitte Boisselier,
a French chemist who is the "scientific director" of Clonaid, the
Raelians cloning venture, has said, "We want a healthy baby." All of
the 50 young females eagerly volunteering to serve as egg donors and
surrogate mothers, were prepared to undergo abortions if defects
were revealed by ultrasound or amniocentesis. If one pregnancy
failed, another surrogate would automatically step into line; there
would be no need to wait another month, as you would if you were
dependent on the cycles of one woman.xxxix While
scientists claim that pre-implantation diagnosis can detect poor
quality embryos and grade embryos while still in petri dishes, we
know this is not always possible. Furthermore, not all
"mutations/defects" are genetic and thus, identifiable at an early
stage. In fact, evidence from sheep research suggests that high
rates of fetal anomalies were discovered in late term pregnancy or
soon after birth. Potentially, if human reproductive cloning is
allowed this could have devastating consequences for women.
In conclusion, I ask you to seriously consider both the short and
long-term consequences of these new human genetic manipulations,
especially germ line alteration and human reproductive cloning, for
diverse women. Some have argued that these new technologies offer
potential for resistance and building new family forms. Others have
argued these technologies can help infertile couples with no
gametes. While this may be the case for a few, I am concerned that
many more women will be harmed than helped. Overall, women --not
men-- will bear the major physical, psychological, social, moral,
legal, political, and economic burdens of these genetic
manipulations. Finally and most importantly, human reproductive
cloning and germ line alteration, whatever their risks, are
unprecedented and irreversible.
Lisa Handwerker, a medical anthropologist, has a Masters
in Public Health from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in Medical
Anthropology from UC San Francisco and Berkeley. Her doctoral
research, based on one year of ethnographic fieldwork, examined
female infertility and new reproductive technologies in China. Since
1979, when Lisa interned for the National Women's Health Network,
she has worked on women's health issues as a community health
worker, labor coach and translator, writer, researcher, professor,
activist, policy maker, and consultant within the United States and
abroad. Lisa was the chair of the Council on Anthropology and
Reproduction for six years and chair of the Berkeley Community
Health Commission for two years. Currently, as a health activist,
Lisa serves on the board of the National Women's Health Network.
@2001 by Lisa Handwerker
Feedback welcomed and citation
requested
For additional information contact: lisahand@juno.com
ENDNOTES
Click
here for more information on cloning as a women's
issue.