Until recently, legislative and policy debates over human cloning in the United States took place almost entirely within the framework of abortion politics. Opposition to cloning was voiced most loudly by opponents of abortion rights for whom the destruction of embryos that human cloning and IGM would entail was a motivating concern.
Misusing the Language of Choice
Many promoters of species-altering procedures have sought to appropriate the language of reproductive rights and freedom of choice. They argue that parents should have the "right" to choose the genetic constitution of their future children—to produce a cloned child who would be a genetic duplicate of another person, or to preselect a child's traits using IGM.
Two books authored by supporters of human species-altering technologies—From Chance to Choice and Children of Choice—exemplify this approach. The websites of two pro-cloning groups, Human Cloning Foundation (http://www.humancloning.org/) and Clone Rights United Front (http://www.clonerights.com/), provide further examples. See also "Human Cloning, Infertility, and Reproductive Freedom" by Mark Eibert, at http://reason.com/opeds/eibert.shtml, which argues that banning cloning would violate a "right to reproduce."
If cloning and genetic "enhancement" are developed and used, they may wind up posing new threats to reproductive rights. In recent years, opponents of abortion rights have increasingly appealed to "fetal rights" to support restrictions on abortion access. Expensive procedures carried out on embryos or fetuses could lead to situations in which the protection of those modified fetuses are pitted against the rights of the women carrying them.
Pro-Choice Opposition to Species-Altering Technologies
Pro-choice forces have begun to respond to claims that altering the genetic make-up of future children would constitute a reproductive right, and to engage the issues raised by human cloning and IGM. An increasing number of reproductive rights groups and pro-choice voices are pointing out that there is an immense difference between ending an unwanted pregnancy and creating a duplicate human or a child with preselected traits.
In summer 2001 more than 100 reproductive rights and women's health leaders and organizations signed a statement calling for Congress to ban cloning. See http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/clone3.htm.
Related Articles
Carl Pope, "Between Scylla and Charybdis: Reproductive
Freedom After September 11," Keynote Address to the Annual
Convention of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League (November 2001)
Resources
>> Items >> "Between Scylla and Charybdis: Reproductive
Freedom After September 11"
Tom Abate, "Odd-Couple Pairing in US Cloning Debate:
Abortion-Rights Activists Join GOP Conservatives," San Francisco
Chronicle (August 9, 2001)
Resources
>> Items >> "Odd-Couple Pairing in US Cloning
Debate"
E. J. Dionne, Jr., "Unlikely Allies on Cloning,"
The Washington Post (August 3, 2001)
Resources
>> Items >> "Unlikely Allies on Cloning"
Off-Site Links
William Saletan, "Fetal Positions," Mother
Jones (May/June 1998) - explains the dangers of confusing
cloning with abortion politics
http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MJ98/saletan.html
More Information
Analysis:
Examine the social, cultural, and economic landscape
Policies:
Read about existing and potential regulations
Technologies:
Learn the basic science and consider arguments for and against
Date modified: