Lecture: Genetics and the Perfect Human Being
The technology of reproduction has become enormously complicated in the last 20 years. Two primary abilities have been gained : the ability to produce a baby where ordinary sexual reproduction cannot, and the ability to control the genetic traits (and thus physical/mental traits) of a baby where ordinary sexual reproduction cannot. The first new ability raises the following question: should a potential parent/parents be permitted to use any and all technologies to produce a baby? The second new ability raises the question: should a potential parent/parents be permitted to use any and all technologies to control the genetic traits of a baby? The first question is the question of "reproductive rights." The second question is the question of "genetic engineering rights."
The right to reproduce through ordinary means has always been controlled by societies to some degree (for example, incest, rape, sex with minors or the mentally infirm, are very often forbidden). But where two consenting mature adults are willing, societies are usually unwilling to impose any restrictions. The U.S. is one of those societies; we have a long tradition of respecting the "right to reproduce," along with a number of other "privacy" rights. That is why we are worried and even outraged by other societies more severely limiting reproductive rights. China's ban on having more that one child upsets many people, for example. But there are cases in the U.S. where we might be tempted to wish for more restrictions than we currently have. Who hasn't heard someone complain about welfare mothers having as many children as they want? Still, our tolerance prevails, and when technologies have allowed infertile couples to have children, we haven't protested and it is quite legal today. Only small minorities have rejected IVF and surrogacy, especially the Catholic church. Surrogacy and germ cell donation have raised more problems than the actual use of IVF itself. In the news recently is the appearance of advertisements in Ivy-league universities, offering $50,000 for eggs from a bright, blond co-ed. Would you take money for your eggs or sperm? Why donate it for free when someone will pay you for it? But should we allow reproduction to become purely economic, just as sex itself can sometimes be (yes, I'm referring to prostitution). If prostitution is wrong, why is payment for germ cells or womb-usage right? How does one draw the line? Several of your readings assume that there is a difference, enough to legitimize the latter but not the former. Other readings don't make that assumption: they instead question the morality of economic reproduction.
The second question, of "genetic engineering rights," is truly brand new territory. It asks not merely whether a parent should be allowed to create a baby using technology, but whether the parent can control the baby's traits along the way. The simplest form of genetic control allows a parent(s) to determine the baby's gender (and guess which gender is far more often requested?) Other forms would allow harmful genetic mutations to be "deleted" from the embryo's DNA, producing a baby that will never get that particular disease which results from that mutation. Two kinds of genetic engineering must be distinguished: positive and negative engineering.
Negative engineering prevents a disease from harming the normal health of a baby; without negative engineering, a baby would later suffer from some unhealthy problem. Positive engineering enhances an otherwise healthy baby's traits; without positive engineering, a baby would end up having the normal traits of any baby. Contrast: preventing bone cancer with making a baby two inches taller than average; correcting blindness with making a baby with green eyes. Many parents would spend a lot of money on a wide variety of traits: who would turn down a chance at giving junior the genius of Einstein or the musical ability of Mozart? Of course, if this technology is distributed in only a capitalist way, those with the big money will have the designer babies. Look at how parents now pay to get Suzy into the "right" college, or even the "right" pre-school! Keeping up with the Joneses would have a new dimension: "But they got a baby with Pavorotti's voice, Picasso's artistic ability, and Muhammed Ali's right jab!" What might be the long-term effects on society, and on the children themselves, from such commodification?
If those long-term effects are serious enough, we might consider forbidding the use of such technology. There are two other classic arguments raised against reproductive technologies, that you will also hear in various readings. They are the "inherent dignity and value" argument and the "natural law" argument.
The "inherent dignity and value" argument has two main origins: Christianity and the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Both say that morality is ultimately based on a single principle: that we absolutely must treat each other with the highest respect and love. The quickest way to violate this principle is to instead treat another person as merely a useful tool for getting what YOU want. Using this dignity principle, it can be argued that surrogacy and germ cell selling encourages people to treat each other as mere tools that can be bought and sold. However, as a dead president once said, "the business of America IS business!" We sell and buy each other's services all the time: its called having a job. What difference is there between my selling of my labor to an employer, and my selling some sperm to an infertile couple? This is a good question, and in order to answer it, the opponent of reproductive technologies must argue that some selling is o.k., while some other selling is not. For example, contracting one's self into any sort of slavery has been considered very immoral and illegal for a long time. The idea behind forbidding willing servitude is that no one should be allowed to degrade their dignity like that. Well, where is the degradation of my dignity when I sell sperm, or when a woman rents her womb? Opponents must answer that question. The other way to use the "inherent dignity" argument is to point out that surrogacy and germ cell selling degrades the inherent value of the resulting baby. But here the main problem is that without such technology, there wouldn't even be a baby to worry about. Isn't it better to have the baby than no baby at all? The "inherent value" principle is also used to argue against genetic engineering. However, opponents have a tough time arguing that it is better to have a dignified and diseased baby than a healthy (undignified?) baby. Perhaps the "inherent value" principle is best used against positive genetic engineering, since that kind does basically say that some kinds of people (the enhanced ones) are inherently better than merely normal or sub-normal people. Do we really need a new way to classify better and worse people, when we are still fighting the wars against religious prejudice, ethnic prejudice, sexual prejudice, etc.?
The "natural law" argument is also historically associated with Christianity. The basic version of the argument goes as follows:
If one of those "basic" functions is to procreate (didn't God allegedly say "be fruitful and multiply"?) then natural law would declare immoral a wide variety of reproductive and anti-reproductive technologies. For example, the Catholic church has long condemned contraceptives and prophylactics, abortion and surrogacy, IVF and genetic engineering. See, for one example, the reading by the Vatican for its very cautious and concerned approach to reproductive technologies, using both the "inherent dignity" and "natural law" principles.
Genetic engineering and cloning can also be used in ways that treat babies as useful tools for other purposes. Remember the couple who had another child just to use that child's bone marrow for transplanting into their first child? Babies with the "right" body parts can be used as parts for other people. The brain tissue of fetuses is being used now for transplanting into elderly people brain's who have Parkinson's disease. How about this possibility: get a clone of yourself made now, put it on ice for a couple of decades, until you need it later for that heart/liver/leg/head transplant?
Genetic engineering and cloning are deeply connected with the issue of experimenting consent. Like any medical treatment, medical experiments must get informed consent from the persons themselves, or from their family member/guardian. Because genetic engineering and cloning are not yet even close to being a well-understood and guaranteed technologies, they will be kinds of experimentation for a long time. Since you can't get informed consent from an embryo, who should protect its rights? The parents who are designing it? The clinic providing the service? The government?