I have to admit the idea of giving birth to a clone of me or my dh fills me with dread - for all sorts of reasons however I read an interesting article in Sunday's Independent which has really challenged my views. The argument (edited by me since I can't do links yet - must swot up on this asap) put forward by Dr Anthony Grayling, a reader in philosoply at Birkeck College is as follows:
**
At the moment practical difficulties with reproductive cloning need solving before it is a viable alternative, but if they are, is the principle still wrong? There are three issues: the nature of the clones, the ethics of reproductive technology and the point of parenthood.
A clone is an identical twin. Older siblings often help bring up younger siblings - so the idea of a cloned child loses its much of its power to generate a science fiction frission. Women unable to have children by any other means would be bearing their own or their partner's twin. There is nothing unnatural about the idea of idntical twins or sibling relationships, so there is nothing objectinabel about the relationship of a cloned child with its family.
An objection to using technology in reproduction would logicically embrace in vitro fertilisation and doner insemnation. But all these technologies have the aim of helping women to have children, women who so want children that they submit themselves to the effort, expense and dificulty of the process and who therefore might be expected to be highly committed mothers any sustainable objections melt away.
But if you take the religious stand that nothing must be allowed to interfere with natural birth, you are left with the harsh view that if a woman can't give birth by natural means, she must accept the fact and remain childless. To be consistent with this view, treatment for eclampsia, amniocentesis, epidurals, caesarian section are wrong since they are all human interventions in the reproductive process.
The result in human suffering of the absance of such aids are easy to see in the Third World.
As for the idea of parenthood, is not the wish to have a cloned child a self regarding hunger to have a child at any price? This question misses the point of parenthood. It fails to distinguish between the question of why conceptions happen and why parenthood happens. Many conceptions happen by accident but if there is a birth it will usually be because the child is wanted as much as if the conception was planned. If it is unwanted, a termination is available to most. The biological drive which prompts women to have children is well served by the desire to be a parent. The desire is so powerful that when it is frustrated it can be the source of great grief. Reproductive technology helps the really keen. They are likely to make great parents.
There is nothing unnatural about the achievements of human intelligence, itself a product of nature. They can be used for good or ill. Everything human is open to abuse, including cloning. But society can do its best to minimise abuses while reaping the benefit of advances in our understanding of the world, especially those that make it a better place.
**
It left me thinking - identical twins, siblings bringing up siblings - when I think about this I have to agree with the line of argument above. It's not in the least bit unnatural. Also reproducitive technology - when used wisely I cannot argue against the idea that it is a good thing. Am left wondering if we can trust 'society' to monitor cloning and minimise abuses of this technology.
Any thoughts?