Women as Subjects of Gene Editing and Cloning

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Science of Making Babies
Implications of Reproduction without Intercourse on Women
Simone de Beauvoir
Mary Daly
Betty Friedan
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Gene editing and cloning have the potential to do a lot of good to human society and health. For example, the possibility of producing perfectly healthy babies without sickle cell anemia, bereaved parents cloning a lost child, and baren parents having progenies benefit humanity (The Economist, 2018). Enhancing the health of future generations might align with public health goals, such as improving the health of individuals and communities. However, enhancing future generations will require reproduction without intercourse through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or Artificial Insemination by Donor (AID). Remarkably, the necessary participation of women in a scenario of improvement has not been addressed by its proponents. The topic from the article addressed in this context is the separation of sexual intercourse from reproduction. The issue relates to gender because technology like IVF and AIDS enable women to take charge of their reproductive potential. Reproductive technologies radically altered women’s societal position and transformed relationships between women and men.

When gene editing and cloning technology go beyond tackling diseases, it could be prone to unethical applications. For instance, studies show that attractive people tend to earn more in labor market outcomes (Anýžová & Matějů, 2018). Indeed, some parents would want to pay for genetic enhancement to achieve the genetic attribute that gives their children a leg up. Furthermore, gene editing and cloning could mean women become less important in procreation since alternative technology will be more effective than carrying a baby in the womb. Therefore, in gene editing reproduction, women must be willing to participate as research subjects. The article will evaluate genome editing and cloning from the perspective of theorists Simone de Beauvoir, Claire Smith, and Betty Friedan.

The Science of Making Babies

Gene editing has made it possible to customize human DNA. Still, there are many discussions around the scientific and general society, whether it is ethical or a potential breakthrough in creating disease-free generations. The argument is where the line should be drawn between perfecting the genetic makeup of progenies and designing babies. It brings great promise in eliminating many diseases but can also shrink the human gene probe, widen socioeconomic inequalities, and have exponential consequences for future generations. The wide range of reproductive options like AIDS, IVF, ICSI, and demonstrates how quickly reproductive science can advance (The Economist, 2018). Similarly, defining the limits of what is allowed in gene editing and cloning is slippery as theologists and feminists object to the widespread use of the technology.

Implications of Reproduction without Intercourse on Women

Women will bear these genetic modifications’ major physical, social, psychological, moral, and economic burdens. Recent developments, such as those in China, indicate that carefully considering the ethical implications of gene editing research is necessary (Farrell et al., 2019). Surprisingly, there has not been much discussion of how gene editing would affect women’s roles as parents and family members. Normal sexual reproduction is a manifestation of marital love for any couple, but IVF threatens to take this away, including the social role of women in society. For instance, if a technician is responsible for selecting which embryo to place in women, then the women have limited power in choosing the destiny of their progeny. While genetically gives women the impression of liberation and control, they are only subjects of research dependent on the technician’s expertise.

Simone de Beauvoir

Simon de Beauvoir supports the theory that biological sex and sociocultural gender are different categories. The subjugation of women is socially infused not because of the natural adequacy of the sex. She states that men have made women the “other sex” (De Beauvoir, 1949). De Beauvoir implies that man is the dominant subject, who sets the benchmark, while women become objectified and pressed into a submissive role. Women will assume the risks and burdens of intensive perinatal tests and procedures as research subjects. It reinforces de Beauvoir’s analogy that women are treated as inferior and pressed into the submissive role of bearing the consequences of reproductive technology.

Mary Daly

Separating the sexes into separate roles has made it easy to buy into the idea of women being equal to men but different. According to the theory, all people are complicit in the oppressive social caste system, which could not exist without the consensus of the oppressed and dominant sexes (Daly, 1995). The process of sex role socialization, which starts at birth and is enforced by most institutions, is used to obtain consent. As a result, the lack of discussion has triggered concerns about the precautions required to protect women participating in germline modification research in return for potential benefits to their offspring. There are significant ethical ramifications for women and their families as a result of this omission. Currently, reproduction technology focuses on the offspring’s health outcomes, not women’s health and well-being, which reaffirms Daly’s analogy of sex role socialization.

Betty Friedan

Friedan addressed women’s unhappiness with social norms in the middle of the 20th century in “The Feminine Mystique,” referring to it as “the problem with no name.” Because they were compelled to be inferior to males on all fronts—financially, mentally, physically, and intellectually—women experienced this depressive feeling (Friedan, 1963). In the feminine mystique, there is no way for women to dream of creation or the future other than being homemakers. The woman can only imagine herself as the mother of her kids and the wife of her spouse. Reproductive technology has fulfilled the dream of theorist Betty Friedan, where women can take charge of their reproductive potential without the influence of men. The technological advancement in reproduction has altered the social position of women in society, where women can start their careers without the fear of pregnancy or being forced to be homemakers. IVF offers some help, where women could have children after establishing their career and personal goals.

Conclusion

Many people for whom deliberate choices regarding parenthood are available want children for reasons other than just wanting to start a family or be a parent. The desire to raise a child with their genetic makeup may also play a role. Many women and couples with difficulty conceiving choose to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) to have genetically related offspring, despite other parenting options. Notwithstanding the associated costs, physical challenges, health hazards, and lack of clarity regarding the outcome, women continue to undergo IVF. Therefore, theorist Mary Daly’s suggestion that all humans are complicit in the exploitative social caste system is valid in the case of gene editing and cloning. The conclusion drawn is that the importance of genetic relatedness varies among individuals, race, class, between cultures, over time, and in response to individual experiences. Provided genetic editing offers a reprieve from genetic diseases, and barren parents, women will continue to comply with sex socialization as research subjects in gene editing and cloning.

References

Anýžová, P., & Matějů, P. (2018). Beauty still matters: The role of attractiveness in labor market outcomes. International Sociology, 33(3), 269–291. Web.

Daly, M. (1995). Beyond God the Father: Toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Women’s Press.

De Beauvoir, S. (1949). The Second Sex (Vol. 1). Vintage Classics.

Farrell, R., Michie, M., Scott, C., Flyckt, R., & LaPlante, M. (2019). Prioritizing Women’s Health in Germline Editing Research. AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(12), 1071–1078. Web.

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. W.W. Norton & Company.

The Economist. (2018). Gene editing, clones and the science of making babies. The Economist. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!