1. Surrogacy and Cloning
By: Liz Dove, Ebony Staples, Taylor Cavette, Cassandra Johnson, Megan, & Cassandra Kimberly
Introduce group members and explain that we’ll be discussing surrogacy and cloning. We’ll explain what these mean and some pros and cons of each. We’ll examine the issues of whether surrogacy and cloning are morally acceptable. First we’ll start off with surrogacy…..
…Next slide

2. Surrogacy
Definition: woman who gestates a fetus for others, usually for a couple or another woman
Traditional surrogacy
Gestational surrogacy
Traditional Surrogacy – sperm from either the couple’s male partner or a donor is used to artificially inseminate the surrogate. Since the egg fertilized is the surrogate’s, the baby produced from this arrangement is genetically related only to the surrogate and to whoever supplied the sperm.
Gestational Surrogacy – the surrogate receives a transferred embryo created through invetro-fertliization using the sperm and egg of others (either the contracting couple or donors). The gestational surrogate has no genetic connection to the baby.
Here’s a short video about gestational surrogacy from a surrogate’s point of view
There is a lot of controversy surrounding this subject. Surrogate mothers are at times viewed as saints, but are often thought of as baby-sellers.
Next slide

3. Purdy’s Stance on Surrogacy
Laura Purdy’s approach to surrogacy:
Pros:
Infertility
Health risks
Disease prevention
Non-traditional families
Cons:
Baby-selling
Potential for coercion
Laura Purdy asserts that in some cases the benefits of surrogate mothering may outweigh its costs and be morally permissible
Purdy advocates a consequentialist approach to surrogacy. Purdy takes this approach because it makes us consider whether a practice’s necessary features lead to unavoidable overridingly bad consequences. It also demands that we look at how different circumstances are likely to affect the outcome.
Pros:
A couple who is infertile can have a child through the practice of surrogacy. If a potential mother has many health problems and is therefore unable to sustain a pregnancy, a surrogate mother can alleviate risks such as prematurity (reducing these risks is not only beneficial to the mother but also the resulting child). Also, serious genetic diseases can be prevented by allowing carriers to avoid pregnancy. A final benefit is that surrogacy allows the possibility of non-traditional families for single women or gay couples.
Cons:
Opponents of paid-surrogacy argue that surrogates are paid little or nothing if they fail to hand over a live, health child. If they were simply selling their services, they would get full pay regardless of the baby’s health. These women have done their part, taken on risks associated with pregnancy and should be paid fully, just as any physician involved would be paid. Opponents argue that normal child-bearing provides no guarantee of a live, healthy child so why should a contracted pregnancy have such high standards?
If coercion is taking place, then surrogacy would also be considered immoral.
The most common argument against surrogacy is that surrogacy arrangements amount to baby-selling. However, defenders of surrogacy deny that it constitutes baby-selling, claiming instead that a surrogate is simply relinquishing her right as a parent to have a relationship with the child. She is simply forfeiting the right to enjoy a future parent-child relationship.
The practice of surrogacy is not that different from adoption, in which biological parents give away their children (as well as hope of any relationship with them).

4. Rothman’s Stance on Surrogacy
Paid surrogacy is baby-selling
Children are not for sale
Fetus is part of the maternal body
Barbara Katz Rothman views paid surrogacy as baby-selling. She states:
“If a woman is standing in front of me and is pregnant, the baby in her belly is hers. It doesn’t change depending on the sperm or eggs. Every pregnant person is the mother of the baby in her body.” So, regardless of whose sperm or eggs are involved, paid surrogacy contract amount to baby-selling.
Rothman also argues that men may own their sperm, but children are not sperm grown up. They are much more than that—they are individuals, human beings. Children are not “owned” and they aren’t available for sale.
Women never bear anybody else’s baby: not their husband’s, not the state’s, and not the purchaser’s in the surrogacy contract. Rothman believes regardless of of the source or the sperm or egg, that every woman bears her OWN baby. If the woman is viewed as being pregnant with someone else’s baby, then she is being used as a container.
The bottom line here, is that Rothman opposes surrogacy.

5. Surrogacy – Interesting Fact
Traditional Surrogacy Fees
$40,000 - $65,000
Gestational Surrogacy Fees
$75,000 - $100,000
These feeds include lawyer, fertility specialists, surrogate’s maternity clothes, food, their fee for the service itself, and any other unforeseen expenses that may occur.

6. Surrogacy – Major Moral Theories
Utilitarian
Rule-Utilitarian
Kantian
Natural Law Theory
Utilitarian: Will answer yes to surrogacy if the benefits outweigh the harm it could cause and no if it does not. A Utilitarian will say yes to surrogacy if the possible maternal complications and birth defect risk are outweighed by the happiness brought to infertile couples as long as the arrangements are properly regulated.
Rule-Utilitarian: If the widespread use of surrogacy would harm society, for example, if surrogacy would result in a general disregard for human life and welfare, as some critics argue, a rule-utilitarian would oppose it. Even though this method would often increase net happiness in particular cases, it opposes a public policy that allowed its use.
Kantian: Within the Kantian perspective of surrogacy, it is possible to either oppose or defend it. Someone could argue that surrogacy is impermissible because it treats children merely as a means, instead of an end in themselves. Those who oppose it, look at it as children being “manufactured” and sold as commodities to serve the ends of others. On the other hand, a Kantian who would defend surrogacy could argue that couples who create children do so precisely because they wish to respect and love their offspring as persons. They believe that what matters is not how children are brought into the world, but how they are treated after they arrive.
Natural Law Theory: The Roman Catholic strictly rejects surrogacy period. They believe that surrogacy is immoral because it is procreation outside of marriage and an affront to the integrity of family.
I would have to agree with the Kantian perspective of those who would defend surrogacy. I do not feel that because of an anatomical abnormality, a couple, or loving family should be deprived of having and raising children of their own and providing a loving home.

7. Surrogacy vs. Adoption Surrogacy- Adoption Genetic relation to child
Usually cheaper
Adoption
No genetic relation to child
Usually more expensive
More difficult to adopt due to scarcity of children
Surrogacy-
A woman may choose surrogacy because she has an abnormal uterus or no uterus at all (hysterectomy or congenital defect) or because she suffers from health problems that make pregnancy dangerous: for example, cystic fibrosis and serious forms of diabetes and heart disease. A woman may choose traditional Surrogacy for many of the same reasons. In surrogacy, the intended parents usually want more than just a child– they want a biologically related child.
Adoption-
Adoption may be less appealing to couples because there is no genetic relation. Couples may also decide against adoption for other reasons, including: it is more expensive, and the scarcity of adoptable children.
NEXT SLIDE

8. Case of Mary Beth Whitehead
Over 20 years ago Whitehead was a surrogate mother for William and Elizabeth Sterns.
After the birth on March 27, 1986, Whitehead would not give the baby to the Stern’s and left the state with the infant.
For $10,000 she consented to be artificially inseminated with Mr. Stern’s sperm, to carry the child to term and to relinquish it to the Sterns after birth. The baby—named Melissa by the Sterns but known to the world as Baby M was born March 27, After the birth, Whitehead changed her mind. After telling the Stern’s she was not going to give the baby to them, she left the state with the baby. The case ended up in a New Jersey, court where the judge ruled that the surrogate agreement was binding and the Whitehead had to turn over baby M to the Sterns. Whitehead appealed the ruling to the New Jersey Supreme Court and won a reversal. The court ruled that the surrogacy contract was actually invalid and that whitehead was the legal mother. The court also ruled that Baby M should live with the Sterns and that Whitehead should have visitation rights.
OR READ CASE STUDY ON PAGE 368
Transition into cloning here
NEXT SLIDE

9. Cloning
Definition: the asexual production of a genetically identical entity from an existing one
Important to understand a clone is not a perfect copy of an individual
Instead, a clone is a living thing that shares a set of genetic instructions with another
Video
NEXT SLIDE

10. Cloning Reproductive cloning
Creating a genetic duplicate of an adult animal or human
1997 an adult sheep was cloned, which resulted in the birth of “Dolly”
Dolly was the genetic twin of her adult “parent” and the first mammal ever cloned. After Dolly, many mammals were cloned.
To date, no human has been successfully cloned, and for technical and moral reasons no one is likely to be cloned anytime soon. Human cloning seems likely to result in high rates of serious birth defects.
NEXT SLIDE

11. Author’s Viewpoints
The National Academy of Sciences makes this point: Even if clones are genetically identical with one another, they will not be identical in physical or behavioral characteristics, because DNA is not the only determinant of these characteristics. A pair of clones will experience different environments and nutritional inputs while in the uterus, and they would be expected to be subject to different inputs from their parents, society, and life experience as they grow up.
Dan Brock believes that it is a mistake to think that cloning is dehumanizing. He goes on to say that a human being created by human cloning is of less value or is less worthy of respect that one created by sexual reproduction. It is the nature of a being, not how it is created, that is the source of its value and makes it worthy of respect.
KASS--?

12. Cloning – Pros & Cons
Pros – Cloning is some couples only hope of having a child with who they are genetically related to. It is beneficial for the couples who are infertile (no sperm or eggs). For couples, who want to have a genetic connection with their child, but want to avoid passing on a genetic disease or health risk to their child. If the only child of a family dies, the child could be cloned, making sure that part of the child lives on. A child in need of an organ transplant to survive could be cloned so his clone could provide the needed organ; the organ would be a perfect match, which would avoid rejection.
Cons – Many people claim a moral right to use cloning, arguing that people have a basic right of reproductive liberty and that cloning is covered by that right. They deny that this right to cloning is absolute (overrriding all other considerations) but believe that it carries great weight nonetheless. Cloning of humans is associated with a high number of birth defects. Others argue that it violates the “right to an open future.”
I DIDN’T PUT ANYTHING ABOVE BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD PUT??
NEXT SLIDE

13. Cloning – Major Moral Theories
Utilitarian
- Leading consequentialist theory that states that the right moral action is that one which benefits the greatest amount of good verses bad consequences for everyone involved.
-Cloning is morally admissible as long as the benefits of the technology outweigh the harm to all involved.
-Cloning is not morally admissible if the risks involved outweigh the benefits to all involved.
Utilitarian’s will always try to achieve the greatest good for all involved; that is what will determine whether an act is morally permissible or not.
An example of an event in which cloning would be permissible: If risks to children are decreased to a minimum or acceptable level than the harm would be reduced. The benefit would be to infertile couples. The loss of embryos would not be a major factor because the net happiness of the couples would outweigh the loss and the minimal risk to the children.
An example of an event in which cloning would not be permissible: If the widespread use of cloning would harm society as a whole. For example if along with the use of cloning there became a general disregard for human life.
My Views:
This is the view I agree with. I believe that it is morally permissible for cloning if it is to relieve infertility that some people experience. Let’s say they have no ova or no sperm and want a biologically related child.
If cloning to obtain later needed transplant so that organ or tissues are not rejected. This would reduce the risk of rejected organs because it would be a perfect match and drastically reduce rejection of the organ.
Especially as a way to have a child for couples who have genetic diseases that would cause prolonged suffering if they were to procreate; cystic fibrosis. If I could prevent it I would.
As long as benefits outweigh the risks I am ok with it.
In the case in which risks were to be greater than benefits such as in a general disregard for human life I would be against it. Such as if it was used as selling humans for financial gain or as a way to exploit humans by the government. Basically if it got into the wrong hands with out regulation this would lead to disregard and disrespect for human life.
NEXT SLIDE

14. Cloning-Major Moral Theories
Kantian Deontology
This theory states that the core of morality is based on following a rational universally applicable moral rule that we perform for duty’s sake alone.
Kant states, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own words or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
It is possible by this theory to oppose or defend cloning.
Kantian Opposition: Cloning impermissible b/c treat children merely as a means. Children are manufactured and sold as merchandise to others. Which is serving the ends of others.
Kantian Defense: Cloning permissible b/c the couple who creates the children do so merely b/c they wish to love and respect their children as persons. What matters in this defense is not what brought them into the world but how they were treated once they arrive.
NEXT SLIDE

15. Cloning-Major Moral Theories
Natural Law Theory
This theory states that the right actions are those that conform to moral standards discerned in nature through human reason.
Doctrine of Double Effect
Backed by Roman Catholic Church, human cloning is impermissible because it unnaturally separates procreation from sex and is a violation of the rights of the child.
More on theory: Humans achieve their highest good when they follow their true natural inclinations. There is a way things are and how things should be. Humans should act in accordance with natural law.
Doctrine of Double Effect: a resource used to solve moral dilemmas.
Action itself must be morally permissible.
Causing a bad effect must not be used to obtain good effect (end does not justify the means)
Whatever the outcome of the action, the intention must be to cause only a good effect (the bad effect can be foreseen but never intended)
The bad effect of an action must not be greater in importance than the good effect.
NEXT SLIDE

16. Cloning – Case Studies

17. Conclusion

18. References
Adoption.com. (2010). Surrogacy. Retrieved from Discovery Networks. (2009 April 29). Human cloning [Video file]. Retrieved from JNJ Health. (2009, December 7). Gestational surrogacy [Video file]. Retrieved from Vaughn, L. (2010). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases. New York, NY: Oxford.