Dignity Requires Choice
There’s no question that the “yuck-factor” rhetoric of the bio-conservative Kassoid wing of bioethics has seized upon the concept of “dignity” to do the real argumentative heavy lifting for their perspective in many of their most influential recent formulations. For me this move evokes very conspicuously the rhetoric through which some Christian fundamentalist conservatives have sought to hijack the concept of “life” and the defense of “life” in their ongoing efforts to police and restrict human reproductive choices (and in so doing, of course, literally threaten the lives of some, and diminish the quality of life for many, many more). If I am right to see such a parallel to anti-choice (so-called “pro-life”) politics in the recent bio-conservative effort to hijack the idea of human dignity in the service of their project to police and restrict therapeutic choices and avenues of medical research just to better reflect their own parochial interests – then it seems to me that the recognition of this parallel also gives us some useful clues about what rhetorical moves we might use to convey our own perspectives more effectively.
Consider this as the narration for a thirty-second radio spot, or some such, to mobilize the support of a mass constituency for genetic medicine who might otherwise be nervous about the destabilizing implications of radical genetic intervention: "They tried to say they supported life, but they really wanted to take away our freedom to choose. Now they want to say they support dignity when they really want to restrict our options for healthy lives. But we know our lives and our dignity are our own. Support our freedom to choose. Support the growth of useful knowledge and the expansion of our choices. Support genetic medicine."
I believe that advocates for research and development into genetic medicine should embrace Pro-Choice politics as conspicuously as possible. "Dignity Requires Choice" should be our motto. Sizable majorities already support Choice, and stressing the connection (which I think is a true one) looks like a winner to me.
I happen to believe that this connection is a useful one for advocates of the traditional politics of reproductive choice as well, which have sometimes seemed in recent years a bit muddled and defensive in the face of bio-conservative activism against reasonable abortion, contraception, and sex education policies. At least part of the reason the pernicious politics around so-called “partial-birth” abortion have managed to render a woman’s right to choose vulnerable when actual widespread support of Choice should make this nearly impossible is because the trajectory of technological development has introduced real confusions into the status of profound biological experiences like conception, birth, illness, and death.
We must all face the fact that the susceptibility of organisms to radical intervention has transformed the status of “viability” as a measure of when lives can properly be said to begin or to end, and as a stable benchmark against which to leverage intuitions about the proper scope of such intervention. This is a crisis in traditional meaning that is exacerbated by contemporary technological developments now on an almost day to day basis.
By embracing the technological forces that would expand the reach of reasonable individual choices over once-definitive biological limits, a hopeful politics of Choice can once again seize the initiative away from the bio-conservative politics of fear in this most intimate collision of technological forces with individual human bodies.
The feminist politics of Choice has sometimes already connected up the defense of reproductive choices to other political struggles that would defend and support choices that enrich individual lives and yet threaten traditional understandings of the natural limits of human bodies -- for example, the politics around queer forms of family, transgender rights, and ending the so-called War on Drugs. Therefore, I believe the feminist politics of Choice has already demonstrated its openness to a move like the one I am proposing here, connecting Choice to the politics of genetic medicine, the support of increased research, and the protection of multiplying therapeutic options. “Morphological freedom” is a word transhumanists have often used to name such a connection between a broader conception of the politics of Choice and the specific technological proliferation of choices available for the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human bodies today and in the near and far-flung future.
It’s surely time to revive and expand the feminist slogan: “Keep Your Laws Off of My Body!” Who knows where this might end, this process of translating the politics of Choice from reproductive to morphological freedom? Certainly I can say it is more hopeful and inspiring and powerful by far to build a political coalition that would expand the field of freedom for all in an era of radical technological transformation than it is to defend a few fragile and threatened entitlements from harm from a few timid bigots frightened of the future. –Dale Carrico
Consider this as the narration for a thirty-second radio spot, or some such, to mobilize the support of a mass constituency for genetic medicine who might otherwise be nervous about the destabilizing implications of radical genetic intervention: "They tried to say they supported life, but they really wanted to take away our freedom to choose. Now they want to say they support dignity when they really want to restrict our options for healthy lives. But we know our lives and our dignity are our own. Support our freedom to choose. Support the growth of useful knowledge and the expansion of our choices. Support genetic medicine."
I believe that advocates for research and development into genetic medicine should embrace Pro-Choice politics as conspicuously as possible. "Dignity Requires Choice" should be our motto. Sizable majorities already support Choice, and stressing the connection (which I think is a true one) looks like a winner to me.
I happen to believe that this connection is a useful one for advocates of the traditional politics of reproductive choice as well, which have sometimes seemed in recent years a bit muddled and defensive in the face of bio-conservative activism against reasonable abortion, contraception, and sex education policies. At least part of the reason the pernicious politics around so-called “partial-birth” abortion have managed to render a woman’s right to choose vulnerable when actual widespread support of Choice should make this nearly impossible is because the trajectory of technological development has introduced real confusions into the status of profound biological experiences like conception, birth, illness, and death.
We must all face the fact that the susceptibility of organisms to radical intervention has transformed the status of “viability” as a measure of when lives can properly be said to begin or to end, and as a stable benchmark against which to leverage intuitions about the proper scope of such intervention. This is a crisis in traditional meaning that is exacerbated by contemporary technological developments now on an almost day to day basis.
By embracing the technological forces that would expand the reach of reasonable individual choices over once-definitive biological limits, a hopeful politics of Choice can once again seize the initiative away from the bio-conservative politics of fear in this most intimate collision of technological forces with individual human bodies.
The feminist politics of Choice has sometimes already connected up the defense of reproductive choices to other political struggles that would defend and support choices that enrich individual lives and yet threaten traditional understandings of the natural limits of human bodies -- for example, the politics around queer forms of family, transgender rights, and ending the so-called War on Drugs. Therefore, I believe the feminist politics of Choice has already demonstrated its openness to a move like the one I am proposing here, connecting Choice to the politics of genetic medicine, the support of increased research, and the protection of multiplying therapeutic options. “Morphological freedom” is a word transhumanists have often used to name such a connection between a broader conception of the politics of Choice and the specific technological proliferation of choices available for the genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification of human bodies today and in the near and far-flung future.
It’s surely time to revive and expand the feminist slogan: “Keep Your Laws Off of My Body!” Who knows where this might end, this process of translating the politics of Choice from reproductive to morphological freedom? Certainly I can say it is more hopeful and inspiring and powerful by far to build a political coalition that would expand the field of freedom for all in an era of radical technological transformation than it is to defend a few fragile and threatened entitlements from harm from a few timid bigots frightened of the future. –Dale Carrico
<< Home