Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
R b
n rB b
T h
nd th
Pr
nt
D br
Dissent, Volume 54, Number 3, Summer 2007 (whole No. 228), pp.
37-43 (Article)
P bl h d b
nv r t
f P nn
DOI: 10.1353/dss.2007.0043
lv n
Pr
the link
between sex and reproduction has
weakened. Feminist activism,
aided by technological advances, has given
middle-class women in the United States widespread access to effective contraception and
safe, legal abortion. Although far too many exceptions persist, for large numbers of women,
sex today has no necessary relationship to
childbearing. Meanwhile, a burgeoning fertility industry has, for thousands, taken babymaking from the bedroom to the laboratory.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) does not merely
help the infertile to procreate; increasingly, it
allows parents to determine the genetic makeup of their offspring. Initially, preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD) targeted severe childhood diseases, such as Tay-Sachs and sickle
cell anemia. Now, more parents use it to screen
out genes for late-onset, treatable diseases,
such as colon cancer; sex selection is also popular. According to a 2006 survey conducted by
the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns
Hopkins University, 42 percent of 137 IVFPGD clinics allowed parents to select for gender. Scientists predict that parents will be able
to choose such characteristics as blue eyes or
curly hair. Less certain, but plausible, is that
scientists will be able to identify genes for more
complex traits, such as intelligence and homosexuality. Genetic engineering, which will enable not merely the selection but the insertion
of desired genes, is on the horizon. In the United States, this rapidly advancing technology is
unchecked by any regulatory mechanism.
It will emerge as an important political issue, complicated by competing values, such as
individual liberty and social equality. Nowhere
will this tension be more conspicuous than in
VER THE LAST CENTURY,
DESIGNER BABIES
-1\4
EANWHILE, THE
DESIGNER BABIES
pro-choice movement is
under siege to a greater degree than any
time since 1973, a situation that has led
it to reassess its strategy. Now, some supporters of abortion rights want to move beyond the
stagnant terms of the debate. Efforts to rethink
the conventional approach are evident in the
work of Frances Kissling, former president of
Catholics for a Free Choice; "reproductive justice" advocates, including Loretta Ross; mainstream players in the Democratic Party, such
as George Lakoff, a linguist and consultant;
and would-be presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton; as well as many other feminists and
activists. The term "choice" itself has come
under scrutiny, often criticized as a problematic concept and a weak and morally flaccid
competitor with "life." Recent documents, such
as Beyond Choice, a 2004 book by Alexander
Sanger, grandson of Margaret and chair of the
International Planned Parenthood Council,
and More than a Choice, a 2006 paper by the
Center for American Progress, reflect this attitude.
Choice rhetoric has seeped into other aspects of feminism as well, with mixed results.
Linda Hirschman caused a stir in 2005 with
an article in the A merican Prospect decrying
"choice feminism"the notion that staying
home with the kids is as feminist as working,
provided that it's the woman's "choice." Her
article focused on the "mommy wars" debate,
but the same rationale can apply to other aspects of female life. Some women assert that
anything from wearing lipstick to topless dancing can be a feminist act, because a woman is
empowered by her choice to perform it. (Ariel
Levy discusses this phenomenon in her book
Female Chauvinist Pigs.) Hirschman argued
that women, with the goal of collective advancement in mind, ought to aggressively pursue high-power, high-paying positions.
Although I don't agree with everything
Hirschman wrotefor instance, that we
should eschew low-paying, socially beneficial
work in favor of cutthroat corporate success
I think she was onto something. "Choice feminism" is uncomfortably close to the ethos of
URRENTLY, THE
DESIGNER BABIES
DESIGNER BABIES
genes. The result could be an increased tendency to see children as commodities and status markers; on the other hand, parents who
choose to forgo these measures could be seen
as negligent.
Clearly, there is great potential for good as
well as harm in these technologies. They
shouldn't be left, as they currently are, entirely
to the market. It's time for a society-wide conversation about their use and abuse. The United
States is lagging in this regard. Many countries,
mostly in Europe, but also Canada, Australia,
and Trinidad and Tobago have passed laws or
regulations restricting or proscribing various
kinds of genetic modifications. The United
Kingdom has the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which licenses and
monitors all fertility clinics.
Responses and Political Possibilities
This issue creates strange bedmates. The common political assumption is that conservatives
would oppose the potentially radical change
promised by reprogenetic technologies, while
liberals would embrace the scientific progress
they represent. And indeed, the religious right,
concerned about the embryo and the blasphemy of playing God, condemns them, while
some liberals are more inclined to welcome
them on the grounds of "progress"and, perhaps, in opposition to "culture of life" priorities. At the same time, economic libertarians
oppose regulation of this three-billion-dollara-year industry, and a fringe of neo-eugenicists
wants to create a super race. Qualms on the
left include the potential exacerbation of inequalities, the eugenic overtones, and the environmental implications of meddling with nature.
Other progressive contingents have their
worries. Disability activists are wary of technologies that essentially aim to eliminate their
community. Gay and lesbian people have an
especially complex relationship to assisted reproductive technology. I spoke to staff at the
GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) Community Center in New York,
who said that to the extent that it helps them
have genetically related families, they welcome
the technology. But if a "gay gene" is ever identified, their communities, too, could be threat-
ened. Many feminists are troubled by sex selection, but fear that regulating any aspect of
reproduction could jeopardize abortion rights.
The relevant legal infrastructure adds another complication. The court decisions that
uphold rights valued by progressives could also
afford protection to the right to design babies.
This applies to all of the major cases affirming
the right to contraception and abortion: Griswold and Roe, but also Eisenstadt v. Baird
(1972), which recognized the right of unmarried people to use contraception, and even
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which allowed some restrictions on abortion but reiterated the essential right of people to make
decisions regarding reproduction. Further,
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), hailed by the left for
striking down sodomy laws, dramatically limits the ability of government to restrict personal
decisions "absent injury to a person or abuse
of an institution the law protects." Although
progressives welcome these freedoms, the implications for the unfettered use of reprogenetic technologies are disturbing. (Of course, the
recent decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart raises
questions about the durability of these liberties under the current Supreme Court.)
Legal issues aside, in the court of public
opinion reproductive rights may be conflated
with a libertarian view on genetic technologies.
University of Texas law professor John Robertson has defended the use of reprogenetic technologies on the grounds of "procreative liberty" His argument goes like this: people have
the right to procreate; sometimes the choice
whether to procreate depends on the qualities
of the prospective offspring; therefore, enhancement must be permitted (although he
endorses limited restrictions). British author
Nicholas Agar, in his recent book Liberal Eugenics, writes, "The eugenics defended here [is]
primarily concerned with the protection and
extension of reproductive freedom." Thus can
the concept of reproductive choice be appropriated and abused.
DESIGNER BABIES
by the focus on abortion but who share concerns about related issues, including the abuse
of reprogenetic technologies.
The concept of reproductive justice has already made inroads into the mainstream movement. The pro-choice movement eludes generalization, because different organizations
have different priorities and approaches, but
many parts of it have already begun to shift
toward a social justice focus and a broader platform. The literature of Choice USA, a fifteenyear-old organization founded by Gloria
Steinem, uses the term reproductive justice,
and Planned Parenthood sponsored a conference in 2005 at Smith College titled "Reproductive Justice for All."
Concerns about reprogenetics have also surfaced. The Planned Parenthood conference devoted a quarter of the agenda to reproductive
technologies. The Center for Genetics and
Society, billed as "a pro-choice organization
working for sensible policies on genetic engineering technology," aims to initiate and facilitate conversations about the subject. One
effort was a retreat in October 2006 with representatives from various progressive organizations, including Planned Parenthood, Choice
USA, the ACLU, the disability rights group Not
Dead Yet, and the LGBT Community Center
of New York.
According to Sujatha Jesudason of the Center for Genetics and Society, the groups that
attended that retreat were enthusiastic about
continuing the conversations within their own
organizations and forming coalitions to address
the issue. The pro-choice advocates in particular started a process of reflection on the tensionsbetween individual liberties and social
justicethat are especially prominent in their
movement.
In contemplating regulation, an example
from the past might prove illuminating. In
1975, in New York, a multiracial coalition
called the Advisory Committee on Sterilization
helped implement guidelines for regulating
sterilization, including a mandatory waiting
period. The aim was to ensure informed consent, because so many poor minority women
had been sterilized without it, in haste.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL opposed the
restrictions, arguing that they infringed on re-
DESIGNER BABIES
productive freedom. (White women, who frequently could not persuade doctors to sterilize
them, did not want to make the process more
cumbersome.) This conflict was perhaps the
clearest manifestation of the discordant outlooks of different feminists.
The opposition of the mainstream groups
was understandable, but it also reflected a degree of myopia. Likewise, Margaret Sanger was
so single-minded in the promotion of her cause
that she endorsed wrongheaded ideas that she
believed would serve it. Now, we who support
abortion rights may fear that regulating reproductive technologies could endanger our cause.
There is no doubt that maintaining the legality of abortionand fighting to reverse harmful restrictions of itis paramount. But it is
43