Wow, I thought I had lost this article forever. I wrote it back in 2002 and misplaced every copy I had of it. I recently found it and am now reproducing it here.
______
It’s hard to decide which is more frustrating, the proposal or the lack of uproar from women’s groups.
On November 1, 2002, the World Congress of Bioethics will conduct a special session in Brazil entitled "Towards an International Ethical, Social and Political Accord on Human Cloning and Human Species-Alteration."
A memorandum sent out to conference attendees in advance of the session explicitly targets women’s groups. "Supporters of women’s health and reproductive rights have particularly pressing reasons for concern over human cloning and inheritable genetic modification (IGM).1 Human cloning and IGM could not be developed without unethical experimentation on women and children," it notes.
"These technologies would diminish women’s control over their reproductive decisions, and subject them to pressures to produce the ‘perfect baby,’" it goes on. "Some advocates of cloning and IGM are attempting to appropriate the language of reproductive choice, blurring the critical difference between the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the selection of a future child’s genetic makeup."
After reading the memorandum, I was flabbergasted. Are the authors—Richard Hayes, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society, and Rosario Isasi, of the University of Toronto—actually suggesting that strict limitations and moratoriums on inheritable genetic modification will help women retain the rights necessary for reproductive choice and autonomy?
Few Feminists Fight
As far as I’m concerned, this is another affront to women’s entitlements to control their body’s reproductive processes. So why have so few women spoken out?
After seeing little feminist reaction to the Hayes and Isasi memorandum, I’m forced to acknowledge a dangerous vacuum in Transhumanist [one who believes human beings can be improved by science and technology] and progressive bioethicist circles: there are very few vocal feminists fighting for women’s rights to control the genetic makeup of their offspring.
The most well-known Transhumanist feminist I can think of is Donna Haraway, who in 1984 famously wrote "A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s." In the manifesto, Haraway proposed that women use technology to further liberate themselves from limited and constraining biological processes. But only a few people jumped on board—such as Gill Kirkup, Linda Janes, Kathryn Woodward, Fiona Hovenden and Anne Balsamo.
Why such little interest in feminist bioethics? After thinking about the problem, I propose three possible reasons:
- Techno-culture: Transhumanism and other future-oriented movements tend to be dominated by educated white males that have been immersed in computer and related technology cultures. The dearth of women pursuing science and technology careers has contributed to this situation.
- Naturalistic focus: Contemporary feminism has been quite hostile and suspicious of futurists in general, preferring to celebrate naturalistic womanhood and female biological processes.
- Inadequate outreach: Perhaps most significantly, progressive bioethicists have done an inadequate job of reaching out to the feminist community. In many ways it is our fault—and not the fault of the feminists—that the use of future reproductive technologies has not become a feminist issue.
So, what should feminist bioethicists be concerned about? A quick run-through of the World Congress of Bioethics letter reveals several important issues and misconceptions that should be immediately addressed.
The Perfect-Baby Fallacy
The first is the perfect-baby fallacy. With human cloning and inheritable genetic modification, Hayes and Isasi are concerned that women will be compelled to have "perfect babies." In their mind, this would decrease women’s reproductive control and choice. In my mind, women should be more concerned about pressure from governments and misinformed special-interest groups that force them to reject progressive and beneficial health technologies. Through the extension and development of reproductive technologies, women will have more control over their bodies, not less.
Not only that, trying to achieve "perfect babies" is something women have always done, adapting new methods and technologies as they become available. Before and during pregnancies today, for example, women take folic acid to reduce the chance that their baby will be born with spina bifida. In addition, most women have prenatal screening, stop drinking and smoking, strive to eat a healthier and more balanced diet, take prenatal exercise classes, rest their bodies as much as possible and often take early maternity leave.
And even after babies are born, most women don’t stop wanting the best for them. They will read about the latest in parenting—in everything from psychology books to parenting magazines. They will also make efforts to socialize children as responsibly as possible, aiming to place their kids in the best available daycares and schools. And they will most likely have their kids vaccinated, see a doctor regularly for a checkup and see a specialist for any cognitive or physical problems.
Once more technologies are available to ensure healthy children, women using them will not be bowing down to social pressures to create "perfect babies." Rather, they will do what they have always done: they will endeavor to have the healthiest and fittest children as is medically possible.
Finding Little Difference Between Termination and Selection
The second thing feminist bioethicists should be concerned about is the distinction between termination and choice. Hayes and Isasi claim that there is a critical difference between the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and the selection of a future child’s genetic makeup. I am having great trouble trying to understand what this "critical" difference is.
Currently, couples have very little control over the makeup of their offspring. A child’s genetic characteristics are fixed at the point of conception, and prospective parents pray that he or she will be strong and healthy and won’t have genetic diseases.
If an embryo does show signs of disease, women can terminate a pregnancy. It seems only logical then that we should extend this right to the prevention of diseases in the first place—giving couples the control they have always sought but that to date has only been available in a crude form.
So despite what Hayes and Isasi claim, there is very little difference between termination and selection. They are on the same spectrum, and in some ways selection is merely a more proactive approach.
The Risks of an Outright Ban
Now, all this isn’t to say that I’m in favour of rampant cloning and genetic modification. As Hayes and Isasi rightfully point out, human cloning and inheritable genetic modification could lead to unethical experimentation on women and children. Also, both are grossly underdeveloped and even dangerous today.
But this is no reason to ban them outright. It is a reason for proper monitoring and development. An outright ban would only drive cloning and genetic modification underground, where it may hurt women in the same way as clandestine abortions.
Unless feminists get involved, however, a ban may very well be what we get, as conservative bioethicists use the veil of women’s rights to implement their agenda. The lack of vocal opposition gives the impression of agreement and support. Is this really in women’s best interest?
Footnotes
1. Human cloning involves the replacement of the DNA in a female egg with the DNA of another person. When this egg is implanted into the womb of the mother, as in in vitro fertilization, the embryo develops into a fetus and is born after nine months, just like any other baby. The cloned baby shares the same exact DNA as the person whose DNA was injected into the egg cell, not unlike identical twins. A couple that is unable to conceive and does not want to use the DNA of another person might choose to use the DNA of one parent; thus producing an identical twin of that parent. No case of human cloning has yet been officially documented. IGM alters the genes in early embryos. Parents who choose IGM may hope to prevent their child from inheriting a debilitating or deadly disease or perhaps even determine their child’s physical attributes such as hair or eye color.
- Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.13 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Limits to the biolibertarian impulse - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.15 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty, Round II - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.17 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Cognitive liberty and right to one's mind - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- TED Talks: Henry Markram builds a brain in a supercomputer - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- And Now, for Something Completely Different: Doomsday! - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.19 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Oklahoma and abortion - some fittingly harsh reflections - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Pigliucci on science and the scope of skeptical inquiry - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Remembering Mac Tonnies - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.24 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.10.26 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- The Bright Side of Nuclear Armament - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Grieving chimps - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Elephant prosthetic - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Mass produced artificial skin to replace animal testing - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Dog gets osseointegrated prosthetic - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- NASA Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle Concept - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump for 2009.02.02 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump for 2009.11.04 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Link dump for 2009.11.05 - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- IEET's Biopolitics of Popular Culture Seminar - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Einstein and Millikan should have done a Kurzweil - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Affective Death Spirals - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Cure aging or give a small number of disabled people jobs as janitors? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Would unary notation prevent scope insensitivity? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Cure aging or give a small number of disabled people jobs as janitors - unary version. - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- At SENS4, Cambridge, UK - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- SENS4 overview and review - how evolution complicates SENS, and why we must try harder - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- SENS4 top 10 photos - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research for this year - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research: Formal Logic - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research: Category theory and institution theory - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research: The Semantic Web - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research: Features and Flaws of Logical representation - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- My AI research: Graphical models and probabilistic logics - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Hughes and More engage Italian Catholicism: Image caption competition - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Surprisingly good solutions, falling in love and life in a materialistic universe - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- What do you get when you cross slightly evolved, status seeking monkeys with the scientific method? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Seeking the optimal philanthropic strategy: Global Warming or AI risk? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Machine Learning - harbinger of the future of AI? - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- At the Singularity Summit in NYC - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Katja Grace: world-dominating superintelligence is "unlikely" - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Normal Human Heroes on "Nightmare futures" - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Anissimov on Intelligence Enhancement - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Yudkowsky on "Value is fragile" - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Response to Pearce - November 8th, 2009 [November 8th, 2009]
- Creative thinking lets you believe whatever you want - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Let’s get metaphysical: How our ongoing existence could appear increasingly absurd - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Linda MacDonald Glenn guest blogging in November and December - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Link dump for 2009.11.15 - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Call 1-800-New-Organ, by 2020? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- IBM's claim to have simulated a cat's brain grossly overstated - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- John Hodgman pulls off Fermi Paradox schtick - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Deus Sex Machina - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- How Americans spent themselves into ruin... but saved the world - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- I am my own grandpa (or grandma)? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Link dump for 2009.11.29 - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The art of Tomas Saraceno - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.12.05 - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The Harmonic Convergence of Science, Sight, & Sound - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Working on my website - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Transhumanism, personal immortality and the prospect of technologically enabled utopia - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- RokoMijic.com is up - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Why the Fuss About Intelligence? - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Initiation ceremony - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Birthing Gods - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- 11 core rationalist skills - from LessWrong - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The best of the guests - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- The best of Sentient Developments: 2009 - December 13th, 2009 [December 13th, 2009]
- Link dump: 2009.12.15 - December 15th, 2009 [December 15th, 2009]
- The Utopia Force - December 22nd, 2009 [December 22nd, 2009]
- Avatar: The good, the bad and ugly - December 23rd, 2009 [December 23rd, 2009]
- Singularity Institute launches "2010 Singularity Research Challenge" - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- Transhumanism as a "nonissue" - December 24th, 2009 [December 24th, 2009]
- Hanson on "Meh, Transhumanism" - December 25th, 2009 [December 25th, 2009]
- Merry Newtonmas from Transhuman Goodness - December 25th, 2009 [December 25th, 2009]