Here are some numbers: 5, 5, 5, 1, 3, 6. Here are some more numbers: 4, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2. The first set I got by rolling a die, and I just picked the second set myself. Which was the more moral arrangement of numbers? An odd question, I suppose. But people are currently asking the same question, albeit in a slightly different form. Here are some genes. Here are some other genes. Is it more moral to pick some of them, or to let them get arranged randomly?
Science is upon us like a hurricane. Although the choices are not as simple as "accept the information age in its entirety and worship at the altar of Bill Gates" versus "go off into the woods and live in a hole in the ground," we do need to start thinking seriously about what new technologies we wish to keep and what we wish to discard. And I think there are many more important areas to take a stand than on fighting for randomness in gene selection.
The growing disassociation of body and mind, for instance. As Stanworth discusses, part of the impact of technology has been to put an ever-increasing distance between the body of a person and their identity. The birth process, as she says, ceases to be a physical struggle by the woman, and becomes more of a conveyor belt, like a factory worker assembling cars. This body/mind dichotomy also relates to Bordo's article on the "rights" of the fetus when they come in conflict with its mother's wishes. If the body is viewed as somehow separate and lesser than the mind, then of course there is no problem causing temporary harm to the body (of the woman) in order to allow a new identity (the fetus) to survive.
This detachment is dangerous not just because it can lead into dangerous intrusions onto the body, but because we are fundamentally creatures of both the mental and physical worlds. Our humanity has two halves. By denying one, we lose something. This is as visible in the fact that internet relationships rarely hold up when the people meet in person as it is in the fact that the first step in any genocide is to deny your enemy is a thinking being as you are.
The overriding of someone's rights "for their own good" is nothing new, and so I wonder a bit at Bordo's depiction of the pro-life viewpoint as opposed to every other principle of American democracy. Laws about drugs, smoking, guns, and speed limits are just a few of the places where the powers that be have determined us incapable of doing what's best for ourselves and so they feel the need to step in. Also, I can't seem to see the "father's rights" viewpoint as being as clearly false as she does. Presumably this is mainly due to the difference in our genders, but it seems to me that to say fathers have no rights in determining whether or not to abort is a bit excessive.
But, then again, perhaps the debate will become unnecessary. After all, the third article speaks of male pregnancy, and children raised in bubbles. Squier raises important points about the dehumanization possible from these sorts of new technologies, but despite their potential for abuse, I, personally, am optimistic that they will eventually lead to more freedom and humanity for individuals, not less.