TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Introduction - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0001
[reproductive genetic technologies, Tay-Sachs, embryos, genetic carrier, religious]
There is a revolution under way in how babies come into being that may change the entire society. Reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) allow parents to influence the genetic qualities of their offspring more precisely than through “normal” fertilization by a sperm and an egg after sex. Currently possible and potential technologies include genetic carrier screening, fetal testing followed by abortion, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, sex-determining sperm sorting, human genetic engineering, and reproductive cloning. The least controversial application of RGTs is to make sure that children do not have deadly childhood diseases such as Tay-Sachs. Embryos are also being screened by couples to make sure their children do not suffer from a strong squint, deafness, or dwarfism. Even technologies long considered to be in the realm of science fiction now appear to be on the horizon. This chapter provides an understanding of opposition to RGTs by inductively examining the reasons people give for their opposition to RGTs. Generally, the religious are opposed to RGTs and the applications of RGTs more than the nonreligious, but a more subtle answer is to identify the characteristics of different RGTs that tend to fall on either side of the moral divide between approval and disapproval. (pages 1 - 36)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
The History of Abortion, Reproductive Genetic Technologies, and the Contemporary Public's Views - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0002
[reproductive genetic technologies, eugenicists, genetic qualities, embryos, recessive diseases]
This chapter delves deeply into the history of reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) and into the history of the abortion debate. Examining RGTs from “the beginning” to the present reveals two clear trends. The first is increasing precision. The second trend is that in the past people who were not going to be parents before, now are trying to determine the genetic qualities of their children. The ancient Greeks thought that babies were the result of the “coagulation” of sperm and menstrual fluid, and both transmitted characteristics because both contained the “seed” contributed by all parts of the body that blended to produce the baby. Through careful experimentation, the concepts of dominant and recessive traits were discovered and the plant received one “chromosome” from each parent. Reform eugenicists believed that there were valuable characteristics across all classes and racial groups. The American eugenics movement was seen as a progressive social reform movement, as a way to solve “scientifically” social problems. Geneticists had made great strides in understanding the probabilities that children would inherit single-gene recessive diseases. Scientists have found that stem cells from embryos could potentially cure various diseases by being turned into useful tissues. The demonstration of the conclusions that different people reach about these technologies is only the first step toward understanding opposition to RGTs and the effectiveness of a future debate. (pages 37 - 55)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Talking about Embryonic Life - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0003
[embryonic life discourse, abortion, reproductive genetic technologies, survey, embryonic death]
This chapter is concerned with embryonic life discourse, which is the primary discourse used to oppose abortion in the United States. Embryonic life discourse is important because so many people use it to oppose a range of reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs). The chapter evaluates the possibility of deliberation regarding RGTs across the abortion divide. Surveys by social scientists which include interviewees from liberal religious groups tend to argue that abortion for cystic fibrosis is an acceptable alternative, and members of conservative traditions are less likely to make this case. The discussions with the pro-lifers who only use the embryonic life discourse show how this exclusive use would preclude the merger of the abortion issue with RGTs that do not result in embryonic death. While surveys can be used to evaluate the prevalence and representativeness of discourses in a population, they have limitations. Such a survey only shows that the respondent uses these discourses for RGTs in general. It cannot show which RGT they are using them for, whether they also use them for abortion, or whether these discourses are salient enough that they would use them if they were not prompted by the survey. (pages 56 - 68)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Nature, God, Humanity, and Promethean Fatalism - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0004
[nature, humanity, God, promethean fatalism, discourse]
This chapter explores the variety of discourse used by both the opponents and the proponents of reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) that focus on the concepts of nature, God, and humanity. In addition to the general discourse about “nature,” as well as the specific Promethean fatalist discourse, the chapter also describes the related discourses of natural law and hubris. Promethean fatalism is used by the strongest opponents of RGTs, and the other discourses used by the (relative) proponents. This chapter also examines whether the oppositional discourse of Promethean fatalism is used by the prolifers to oppose both abortion and RGTs, which would contribute to a merger of the issues. When academic and activist proponents of RGTs describe the God they think opponents believe in, they describe a Promethean fatalist God that reserves certain powers or a hyper-Promethean fatalist God, where there are no powers allocated to humans, and any modification of nature is stealing from God. (pages 69 - 104)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Human Dignity and Equality of Treatment - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0005
[human dignity, secular bioethics, reproductive genetic technologies, social equality, humanity]
The term human dignity has been used extensively in bioethical debates about reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs). Secular bioethics in the United States studiously avoid the term human dignity but embrace the more specific term of “autonomy”. Among religious bioethicists, one of the primary sources of the idea of human dignity is the Jewish and Christian traditions that attribute a supreme worth to humanity because humans have a special relationship with God. This discourse claims that it is wrong to pick and choose between any two particular people because of a characteristic, because all should be equal. The most socially expansive discourse about dignity and equality claims that one should treat entire groups equally, and RGTs threaten that social equality through creating genetically defined groups and creating yet another opportunity to treat those without money unequally. (pages 105 - 126)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Meaningful Suffering - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0006
[suffering, reproductive genetic technologies, discourse, genetic diagnosis, God, religious tradition]
A central moral discourse concerning reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) relates to the relief of suffering. This chapter examines some academic writing about how medicine and science describe suffering to help understand what is at stake here. RGTs are useful for the elimination of pain, suffering, or both. Using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to avoid having a child with cystic fibrosis could be justified as an attempt to reduce both the literal pain that a child would experience with the condition, as well as the suffering of that child and the family. A discourse can be traced back to debates about the nature of the Trinity in the fourth century, which were largely debates about the nature of God. This discourse implies that “the optimal response to suffering” is not to stop it (which God would presumably be capable of doing), but rather to “suffer through” it, like God does. These discourses of suffering are not equally used in each religious tradition. (pages 127 - 151)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Will Religious Discourse about Reproductive Genetic Technologies Limit Debate? - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0007
[religious discourse, public sphere, reproductive genetic technologies, Hunter's culture, secular claims]
Scholars have long been concerned that specifically religious discourse in the public sphere would have a particularly negative impact on willingness to deliberate. This concern is reflected in Hunter's culture wars theory, which is based on other long-standing intellectual traditions. The liberal theorists' solution is that people should use “public reason” in the public sphere—arguments that can be justified using discourse that everyone shares. A good portion of the public clearly believes in using religious discourse in the public sphere. Religious discourse is used by religious people to both legitimate their secular claims and to make themselves better understood, since they cannot create separate religious and secular selves. Examination of the interviews shows, first, that people want to talk with people from other religious traditions about reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), as well as about the religious presuppositions behind their views about RGTs. (pages 152 - 170)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Conclusions - John H. Evans
DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226222707.003.0008
[human reproduction, genetic diagnosis, pro-lifers, preimplantation, health domain]
New technological achievement in human reproduction are emerging at a dizzying speed, with very little or no opportunity for the public to debate their merits. The first and probably most anticipated is the embryonic life discourse. Abortion for cystic fibrosis, preimplantation genetic diagnosis for deafness, and human genetic engineering for cystic fibrosis are all for one group of persons acceptable because they improve the health of someone, be it through bringing a healthier person into the world or modifying an existing person to make them and their offspring healthier. On the other hand, the pro-lifers do not place the same issues in their health-related domain. They oppose abortion and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for cystic fibrosis, but they do approve of human genetic engineering for cystic fibrosis. Their “health” domain is better described as “medicine” and is limited to reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) where currently existing people are modified to help the health of themselves and their offspring. (pages 171 - 192)
This chapter is available at:
https://academic.oup.com/chica...
Appendix A. Methodological Appendix
Appendix B. Religious Respondent Interview Guide
Notes
Works Cited
Index
