In his book, The Lives to Come, Phillip Kitcher gives an introduction into the science behind human enhancements and biomedical research, and he poses problems that may, and probably will, arise in the future as the science presses onward. He speaks favorably of the science, but he seems apprehensive about the social implications and the human application of the science. As possible solutions to future conflicts, Kitcher addresses, among others, two issues that are prominent in American politics today: health care and selective abortion. He believes, that in order to prevent a division of classes or the emergence of a new stereotype as poor people as diseased, we must embrace a comprehensive, or as some would say, a socialized health care system. Additionally, he sees selective abortion, in light of better prenatal testing, as an inevitability and as as reawakening of the fear of Nazi eugenics. Kitcher wrote his book in the 90’s, but currently, many of these issues have become a reality. Comprehensive health care is not only on the table, but a reality with the current health care legislation which extends health care benefits to young adults in school, requires all Americans to have health coverage, attempts to lower the cost of coverage etc. “Abortion Wars” (as one headline read) are breaking out in Washington, and a line between pro choice and pro life is more apparent than it has been in years. Biomedical research is also accelerating at a rapid rate, and this new legislation, and the American people, need to take the science into account.
I agree with Kicther in that the best way to prevent prominent class divides from emerging is to have a more comprehensive health care system in place that does not exclude certain groups or individuals; however, as one can see by reading any news contributor, the debate over health care is loaded and volatile. And, as it stands now, this piece of legislation does not even account for what science will surely bring us; I cannot imagine the division that will happen when expensive biomedical enhancements and treatments are added into mix. Do not increase our taxes: one of the main complaints against the health care legislation. But this debate will only become more heated if these expensive treatments are accounted for within the system; the treatments are more expensive so the more money we will have to spit out to make these treatments available to all citizens at an affordable rate. Currently, abortion is not covered by health insurance companies, but should it be accounted for as prenatal testing becomes more accurate? As I said previously, a thick line has been drawn between pro choice and pro life in the current debates over abortions, and this is counter productive to the future that Kitcher has in mind. Drawing a line for abortion and creating a zero sum game, ethics is brought to the forefront of the argument. If one is pro choice through and through, is that person being ethical by allowing a fetus to live when that born child will develop a degenerative disease like Tay-Sachs? Is it ethical to bring a child into the world that will suffer through its life, a life that is inevitably prone to premature death? These lines allow for no such questioning or critiquing. Further, will people who do opt to selectively abort a baby on these grounds be accused of violating the sanctity of life? Or will we have to deconstruct and re-evaluate our conception of the sanctity of life? These are questions that must be asked and Kitcher encourages us to do so, but by drawing bi-partisan political lines for things like health care and selective abortion, we cannot ask these questions and we stymie ourselves for future progress. These lines in the sand set up a debate style arguments or an either/or logical fallacy that we cannot escape and all rational conversation shuts down. We need to start looking toward the future as science presses onward despite our bi partisan ways; only at this point can we start to see a bigger picture, both ethically and scientifically.
-Leila McNeill