As a self-proclaimed rational liberal, I’ve long believed in the idea that people should be free to live their lives as they choose, so long as they’re not harming others. The state’s role, in my view, is to promote equality of opportunity through a robust social safety net. This worldview has championed landmark reforms on issues like race discrimination and same-sex marriage, coinciding with declining social prejudice. While I still see these as crucial markers of progress, I’ve come to realize the limitations of embracing liberalism as an all-encompassing political philosophy.
Recently, in making a new radio series called The Body Politic, I was forced to confront the shortcomings of my liberal beliefs head-on. The show explores what happens when thorny issues of bioethics, bodily autonomy, and life and death intersect with the political system. We focus on three topics with varying degrees of political salience: assisted dying, which is poised to dominate the coming months; surrogacy, where the government faces a key decision on whether to enact legal changes proposed by the Law Commission; and fetal screening and its implications for genetic diversity, a lower-profile but urgent issue.
The Liberal Lens and Its Blind Spots
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
While preventing coercion and exploitation is absolutely critical, focusing on that question in isolation from a deeper understanding of the relational nature of being human feels reductive. It has led to a narrow debate about whether adequate safeguards are possible. Proponents of the assisted dying bill argue that we should trust judges and doctors to discern who is and isn’t choosing death freely. I don’t share that faith at all. But in talking about safeguards in relation to the evidence, we pat ourselves on the back for how rational, liberal, and righteous we are.
Confronting My Own Moral Instincts
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
While preventing coercion and exploitation is absolutely critical, focusing on that question in isolation from a deeper understanding of the relational nature of being human feels reductive. It has led to a narrow debate about whether adequate safeguards are possible. Proponents of the assisted dying bill argue that we should trust judges and doctors to discern who is and isn’t choosing death freely. I don’t share that faith at all. But in talking about safeguards in relation to the evidence, we pat ourselves on the back for how rational, liberal, and righteous we are.
Confronting My Own Moral Instincts
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
On the left, the prevailing framework for understanding these issues is liberalism. The thinking goes that we shouldn’t restrict people’s choices – whether it’s asking someone to carry a baby for you or seeking medical help to end your own life if you’re terminally ill – unless those choices cause substantial harm to others. Even skeptics of legislative reform, myself included, have accepted this framing. As a result, the debate has centered on the risks of coercion and exploitation, as if these were simply kinks to be worked out before we get back to the heart of the matter: individual autonomy and control.
While preventing coercion and exploitation is absolutely critical, focusing on that question in isolation from a deeper understanding of the relational nature of being human feels reductive. It has led to a narrow debate about whether adequate safeguards are possible. Proponents of the assisted dying bill argue that we should trust judges and doctors to discern who is and isn’t choosing death freely. I don’t share that faith at all. But in talking about safeguards in relation to the evidence, we pat ourselves on the back for how rational, liberal, and righteous we are.
Confronting My Own Moral Instincts
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
On the left, the prevailing framework for understanding these issues is liberalism. The thinking goes that we shouldn’t restrict people’s choices – whether it’s asking someone to carry a baby for you or seeking medical help to end your own life if you’re terminally ill – unless those choices cause substantial harm to others. Even skeptics of legislative reform, myself included, have accepted this framing. As a result, the debate has centered on the risks of coercion and exploitation, as if these were simply kinks to be worked out before we get back to the heart of the matter: individual autonomy and control.
While preventing coercion and exploitation is absolutely critical, focusing on that question in isolation from a deeper understanding of the relational nature of being human feels reductive. It has led to a narrow debate about whether adequate safeguards are possible. Proponents of the assisted dying bill argue that we should trust judges and doctors to discern who is and isn’t choosing death freely. I don’t share that faith at all. But in talking about safeguards in relation to the evidence, we pat ourselves on the back for how rational, liberal, and righteous we are.
Confronting My Own Moral Instincts
The most challenging moments of the series were when the tables were turned and I was asked not where I stood on the evidence, but about my own beliefs. An old friend training to be a priest wondered where, given my atheistic skepticism about assisted dying, my commitment to the value of life comes from. I stumbled in trying to explain why my objections aren’t tied to anything as unseemly as the sanctity of life.
Later, a former high court judge and strong assisted dying advocate looked me in the eye, non-believer to non-believer, and said: “You are obviously a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of human life.” It gave me pause. Maybe I do – which doesn’t mean I think assisted dying is inherently immoral if it’s truly someone’s free will, but a belief that we can never be certain of this makes it wrong because the consequences are so dire.
Surrogacy and the Moral Status of the Fetus
When it comes to surrogacy, my longstanding reservations have centered on the exploitation of women who carry and give birth to babies for others. But more recently, I’ve had to confront other concerns that sit less comfortably with my liberal beliefs:
- I believe the fetus gains a moral status in later stages of pregnancy, meaning I can’t view gestation as a purely physical process.
- For me, there’s a relationship in late pregnancy between mother and baby-to-be that I’m not sure it’s right to sever lightly.
- I don’t think mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable in society at large. There is something valuable about the mother-child bond that perhaps shouldn’t be erased from discussions about enabling the conception of children who won’t have mothers.
The Ethics of Prenatal Screening
As prenatal screening potentially provides expecting parents with more information on the fetal genome, we need to think about where we draw the line in terms of what types of information form the basis of legitimate and illegitimate reproductive choices. The ability of parents to find out the sex of a fetus early in pregnancy through private tests paves the way for sex-selective abortions, for example.
We must also consider what the illusion of choice and control over who our children turn out to be does to our shared understanding of what it means to be a parent. These are challenging ethical questions that go beyond individual choice.
Embracing Moral Instincts Over Pure Reason
On the liberal left, there’s a certain shame associated with acknowledging moral instincts that can’t be fully explained through rational argument – a sense that beliefs lacking an evidence base should be discarded. But it would serve us well to remember that some things transcend evidence. Whether we consider ourselves liberal or not, we all have our own ethical codes. I believe it’s healthier to be transparent about them than to pretend they don’t exist and look down on those who refuse to do the same.
My experience in making The Body Politic has taught me that moral instinct isn’t the inferior cousin of reason. It’s an essential part of our humanity that we ignore at our peril. As we navigate the complex landscape of bioethics and the political questions it raises, we must strive to honor both our rational faculties and our deepest moral intuitions. Only then can we hope to craft policies that affirm the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its diversity.
