Genetically Correct: The Political Use of Reproductive Terminology

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Pepperdine Law Review

Abstract

This article explores three sets of words that emerge as rallying points for social acceptance. Each set has in some way been advanced with the representation that it corresponds with protecting or promoting the "basic freedom" of reproductive choice. The ensuing discussion raises the question of whether the labeling does, in fact, advance choice, or whether, as John Finnis observes, the language is being used instrumentally to get the collaboration of others. Part One traces the origin of the term "preembryo" and its infusion into legal discourse. This classification was an important hallmark for the acceptance of reproductive technologies because it oriented an isolation of the extracorporeal embryo as a separate object from the more developed embryo. This enabled its devaluation and established the premise for later exploitation possibilities. Part Two highlights emergency contraception because of its recent consideration for over-the-counter purchases that would be sanctioned by a federal agency and that would suggest a contra-contraception function. Part Three considers terminology related to a relatively new clinical feature on the ART horizon, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This section poses the problem of misconception about PGD. The language used to portray the processes accompanying PGD fails to convey a true picture of the process. The lack of understanding is likely to encourage both use and acceptance rather than promote informed choice. To compound the problem, there is a general lack of legal oversight over PGD, which manipulates the early in vitro embryo. Acceptance would most likely not have been possible without the normalization of a devalued "preembryo."

First Page

1

Last Page

37

Publication Date

2004

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS