By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
Who gets to decide when it comes to bodily autonomy?
Where does one draw the line over whose rights are worthy of protecting? And how do present-day legal debates over bodily autonomy, privacy, vaccine mandates, the death penalty, and abortion, play into future discussions about singularity, artificial intelligence, cloning, and the privacy rights of the individual in the face of increasingly invasive, intrusive, and unavoidable government technologies?
Caught up in the heated debate over the legality of abortion, we’ve failed to think about what’s coming next. Get ready, because it could get scary, ugly, and overwhelming, really fast.
Thus far, abortion politics have largely revolved around who has the right to decide, the government or the individual, when it comes to bodily autonomy, the right to privacy in one’s body, sexual freedom, and the rights of the unborn.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides for a “right to privacy” that assures a woman’s right to abort her pregnancy within the first two trimesters.
Since that landmark ruling, abortion has been so politicized, polarized and propagandized as to render it a major front line in the culture wars.
Fifty years later, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court is recently revisited whether the Constitution—namely, the Fourteenth Amendment—truly provides for the right to an abortion.
No matter how the Supreme Court rules in Dobbs, it will not resolve the problem of a culture that values life based on a sliding scale. Nor will it help us navigate the moral, ethical, and scientific mine fields that await us as technology and humanity move ever closer to a point of singularity.
Here’s what I know.
Life is an inalienable right. By allowing the government to decide who or what is deserving of rights, it shifts the entire discussion from one in which we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” (that of life, liberty property and the pursuit of happiness) to one in which only those favored by the government get to enjoy such rights.
If all people are created equal, then all lives should be equally worthy of protection. There’s an idea embraced by both the Right and the Left according to their biases that there is a hierarchy to life, with some lives worthier of protection than others. Out of that mindset is born the seeds of eugenics, genocide, slavery, and war.
There is no hierarchy of freedoms. All freedoms hang together. Freedom cannot be a piece-meal venture. Cardinal Bernardin warns, to have a “consistent ethic of life” means that all threats to life must be viewed as immoral: “[N]uclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale. Abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale. Public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history, and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated. Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality. They cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.”
Beware slippery slopes. To suggest that the end justifies the means (for example, that abortion is justified in order to ensure a better quality of life for women and children) is to encourage a slippery slope mindset that could just as reasonably justify ending a life in order for the great good of preventing war, thwarting disease, defeating poverty, preserving national security. Such arguments have been used in the past to justify such dubious propositions as subjecting segments of the population to secret scientific experiments, unleashing nuclear weapons on innocent civilians, and enslaving fellow humans.
Beware double standards. As the furor surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates make clear, the debate over bodily autonomy and privacy goes beyond the singular right to abortion. Indeed, as vaccine mandates have been rolled out, long-held positions have been reversed: Many of those who historically opposed the government usurping a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and privacy have no qualms about supporting vaccine mandates that trample upon those very same rights. Similarly, those who historically looked to the government to police what a woman does with her body believe the government should have no authority to dictate whether or not one opts to get vaccinated.
What’s next? Up until now, we have largely focused the privacy debate in the physical realm as it relates to abortion rights, physical searches of our persons and property, and our communications. Yet humanity is being propelled at warp speed into a whole new frontier when it comes to privacy, bodily autonomy, and what it means to be a human being.
We haven’t even begun to understand how to talk about these new realms, let alone establish safeguards to protect against abuses.
Humanity itself hangs in the balance.
Remaining singularly human and retaining your individuality and dominion over yourself—mind, body and soul—in the face of corporate and government technologies that aim to invade, intrude, monitor, manipulate, and control us may be one of the greatest challenges before us.
Clearly, we are rapidly moving into the posthuman era, one in which humans will become a new type of being through singularity, a marriage of sorts between machine and human beings in which artificial intelligence and the human brain will merge to form a superhuman mind.
Transhumanism—the fusing of machines and people—will continue to grow.
All of this indicates a new path forward for large corporations and government entities that want to achieve absolute social control.
It is slavery in another form.
Yet, we must never stop working to protect life, preserve our freedoms and maintain some semblance of our humanity.
Abortion, vaccine mandates, transhumanism: These are all points along the continuum.
Even so, there will be others. For instance, analysts are speculating whether artificial intelligence, which eventually will dominate all emerging technologies, could come to rule the world and enslave humans. How will a world dominated by artificial intelligence redefine what it means to be human and exercise free will?
Scientists say the world’s first living robots can now reproduce. What rights are these “living” organisms entitled to? For that matter, what about clones?
These are ethical dilemmas without any clear-cut answers. Yet one thing is certain: I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, putting the power to determine who gets to live or die in the hands of the government is a dangerous place to start.
—The Rutherford Institute