|
|
 |
Our bodies? Ourselves?
By Allen R. Sanderson. Allen R. Sanderson teaches economics at the University of Chicago
Published September 9, 2001
Popular slogans such as "keep your hands off my body" or "a woman's right to choose" are generally used in the context of only one contemporary and controversial issue: abortion. But any individual's right to choose what to do with her or his own self and the constraints society imposes on those choices are far more complex than can be put on a T-shirt or a bumper sticker.
All societies place some restrictions on individual behavior for the common good and protection for innocent third parties. Having good eyesight, passing a written examination and carrying adequate insurance as a condition for driving an automobile is one common example; not talking on a cellular phone while behind the wheel may be a newer variation on the same theme. However, where we stand on vexing social questions may be a function of where we sit personally, and the positions we hold are often quite inconsistent and contradictory.
Economists label situations in which one person's actions impose costs on others or society (or the environment) as "negative externalities." To some extent almost everything we do can affect others. My use of The Club to protect my car increases the probability of your car being stolen, yet I am allowed to purchase one. But in many jurisdictions I am not allowed a gun to protect myself or my home and family. Restrictions on drinking and driving would seem an obvious area for public interdiction, but current penalties are far too low to deter aberrant behavior or to cover the damages drunken drivers inflict on other people and property.
Instead, we crusade against smokers, though they more closely compensate than do drinkers in taxes paid and Social Security benefits not received (because of premature death) for their economic sins. This may have to do with the fact that more public officials drink than smoke nowadays and, contrary to popular opinion, bars, restaurants and beer distributors probably have more political clout than Big Tobacco.In recent years, the alleged freedom to "do anything we want just as long as we don't hurt anyone else" appears to contain a dwindling set of options. Concerns over Americans' favorite pastime, eating, with its attendant side effect, obesity, suggest that soon we may not have the right to weigh whatever we want. The "consumption police" would also like to limit our purchase of meat, sport-utility vehicles, fur and even perfume or cologne lest we somehow offend others. These proscriptions may soon extend to the conditions under which our coffee is produced and our sneakers are made.
Society also says that it is not our right to choose what drugs we can ingest, whether we want to wear a seat belt, purchase an automobile without a growing number of air bags or ride a motorcycle with only the wind in our hair. Mandatory bicycle helmets are just around the corner.
There are a lot of things we can do to and with our bodies that involve self-inflicted pain, such as getting tattoos and piercings. And if I am willing to suffer the social and financial consequences, I can also dress as I please and have the hairstyle and color I desire. But we exclude many other personal uses of our bodies: making ends meet, or even living quite well, by working as a prostitute, for example. Some would extend those prohibitions to posing nude for a magazine or "acting" in a pornographic film.
Society will go to great lengths to keep us from committing suicide and it prevents others from participating in assisted suicides. I cannot walk nude on a beach or down a city street. I am allowed to sell my blood but not a kidney. My government can force me in time of war to help defend my country and compel me to serve on a jury. It cannot require me to vote.
In the end, "just so long as you don't hurt anyone" is simply not a clear-cut criterion, nor is the line between what is legitimately someone else's business and simply meddling in others' figurative and literal affairs. The only logical conclusion one can often draw is that we not only want the freedom to make our own decisions, we also want the right to deny that freedom to others when we object to their choices. If posing nude or wearing fur is thought to cheapen, demean or coarsen, and opting to ride a motorcycle without a helmet may indirectly impose costs on others, then the same can certainly be true of having an abortion.
And thus other people--the father, the community-- may have a legitimate stake in that decision. Or it could just be one of those instances such as war, capital punishment, shooting someone in self-defense--and maybe physician-assisted suicide in the near future--in which society condones killing. If we do not want the government and neighbors in our bedrooms, it may behoove all of us to get out of our fellow citizens' refrigerators, closets, garages and faces.
Copyright © 2001, Chicago Tribune
|
|
|
