Catholic Eugenics?

[batteddy]

It would be “locking up.” When you restrict someone’s right to move about, they are prisoners by definition. And you are proposing to incarcerate people who have committed no crimes.

Fine. But that is only abhorrent to the Americanized western mindset.

But the Bill of Rights is not the Bible, and imprisoning people for reasons other than crime is certainly not absolutely irreconcillable with Catholic principles in the absolute sense.

We certainly may lock up the mentally ill to stop them from harming people. Here all we would be doing is locking people up to prevent them from harming society through their breeding. It is a form of justice and within the theoretical rights of the State.

I don’t necessarily really support it, but play devil’s advocate to remind that Catholicism is NOT Americanism or classical liberalism. Freedom and liberty have never been absolute virtues, no matter how much modern popes have paid lip service to them. And if their lives were otherwise nice and unrestricted, beyond the restriction on breeding, and if it involved no abortion or sterilization…I don’t see how anyone can put forth an absolute statement against it. Heck, it could just be (in the future) a microchip that signalled whenever they got aroused and sent in a flying camera to the spot to alert the authorities if they were having sex (and embarrass them into stopping). Then they could even live in Josephite marriages and provide homes for kids who need adopting. They just would need to be celibate for the good of the gene pool.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The point is this. If there were creatures with human DNA, behaving like flatworms, noone would come up with the idea that they should have special human rights. On the other hand, if we met people whose behavior was indistinguishable from humans, but they lacked human DNA, it would be monstrous to deny them human rights.

The point is, there are not creatures with human DNA behaving like flatworms, not on this planet, anyway.

The point with this type of thought experiments is to show how our concepts work. In this case the main message is that behavior and consciousness are relevant to moral status, whereas possessing or not possessing a particular string of DNA is not (in itself). I’m sorry, I can’t explain it better.

It isn’t a thought experiment, since it depends on conditions that do not and cannot exist.

I repeat, if you were a cow, would you prefer clover or alfalfa. Prove your answer.

I think I rather agree . What I’m saying is that none of these three properties has any particular ethical relevance. Not all living creatures have human rights. Having a particular DNA with a particular string of nucleotides, is in itself morally irrelevant (as the above thought experiment illustrates). And why should having a unique DNA be decisive? Don’t twins have human rights?

But you can’t show anything else that “has any particular ethical relevance.” All you can say is, “In my opinion, this being shouldn’t have basic human rights so it’s okay to kill it.”

Explain how someone else, hiding in an ally and waiting for you to pass by, can’t make the same statement about you – with equal validity?

 

[cpayne]

Not all living creatures have human rights. Having a particular DNA with a particular string of nucleotides, is in itself morally irrelevant (as the above thought experiment illustrates). And why should having a unique DNA be decisive? Don’t twins have human rights?

“Not all living creatures have human rights”–a red herring; we’re not talking about all living creatures, but all living creatures with human DNA that, given time, will develop into mature examples of humans. All living humans, in other words.

“Unique” DNA: “Don’t twins have human rights?” Another red herring; even twins with identical genotypes express separate phenotypes, so they are still unique.

My unaddressed main point, expressed way back when: What about Aquinas’s argument that the personhood of any human is part of the “substance” of that human, as opposed to an incidental characteristic gained at some point in its development? (You may be right that this is not the way “person” is used in psychology, but it is at least an argument that “person” should be considered as identical with “human being.”) As for the argument that not all persons are humans–well, sure. But we’re not discussing the moral rights of God or angels or aliens or chimps. What I’m arguing is that a human is a person, at any level of development, and thus deserves protection.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fine. But that is only abhorrent to the Americanized western mindset.

But the Bill of Rights is not the Bible, and imprisoning people for reasons other than crime is certainly not absolutely irreconcillable with Catholic principles in the absolute sense.

We certainly may lock up the mentally ill to stop them from harming people. Here all we would be doing is locking people up to prevent them from harming society through their breeding. It is a form of justice and within the theoretical rights of the State.

I don’t necessarily really support it, but play devil’s advocate to remind that Catholicism is NOT Americanism or classical liberalism. Freedom and liberty have never been absolute virtues, no matter how much modern popes have paid lip service to them. And if their lives were otherwise nice and unrestricted, beyond the restriction on breeding, and if it involved no abortion or sterilization…I don’t see how anyone can put forth an absolute statement against it. Heck, it could just be (in the future) a microchip that signalled whenever they got aroused and sent in a flying camera to the spot to alert the authorities if they were having sex (and embarrass them into stopping). Then they could even live in Josephite marriages and provide homes for kids who need adopting. They just would need to be celibate for the good of the gene pool.

Okay. When they start locking people up like that, remind them to come to me – I have a list of people to be locked up.

(And take my advice – keep a new toothbrush on your person at all times.)

 

[Academic]

It isn’t a thought experiment, since it depends on conditions that do not and cannot exist.

In this case logical possibility, not empirical possibility, is required for the argument to go through.

 

[Academic]

All you can say is, “In my opinion, this being shouldn’t have basic human rights so it’s okay to kill it.”

Explain how someone else, hiding in an ally and waiting for you to pass by, can’t make the same statement about you – with equal validity?

You can’t do any better either. You just assert that possessing a particular type of DNA is the key thing, but I think I’ve provided strong reasons that this is not the case. I feel sorry for highly developed extraterrestrials on a visit when you are hiding in the ally

 

[Academic]

“Not all living creatures have human rights”–a red herring

. Vern was listing three properties, being alive was one of them.

“Unique” DNA: “Don’t twins have human rights?”

Two minutes ago it was unique DNA. Now it’s unique phenotype. This is an extremely odd argument either way. If some poor fellow happens to have the same phenotype as some other poor fellow, it’s ok to kill either of them?! You can of course reply like Vern that this is not going to happen in the real world, but that doesn’t make the argument less insane…

My unaddressed main point, expressed way back when: What about Aquinas’s argument that the personhood of any human is part of the “substance” of that human, as opposed to an incidental characteristic gained at some point in its development? (You may be right that this is not the way “person” is used in psychology, but it is at least an argument that “person” should be considered as identical with “human being.”)

Thanks for bringing up Aquinas. I’d like to understand better what he says before trying to comment. I will sleep on that one, and read some more, getting late here…

 

[vern_humphrey]

In this case logical possibility, not empirical possibility, is required for the argument to go through.

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You can’t do any better either. You just assert that possessing a particular type of DNA is the key thing, but I think I’ve provided strong reasons that this is not the case.

Now, that’s just flat wrong. I can prove where my dividing line is. I can give irrefutable proof that on one side of the line we have a living human being, and not on the other.

I feel sorry for highly developed extraterrestrials on a visit when you are hiding in the ally

I was wondering when you were going to bring extraterrestrials into the argument.

 

[Jennifer123]

Is that true? I have pointed out what’s unreasonable with the “human DNA gives human rights” hypothesis, and I’ve given an alternative sketch of how I think we do come to the conclusion that humans have rights, which I don’t think anyone has countered. In fact, some discussants seem to agree with my criteria for human rights: at least they argue rather that early fetuses have consciousness (a much more reasonable criterion of human rights).

More than that, I’m being accused of supporting murder and I don’t know what. I’m a bit shocked by the crudity and vulgarity of some of the arguments in this pious forum, to be honest.

“early fetuses have consciousness” - well that is more than many college freshman on an average Friday night at the frathouse.

The point is that as science progresses further and further towards unraveling the mystery of life, it becomes clearer and clearer that unique human life begins at conception, and those in the scientific field who wish to deny its humanity in order to exploit it for research, whatever, are left to splitting hairs over and over again to ridiculous amounts of deduction.

We aren’t just consciousnesses in a bodily shell. We are living entities, united in body and consciousness. We don’t refer to ourselves in two separate terms. If developed self-consciousness bestowed rights, then, since some people are more self-conscious than others (that is, have developed that capacity to a greater extent than others), some people would be “more equal” than others.

The reason you feel like you keep having to reiterate your arguments is because you have yet to offer a principled reason as to why some people would be granted more rights than others.
What you have offered are arbitrary accumiliations of acheivements and degrees of development that deny the fact that human beings differ immensely in regards to talent, achievements and degrees of development, but yet we are all equal in the fact that by our nature we are the same.

 

[Jennifer123]

Do you really believe I have these opinions or do you create your evil straw man to make me appear crazy to the casual reader? The scenario you describe is of course more or less equivalent to infanticide, but it has no relevance to the issues I’ve tried to discuss. And if you yourself seriously believe that plunging a knife into the head of a 9-month fetus is equivalent to washing away a in vitro fertilized egg cell you have a pretty twisted view of things.

The scenario described doesn’t differ much at all from what currently exists as the law of the land - partial birth abortion.
Twisted? Absolutely. The infants killed in this manner, which is allowed by law the full nine month of gestation, were once “fertilized eggs” themselves. It shouldn’t matter that we can’t consider an embryo “soft and cuddly” and therefore not as deserving of rights given infants.
That you can’t see the value of life at any stage of development is very narrow-minded IMHO, with all due respect.

 

[cpayne]

.
Two minutes ago it was unique DNA. Now it’s unique phenotype. This is an extremely odd argument either way. If some poor fellow happens to have the same phenotype as some other poor fellow, it’s ok to kill either of them?! .

“Unique DNA” is the second of my requirements. “Human DNA” is the first. “Ability to develop into a mature human” is the last. All humans satisfy these requirements at conception. Twins are also unique, as is evident by their phenotypes, and I’d accept that as satisfying the “unique DNA” argument. The point is that my argument expands the list of protected humans instead of constricting it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I come to think of Armstrong’s response to “what is jazz?” . Seriously, I’ve been doing little else in this thread the last days.

I you had, I wouldn’t have to ask, would I?

 

[urban-hermit]

I just read the whole thread ( :whacky: ) and it seems Academic is objecting to the “if it has human DNA then it is human” argument. I think the reason we’ve been known to say that is because … well, only humans have human DNA. If there was some other defining characteristic, we’d point to that.

The Catholic Church maintains that everyone has a right to life, from conception to natural death. As Vern (yes, I am following you from thread to thread, posting wherever you post ) has pointed out, Academic objections to this position are just objections. I have never heard anybody produce a workable alternate definition of the human life span.

It’s already been pointed out that skin cells with DNA will not develop into a human being, whereas a fertilized egg will. So that distinction is I hope not still being misconstrued.

But regarding the characterization of a human being needing to have consciousness, I think it really boils down to a question of how much you actually value human beings.

I mean, at the point of conception, letting nature take its course, barring a mishap, you will within 9 months or so have a human being. A new, unrepeatable person will be alive in the world. What value do you put on a human person?

That the fertilized egg does not exhibit arms and legs and a quick wit yet is really immaterial to a person who values human life. Because they know he will soon.

Academic, I realize you think your arguments and position make perfect sense. But … well, you mentioned that you have an 8-year-old daughter whom you love. I mean, doesn’t that help you get a perspective on this? Would it have been morally ok if, as a frozen embryo, she had been flushed down some toilet somewhere because it would’ve been before you actually knew her? Just because you had not had the chance to get attached to her, it would still have been a tragic loss, correct?

Every human being can be loved just as you love your daughter. And every human being, even those of sub-par intelligence, can achieve unforeseen things. It’s crazy to think, with the complexity of the matter at hand and all the trillions of variables at work in determining the qualities that a person will end up possessing, that we will devise some science of eugenics that will better society more effectively than … whatever forces you believe have brought us this far.

No way - if you value human life, if you grasp its unique beauty, the only ethical course of action is to allow as many “fertilized eggs” as possible to continue living.

 

[ribozyme]

I mean, at the point of conception, letting nature take its course, barring a mishap, you will within 9 months or so have a human being. A new, unrepeatable person will be alive in the world. What value do you put on a human person?

That the fertilized egg does not exhibit arms and legs and a quick wit yet is really immaterial to a person who values human life. Because they know he will soon.

Academic, I realize you think your arguments and position make perfect sense. But … well, you mentioned that you have an 8-year-old daughter whom you love. I mean, doesn’t that help you get a perspective on this? Would it have been morally ok if, as a frozen embryo, she had been flushed down some toilet somewhere because it would’ve been before you actually knew her? Just because you had not had the chance to get attached to her, it would still have been a tragic loss, correct?

I do think Academic does advocate embryo selection as a form of eugenic intervention. Let’s say that her 8 year-old daughter was conceived in vitro along with other embryos. However, she wasn’t the most intelligent embryo that was conceived in this cohort (out of 100 embryos). He would indubitably discard her daughter in favor of a superior embryo to be implanted into his wife.

Every human being can be loved just as you love your daughter. And every human being, even those of sub-par intelligence, can achieve unforeseen things. It’s crazy to think, with the complexity of the matter at hand and all the trillions of variables at work in determining the qualities that a person will end up possessing, that we will devise some science of eugenics that will better society more effectively than … whatever forces you believe have brought us this far.

In post 15 I discussed the futility of “whatever forces [Academic] believe have brought us this far”.

Lynn argues convincingly that the Wurm glaciation increased Caucasoid and Mongoloid intelligence, but in order to increase the prevalence of “intelligence alleles” in these populations, the weak individuals (i.e. who didn’t have enough “intelligence alleles”) had to die out before they were able to reproduce.** Ironically, I actually think that Lynn shows the futility of Darwinian evolution**; the adverse conditions of cold weather was only able to augment the Inuit’s IQ to 91!! It is quite clear that cognitive ability cannot be enhanced using Darwinian evolution without human intervention. In addition, the racial disparities (for example “Caucasoids” have an average IQ of 100 in contrast to Sub-Saharan Africans which has an average of 70 (Lynn argues this is caused by environmental and genetic factors) arose in a relatively long period of time (in the scale of tens of thousands of years).

 

[JimG]

Let’s say that her 8 year-old daughter was conceived in vitro along with other embryos. However, she wasn’t the most intelligent embryo that was conceived in this cohort (out of 100 embryos). He would indubitably discard her daughter in favor of a superior embryo to be implanted into his wife.

You have just articulated why we should not be doing in vitro fertilization. To deliberately create new human beings with the intention of destroying some or most (or any) of them is a moral evil.

There is really no moral difference between destroying a portion of an embryo cohort at that stage, and say, raising them all to the age of 12, and then deciding which ones deserve to live. In fact, we would have more data to work from at age 12.

 

[ribozyme]

You have just articulated why we should not be doing in vitro fertilization. To deliberately create new human beings with the intention of destroying some or most (or any) of them is a moral evil.

There is really no moral difference between destroying a portion of an embryo cohort at that stage, and say, raising them all to the age of 12, and then deciding which ones deserve to live. In fact, we would have more data to work from at age 12.

But if we do that, we are rejecting a method than can be used to augment the intelligence of a population by one standard deviation per generation. Maybe in vitro selection is worth the price. An egalitarian society is something that I adamently yen for!

I am aware of the consequences of embryo selection though.

But remember,* The Bell Curve *is a call to start killing people!

As Coulter well knows, the misuse of an idea for evil purposes does not mean that idea is wrong. In fact, she accuses liberals of making this very error: She attacks them for worrying that the message of racial inequality conveyed by the book The Bell Curve could promote genocide: “**Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people.” **Back at you, Ann: Only conservatives could interpret a statement that species evolved as a call to start killing people.

talkreason.org/articles/coultergeist.cfm

I did my best to deny the (implicit) message of eugenics promulgated in *The Bell Curve *, but if these differences are hereditary, how should we rectify them? Eugenics seems to be the only viable answer (unless you have some method of increasing *g *that does not involve sterilization or any other eugenic intervention).

 

[Jennifer123]

There is really no moral difference between destroying a portion of an embryo cohort at that stage, and say, raising them all to the age of 12, and then deciding which ones deserve to live. In fact, we would have more data to work from at age 12.

Peter Singer, who was the chief bioethicist at Princeton, advocates infaniticide of children up to 12 months old, and the killing of humans at any age due to severe abnormalities.
He is also considered by many to be the most influential philosopher of our time.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/843688/posts

 

[JimG]

But if we do that, we are rejecting a method than can be used to augment the intelligence of a population by one standard deviation per generation. Maybe in vitro selection is worth the price. An egalitarian society is something that I adamently yen for!

Well, consider that the same result can be achieved by killing off the defectives at the age of 12, before they begin to reproduce. Killing off of human beings of any age just seems the ultimate bad way to try to obtain a good result.

 

[ribozyme]

Peter Singer, who was the chief bioethicist at Princeton, advocates infaniticide of children up to 12 months old, and the killing of humans at any age due to severe abnormalities.
He is also considered by many to be the most influential philosopher of our time.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/843688/posts

I thought Peter Singer** is** not was.

But another question I am curious for Academic to answer: Would he abort her daughter if she would be mentally retarded?

"Several of the mothers reported that they would not have hesitated to have abortions if they had been told that their children would have been born with multiple handicaps. One of the mothers said:

I can’t see the point in putting oneself through the strain of having such a seriously handicapped child. I don’t believe that anyone with their hand on their heart is really willing. I can honestly also see the pressures it puts on society. It’s an enormous cost. The same resources could have been channeled elsewhere, so that others could have become well again. I don’t think it’s right to bring a handicapped child into the world if it’s unnecessary. (p. 142)

… What Brinchmann describes is the reality of the lives of parents who have to rear children with genetic disorders. It is a very different portrayal sometimes given by those who had not had this personal experience. (Lynn, 2001: pg 68).

If Academic answers yes, this provides support for my previous assertion that:

Adopting eugenics forces one to relinquish the concept of inherent human dignity and adopt the same attitude as the aforementioned mother.

and

But one must ask, what do we have to sacrifice to achieve such a “magnanimous” end? In Eugenics, I could not discern a scintilla of compassion from Lynn for the less fortunate; Lynn views them as an unnecessary burden to society. Commendably, Lynn’s analysis is immensely empirical, but perhaps it is too empirical. We have to forsake human dignity for the purpose of human betterment; we have to sell our souls (“souls” is a metaphor for our compassion and empathy). But is this worth it?