Catholic Eugenics?

[JimG]

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

Yes, Singer measures human individuals’ worth by their supposed utility. Unfortunately, the current strictly materialist view of human beings which has infected even many allegedly religious people, puts us all at risk. Today it’s the disposable embryos, tomorrow it will be you and me.

The disability rights group Not Dead Yet actively opposes Singer. They figure, with good reason, that they will be his next target.

IVF is just the other side of contraception. Once the unitive and procreative elements of marital intercourse are broken, bad things happen. Single parents and aborted babies on the one hand, dead embryos and humans as designer products on the other.

 

[ribozyme]

IVF is just the other side of contraception. Once the unitive and procreative elements of marital intercourse are broken, bad things happen. Single parents and aborted babies on the one hand, dead embryos and humans as designer products on the other.

Do you know why I fear embracing eugenics:

neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/

Matt Nuenke disgusts me. He shows no compassion and empathy for anyone.

 

[JimG]

Do you know why I fear embracing eugenics:

neoeugenics.home.comcast.net/

Matt Nuenke disgusts me. He shows no compassion and empathy for anyone.

Yes, I agree, having just browsed a few of the links.

I have to ask, why wouldn’t eugeneticists want to breed for compassion rather than IQ? Not that I even agree that at this point such a thing is even technically possible. Why not breed for the perfect Aryan? Or the perfect altruist? Or the perfect public servant? Or breed the President from scratch for all those qualities we desire in our leaders, rather than waste big money on the electoral process?

 

[Ignatius]

Not sure where to put this, but since it deals the eugenics, seems like a good place.

I just stumbled across a book call Preaching Eugenics. I haven’t read the book, but it appears to indicate that the Catholic church once “enthusiastically embraced” eugenics.
.

The Church has always opposed eugenics. In what way does it “appear to indicate that the Catholic Church enthusiastically embraced eugenics”? Please be specific. We will need names, position and dates of the people who are in a position to make offical statements for the Catholic Church.

 

[RyanL]

An egalitarian society is something that I adamently yen for!

Ribo,

Did you happen to catch my post to you about 50 posts back?

RyanL:

Look, inequality will always exist.

Eliminate intellectual inequality, and you still have physical inequality. Eliminate physical inequality and you still have aesthetic inequality. Eliminate aesthetic inequality (good luck!) and you still have racial inequality. Eliminate racial inequality and you still have religious inequality. Eliminate religious inequality and you still have artistic inequality. Eliminate artistic inequality and you still have…

See what I mean?

Your end of intellectual equality would hardly be the end.

Your thoughts?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Larry1700]

I’m trying to wean myself (extricate myself! ) from catholic.com’s forums, and limit myself to 30 minutes a day , because I’m behind on my honey-dos, and my right forearm is killing me from all the mouse-clicking, but I find it so difficult not to respond to Academic’s posts.

I think 99% of humanity agrees that if some extra-terrestials with a similar behavioral complexity as ours appear they shouldn’t be treated like inanimates (call it giving non-humans human rights if you like). **Most people **find it strange to give human rights to egg cells too.

“99% of humanity agrees”?

“Most people”?

First, you can’t prove either of these assertions.

Second, even if you could, it wouldn’t change anything. Truth and justice are not determined by majority vote/consensus, but by what is actually, subjectively, inherently right and wrong. How many times in history has the majority been wrong? Nazi Germany and pre-civil rights United States are two that immediately come to mind.

On a different note, why does it seem best to have lots of similarly-endowed humans? Variety in the gene pool has strengthened the human race, hasn’t it? Doesn’t it help protect us from diseases? And as a nation, variety in cultures has, for the most part, been a positive factor in making our nation strong.

And I still say, even if everyone fits a certain standard one day, another standard will come along, and the process will continue.

Variety in the gene pool, and everywhere else is a strength, not a weakness.

Human dignity is a God-given right, to every individual, not just those that are fortunate enough to have someone “emotionally attached” to them, or who meet a human-defined criteria of perfection.

Love and compassion for the less fortunate is the answer, not eliminating them or sending them off to isolation where they can’t procreate.

As vern humphrey said, science has attempted to improve animals, and failed. Science itself sometimes gets it right, and sometimes doesn’t. Entrusting them with decisions such as you propose both scares me and sickens me.

 

[RyanL]

Academic,

I realize that a number of questions have been thrown your way. I think there are a few things that people are wondering about your ideology, and I’m hopeful that a response to this post will clear them up.

Please answer yes/no. For a “no” answer, would you please explain why you answered “no”, providing the scientific/moral foundation (perhaps including why the particular individual is or is not a “human” in your understanding)?

(I realize that you have answered some of these before, but it might help to refresh the conversation.)

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill an adult human, provided they have done nothing to merit killing (i.e., not in self-defense, war or state sanctioned execution - just leave these questions aside)?
2. Is it murder to intentionally kill a child human?
3. Is it murder to intentionally kill a toddler?
4. Is it murder to intentionally kill a newborn human, who is less self-aware than a dog?
5. Is it murder to intentionally kill a dog, who is more self-aware than a newborn human?
6. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is able to survive outside the womb, unassisted by technology?
7. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is able to survive outside the womb with the assistance of technology?
8. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is not able to survive outside the womb, but has developed arms, legs, eyes, ears, eyebrows, hair, yawns, naps, dreams and has periods of significant waking activity?
9. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who has not developed adult-like arms, legs, etc., but has measurable brain activity?
10. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who has no measurable (under current technological methods) brain activity, but has a heartbeat?
11. Is it murder to intentionally kill an embryotic human?
12. Do any of your answers to the above questions change if the human has a physical developmental abnormality, touching either the limbs or the brain?

Note: I left #1 open to the question of euthanizing the elderly – you can address it or not. I wouldn’t (as I think it’s kind of off-topic), but if it helps you define your position you are certainly free to do so. If not, just ignore the point.

I think if you march us through these, we’ll see exactly what your position is. We won’t need to keep asking, because you will have stated it explicitly.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[cpayne]

Dear RyanL: Now I have a question for you, after having read your list of questions for Academic. The Catholic Church accepts the concept of “invincible ignorance”–someone who because of upbringing or culture cannot reasonably be expected to know something.

In our culture, is a woman who has an abortion guilty of abetting a murder? What I have in mind is the objection that our culture basically teaches a deep confusion on the subject, so that even abortionists might not consider what they’re doing as murder. Do you think this makes a moral difference, or not?

 

[cpayne]

Dear RyanL: Now I have a question for you, after having read your list of questions for Academic. The Catholic Church accepts the concept of “invincible ignorance”–someone who because of upbringing or culture cannot reasonably be expected to know something.

In our culture, is a woman who has an abortion guilty of abetting a murder? What I have in mind is the objection that our culture basically teaches a deep confusion on the subject, so that even abortionists might not consider what they’re doing as murder. Do you think this makes a moral difference, or not?

AND–does it make a political difference?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dear RyanL: Now I have a question for you, after having read your list of questions for Academic. The Catholic Church accepts the concept of “invincible ignorance”–someone who because of upbringing or culture cannot reasonably be expected to know something.

In our culture, is a woman who has an abortion guilty of abetting a murder? What I have in mind is the objection that our culture basically teaches a deep confusion on the subject, so that even abortionists might not consider what they’re doing as murder. Do you think this makes a moral difference, or not?

To answer your question, consider cases with the shoe on the other foot. Eric Rudolph bombed an abortion clinic and killed people.

Could he use the excuse that our culture basically teaches a deep confusion on the subject, so that even an abortion clinic might not consider what they’re doing as murder?

(That’s a rhetorical question – the answer is “not only no, but H&^% NO!”)

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m signing off for now – going to Virginia for my granddaughter’s baptism. See you all in a week or so.

 

[cpayne]

To answer your question, consider cases with the shoe on the other foot. Eric Rudolph bombed an abortion clinic and killed people.

Could he use the excuse that our culture basically teaches a deep confusion on the subject, so that even an abortion clinic might not consider what they’re doing as murder?

(That’s a rhetorical question – the answer is “not only no, but H&^% NO!”)

Well, I don’t know that your response does answer the question fully. Our culture doesn’t (for the most part) seem too confused as to the wrongness of murder in itself–what it is confused about is whether or not abortion is murder.

There are mixed messages on this. A good example concerns charging people with murder when they kill a fetus in the womb, even if the mother (the real target of the attempted murder) survives the attack. Many in our culture DO see that as murder, even while they support abortion if it’s the mother’s decision.

 

[cpayne]

I’m signing off for now – going to Virginia for my granddaughter’s baptism. See you all in a week or so.

Okay, God bless, ignore the previous post. (I’m sure others will feel free to jump in in your place.)

 

[Academic]

Dear all,
Thanks a lot for the wealth of responses to my postings! Unfortunately (?) I’m back to work now, so time is a bit more limited, but I promise to try to respond to everything. I will start by replying to Ryan’s set of questions, but before that I’d just like to make one comment, after “sleeping on” the issues we discuss.

One main theme has been whether in vitro embryos have human rights or not. I said “no”, you said “yes”. I think the basic problem is that this question is too simplistic. The premise seems to be that there are two main entities around, those with human rights, and those who lack them, and once we draw the line in the right place we will have a correct moral system.

However, this view of things is not easy to fit with a contemporary world view. First, we now know that the human soul is not a binary entity which you either have or have not. Rather, the human mind is a product of the human brain, an incredibly complex physical system. This implies that there must be always gradations rather than sharp boundaries between what’s a mind and what’s not a mind, between what’s human and what’s not human. We can add details and remove details. So it seems likely that human rights, too, are graded rather than on/off.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what’s lacking entirely in this perspective is consequence analysis. Murdering or abusing an adult human being creates suffering. Mass-murder creates an enormous amount of human misery. Killing fertilized egg cells, in contrast, doesn’t influence the total suffering in the world the slightest. The egg cells don’t feel anything, and noone has any personal relation to them either. From the hardcore “human rights” perspective some of you adopt this doesn’t seem to matter. This is probably, from my point of view, the most bizarre aspect of your thinking.

I also think this shows how dangerous pure “fundamental rights models” can be - dangerous, because if adopted by sufficiently fanatical people, they may perform the most horrid acts with good conscience. All that matters is that the right rules are followed, no matter what the consequences are.

 

[cpayne]

Dear all,
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what’s lacking entirely in this perspective is consequence analysis. Murdering or abusing an adult human being creates suffering. Mass-murder creates an enormous amount of human misery. Killing fertilized egg cells, in contrast, doesn’t influence the total suffering in the world the slightest. The egg cells don’t feel anything, and noone has any personal relation to them either. From the hardcore “human rights” perspective some of you adopt this doesn’t seem to matter. This is probably, from my point of view, the most bizarre aspect of your thinking.

I also think this shows how dangerous pure “fundamental rights models” can be - dangerous, because if adopted by sufficiently fanatical people, they may perform the most horrid acts with good conscience. All that matters is that the right rules are followed, no matter what the consequences are.

It is true that Catholic moral teaching is neither consequentialist nor utilitarian, and never can be. I guess you think that’s dangerous. However, our entire discussion has illuminated for me one of the most common objections to consequentialism / utilitarianism–namely, that virtually anything can be supported in the name of a “greater good” for society. Behind Eugenics lies Utilitarianism (Peter Singer being the best-known utilitarian in the world today). Now to me–THAT’S dangerous.

May your new job work out well. May we all be drawn closer to Christ in all things. May God’s Kingdom come and His will be done here on earth as it is done in heaven.

 

[Academic]

Academic,

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill an adult human, provided they have done nothing to merit killing (i.e., not in self-defense, war or state sanctioned execution - just leave these questions aside)?
2. Is it murder to intentionally kill a child human?
3. Is it murder to intentionally kill a toddler?
4. Is it murder to intentionally kill a newborn human, who is less self-aware than a dog?

Yes to all.

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill a dog, who is more self-aware than a newborn human?

Well, it’s a bad thing if there is no particular reason to kill the dog, although we don’t typically call the killing of animals “murder”. Another point is that we have very special emotional relations to our babies, and that has to be reflected in our ethics as well as in the law.

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is able to survive outside the womb, unassisted by technology?
2. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is able to survive outside the womb with the assistance of technology?
3. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who is not able to survive outside the womb, but has developed arms, legs, eyes, ears, eyebrows, hair, yawns, naps, dreams and has periods of significant waking activity?

I’m not sure. I think it might be more important whether the fetus has reached some kind of consciousness/personhood, than whether it would survive with high-tech treatment. I think one has to judge after the best of one’s abilities in each individual case, and a lot of factors of importance for the future life of mother and child might be important to consider.

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who has not developed adult-like arms, legs, etc., but has measurable brain activity?
2. Is it murder to intentionally kill an unborn human who has no measurable (under current technological methods) brain activity, but has a heartbeat?

Murder is definitely too strong a word. It might be ok if there are really bad consequences from continuing the pregnancy. Again, I doubt that there is one zone called “murder” and one called “ok”.

1. Is it murder to intentionally kill an embryotic human?

No, it’s ok in most, if not all, cases I think. In particular, if we are talking about in vitro embryos.

1. Do any of your answers to the above questions change if the human has a physical developmental abnormality, touching either the limbs or the brain?

Yes, of course, because I really regard right/wrong as a continuous rather than discrete (yes/no) variable. So these and a lot of other factors matter, absolutely.

Note: I left #1 open to the question of euthanizing the elderly – you can address it or not.

I think if someone wants to die, but can’t, society should help.

I think if you march us through these, we’ll see exactly what your position is. We won’t need to keep asking, because you will have stated it explicitly.

Right. I’d just like to add that these are my honest answers at present, based on my reading and thinking about these issues. My attitudes might change under the force of argument of course.

 

[RyanL]

First, thank you very much for responding.

Yes to all.

Good. You still have a moral compass. Now we just need to calibrate it.

Well, it’s a bad thing if there is no particular reason to kill the dog, although we don’t typically call the killing of animals “murder”. Another point is that we have very special emotional relations to our babies, and that has to be reflected in our ethics as well as in the law.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Would you please be kind enough to clarify?

If a person/family loves their dog “as a family member”, would it be just as wrong to kill the dog (say, perhaps, by negligently running over it) as it would be to kill their baby (say, perhaps, by negligently running over it)?

I just want to be sure I understand your answer – I’m not (yet) challenging it.

…I think one has to judge after the best of one’s abilities in each individual case…Again, I doubt that there is one zone called “murder” and one called “ok”…Yes, of course, because I really regard right/wrong as a continuous rather than discrete (yes/no) variable.

All right. I think I see some of what you’re talking about.

And I largely agree.

There are varying degrees of culpability, depending on knowledge. While I disagree that there are varying degrees of “right” (I think a “good” act is an act which is “good” in an unqualified way), there are definitely varying degrees of “wrong” – greater and lesser evils, if you will.

And the law recognizes this. And so does the Church. Ever heard of mortal and venial sins? That’s a part of the Catholic tradition.

But let’s apply that here. If there is a “gray zone”, as you have said, I’m not entirely sure that helps you.

Peter Kreeft has a quadrilemma which I believe sums up the varying degrees of certainty/culpability bit nicely. Unfortunately, the format of these forums makes expressing it a bit tough. Please read the following like a 3 x 3 grid matrix:

___________You KNOW_______You DON’T know

IS a person_______Murder___________Manslaughter_______

Is NOT a person___Not an Issue_______Reckless Negligence

If you KNOW that the individual is a person and you intentionally kill it, it’s murder.

To get an understanding of the next two, consider running over a person-shaped overcoat in the middle of the road on a dark night…or perhaps fumigating an apartment building without making sure no one is in it…maybe, maybe not…you’re just not sure…

If you DON’T know that the individual is a person and you intentionally run over it, and it turns out that it IS a person…that’s manslaughter.

If you DON’T know that the person-shaped overcoat is NOT a person, but you run over it anyway without checking it out first…that’s reckless negligence.

ONLY if you can show that the individual in question is DEFINITELY NOT a person, and you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it’s not a person, can you possibly get away with killing.

In other words, you have to be a dogmatist. You can’t be a skeptic, and you certainly can’t rely on a “gray area”. It’s like shooting at a movement in the bush that might be a hunter or might be a dear. If you’re in any doubt…don’t shoot!

Your thoughts?

I think if someone wants to die, but can’t, society should help.

Doctor assisted suicide is like saying Lifeguard assisted drowning. But, again, that’s not really pertinent to this thread.

As for the law, please consider the following from the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind…

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Again, if there’s ANY doubt…you don’t shoot. Right?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Academic]

It is true that Catholic moral teaching is neither consequentialist nor utilitarian, and never can be. I guess you think that’s dangerous. However, our entire discussion has illuminated for me one of the most common objections to consequentialism / utilitarianism–namely, that virtually anything can be supported in the name of a “greater good” for society. Behind Eugenics lies Utilitarianism (Peter Singer being the best-known utilitarian in the world today). Now to me–THAT’S dangerous.

I know Peter Singer has got a lot of publicity for the extreme views he holds on certain issues, and which I don’t think are shared by many utilitarians.
I haven’t look into that carefully but, for sure, it’s easy to go wrong in moral thinking.

I didn’t want to do much more than appeal to common sense, in saying that I think moral views that are entirely based on ideas about human rights, with little or no regard for the consequences of implementing these rights in a complex world, are suspect.

There is, I think, a “deeper” reason for not disregarding consequence analysis as well: Why do we have intuitions about human rights to begin with? I’m convinced that the origin of these intuitions are some kind of “generalisations” based on consequence analysis of typical situations in a fairly simple context. (Example: We feel people have the right to their property. Why? Because if someone takes my home or my food or my horse, it’s bad for me. And so on.) Later these generalisations appear as rules that are universally valid, regardless of consequences. This is dangerous, because the consequences are much more difficult to predict - and in fact can be quite bad - in a complex society, than in the simple “state of nature” situations where I believe ideas about rights have their root.

May your new job work out well. May we all be drawn closer to Christ in all things. May God’s Kingdom come and His will be done here on earth as it is done in heaven.

Thanks!!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Murder is definitely too strong a word.

Please define ‘murder.’

 

[Larry1700]

One main theme has been whether in vitro embryos have human rights or not. I said “no”, you said “yes”. I think the basic problem is that this question is too simplistic. The premise seems to be that there are two main entities around, those with human rights, and those who lack them, and once we draw the line in the right place we will have a correct moral system.

The Catholic teaching is simple (in the best sense of the word), not “simplistic.”
A=Fertilized human egg, at the moment of conception
Z=Natural death
Human dignity and rights belong to a person from A to Z. There are no exceptions based on what other people feel about that person. If that person has no friends and no family, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not their death affects others, doesn’t matter. Whether or not they have their full mental or physical capacities doesn’t matter.

It appears that, in your system, A=fertilized egg, B=some point of consciousness, determined by one or more scientists, C through Y are points at which that person may or may not be beneficial to society and if not, is subject to elimination from society. The determination of whether or not they’re beneficial to society or emotionally attached to someone would be determined by scientists, or perhaps politicians or economists.