Catholic Eugenics?

[Jennifer123]

The veil is getting thicker and thicker everyday, I am positive of this, and it is very frightening. I am rarely shocked by anything anymore but dicussing the “ethical” use of eugenics really stretches the limit of rational thought.

We can’t get over our “selfish proclivities” as humans because we are more and more convinced every day as a race that we have ultimate control over our universe, people and events. We are more selfish now more than ever precisely because we refuse to extend charity to our families and our society. The wealthy refuse to have more children because they don’t want to “compromise” their careers and ultimately earn “less” money by having to give their money to other family members via shelter, food and clothing.

No amount of government entitlements will change the selfish want of money, resources and power. Pope Benedict just talked about the raping of the Third World by industrialized nations. Industrialized nations filled with people who are intelligent, capable and strong. Nations that subject the rest of the world, the inferior people you would love to euthanize, to poverty and disease. But yet you are arrogant enough to moralize from your ivory towers that we just need more of these types of people? Give me a break.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The veil is getting thicker and thicker everyday, I am positive of this, and it is very frightening. I am rarely shocked by anything anymore but dicussing the “ethical” use of eugenics really stretches the limit of rational thought.

We can’t get over our “selfish proclivities” as humans because we are more and more convinced every day as a race that we have ultimate control over our universe, people and events. We are more selfish now more than ever precisely because we refuse to extend charity to our families and our society. The wealthy refuse to have more children because they don’t want to “compromise” their careers and ultimately earn “less” money by having to give their money to other family members via shelter, food and clothing.

No amount of government entitlements will change the selfish want of money, resources and power. Pope Benedict just talked about the raping of the Third World by industrialized nations. Industrialized nations filled with people who are intelligent, capable and strong. Nations that subject the rest of the world, the inferior people you would love to euthanize, to poverty and disease. But yet you are arrogant enough to moralize from your ivory towers that we just need more of these types of people? Give me a break.

It’s about killing the innocent – not about what kind of people we need or don’t need. The embryo is a human being.

 

[ribozyme]

(My emphasis)

What happens to the other 99 embryos?

The embryo is a human being. Is it to be killed?

If so, how is this different from abortion?

It is implicit that in Lynn’s eyes those embryos do not deserve the right to live because they carry many defective genes. I suggest you read the entry on Richard Lynn on wikipedia to learn more about his views.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is implicit that in Lynn’s eyes those embryos do not deserve the right to live because they carry many defective genes. I suggest you read the entry on Richard Lynn on wikipedia to learn more about his views.

My point is, why are we debating this on a Catholic forum? The Church’s position is clear – to kill the embryo is no less hienous than to kill the born child.

 

[ribozyme]

My point is, why are we debating this on a Catholic forum? The Church’s position is clear – to kill the embryo is no less hienous than to kill the born child.

I wasn’t advocating eugenics explicitly on here; I was merely investigating the possibly of using eugenics to achieve an egalitarian end.

 

[batteddy]

Eugenics is wrong if it entails sterilization, contraception, or murder…obviously. Murder including abortion. Once a sex act is taking place, we cannot preclude procreation. And once a life exists, we cannot get rid of it just because of it’s defects. Society could not be so impatient and demand immediate 100% pure results. If an embryo is concieved with a disorder, we should care for it and love it.

But that doesnt meant we can’t massively decrease the chances of such conceptions, and gradually get less and less inferiority. If we merely isolate people from the gene-pool (like we do in the prisons or mental institutions) and don’t allow them to breed…I don’t see how we can object to that. We already basically do that to the retarded and criminal.

The only problem today is that we don’t keep them locked up long enough, and these types of people can be incredibly prolific at mating, and mating WITH likewise flawed people to boot.

Sterilization is wrong. Murder is wrong. But no one has a right to breed. As we argue with homosexual-adoption…no one has the right to be a parent, or get married for that matter, anymore than anyone has the right to be a priest. Society can forbid certain marriages. And some people could be forbidden to marry forever.

It conjures up images of terrible oppression. But theoretically, as long as no sterilization or murder is involved…it isn’t intrinsically forbidden to simply regulate human mating (within marriage) and keep certain people in all-male or all-female institutions.

It wouldnt even have to be “locking up” it could be whole gated cities and regions that might be very pleasant with a great degree of freedom otherwise. Just only one sex, and so no breeding.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wasn’t advocating eugenics explicitly on here; I was merely investigating the possibly of using eugenics to achieve an egalitarian end.

And how is that different from “investigating” the possibility of rounding up all the people with low IQs and putting them in gas chambers?

 

[batteddy]

And how is that different from “investigating” the possibility of rounding up all the people with low IQs and putting them in gas chambers?

Because maybe we wouldn’t have to put them in gas chambers. Maybe we’d just keep them segregated by sex.

It could even be quite nice. This tropical island for the dumb men, this tropical island for the dumb women. Coast guards patrolling the water in between.

Now, I think merely using “low IQ” as a criterion is a value judgment, and one that I don’t agree with.

But in terms of segregating the actually retarded, and criminally inclined…it wouldnt have to involve any immorality at all. Just segregation by the sexes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Eugenics is wrong if it entails sterilization, contraception, or murder…obviously. Murder including abortion.

But if we merely lock people up (in the prisons or mental institutions) and don’t allow them to breed…I don’t see how we can object to that. We already basically do that to the retarded and criminal. The only problem is that we don’t keep them locked up long enough, and they can be incredibly prolific at mating, and mating WITH likewise flawed people to boot.

We should lock up people who have not committed crimes? To prevent them from breeding?

Sterilization is wrong. Murder is wrong. But no one has a right to breed. As we argue with homosexual-adoption…no one has the right to be a parent, or get married for that matter, anymore than anyone has the right to be a priest. Society can forbid certain marriages. And some people could be forbidden to marry forever.

To all intents and purposes, some people already are. We have a couple in our parish on Assisted Living. Their parents have Power of Attorney over them, and although they want to be married, the parents will not allow it.

But they aren’t locked up!!

It conjures up images of terrible oppression. But theoretically, as long as no sterilization or murder is involved…it isn’t intrinsically forbidden to simply regulate human mating (within marriage) and keep certain people in all-male or all-female institutions (it wouldnt even have to be “locking up” it could be whole gated cities and regions that might be very pleasant with a great degree of freedom otherwise.)

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Because maybe we wouldn’t have to put them in gas chambers. Maybe we’d just keep them segregated by sex.

Maybe we’d start by segregating by sex all the people who want to control other people. After all, anyone who wants to do this to his fellow citizens can’t be rational, now can he?

It could even be quite nice. This tropical island for the dumb men, this tropical island for the dumb women. Coast guards patrolling the water in between.

I hope you enjoy the tropics – especially the bugs, snakes and other critters.

Now, I think merely using “low IQ” as a criterion is a value judgment, and one that I don’t agree with.

Right – I’d use an expressed desire to control one’s fellow citizens as the criterion.

But in terms of segregating the actually retarded, and criminally inclined…it wouldnt have to involve any immorality at all. Just segregation by the sexes.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your life on this little island. Oh, you may have to learn to put up with a few discomforts – the budget won’t stretch to buying insecticide or mosquito netting.

 

[ribozyme]

And how is that different from “investigating” the possibility of rounding up all the people with low IQs and putting them in gas chambers?

Did I ever say that embryo selection is compassionate?

Returning to embryo selection, one might ask how is this different from evolution? Like the inclement gelid weather of the ice age, embryo selection is cruel as it eliminates the weak! In notable contrast, embryo selection addresses the futilty of natural selection. I suggest you click on the link in my signature (it describes an in vitro selection experiment on a population of RNA molecules to improve their catalytic prowess). How is eugenics different from that? Lynn’s message is not a palatable one for Catholics (and for those who attempt to pursue a secular ethics system such as myself): We need to weed out the weak and relinquish any concept of human dignity in order for humanity to advance. Compassion inhibits human progress according to Lynn! I do not know how to approach this dilemma though.

I suggest you read my posts (# 14 and 15) because it discusses Lynn hypothesis for the origin of race differences in intelligence and I compared his hypothesis with his advocacy of embryo selection. Laconically, Lynn favors embryo selection because it culls out who he deems weak in an effective fashion.

No amount of government entitlements will change the selfish want of money, resources and power. Pope Benedict just talked about the raping of the Third World by industrialized nations. Industrialized nations filled with people who are intelligent, capable and strong. Nations that subject the rest of the world, the inferior people you would love to euthanize, to poverty and disease. But yet you are arrogant enough to moralize from your ivory towers that we just need more of these types of people? Give me a break.

I do not know if this is directed to me, but I abhor the notion that some humans are inherently superior to others.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did I ever say that embryo selection is compassionate?

Compassionate? It’s murder, pure and simple.

I suggest you read my posts (# 14 and 15) because it discusses Lynn hypothesis for the origin of race differences in intelligence and I compared his hypothesis with his advocacy of embryo selection. Laconically, Lynn favors embryo selection because it culls out who he deems weak in an effective fashion.

Here’s what I found:

Let me ask you a question: Are you Matt Nuenke or J.P. Rushton? If you are the former, **I presume you have a deigning attitude over my belief in egalitarianism **and my concern for unequal access. I doubt Professor Rushton would post here though.

(My emphasis)

Are you saying “inferior” people should be eliminated from the gene pool?

 

[ribozyme]

Compassionate? It’s murder, pure and simple.

…

Are you saying “inferior” people should be eliminated from the gene pool?

I abhor the facet of eugenics that states that we should eliminate the weak from the gene pool.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I abhor the facet of eugenics that states that we should eliminate the weak from the gene pool.

What facet of eugenics do you support?

 

[Jennifer123]

I do not know if this is directed to me, but I abhor the notion that some humans are inherently superior to others.

It wasn’t directed at you per se, but rather to people LIKE academia who advocate such nonsense like embryo selection as a means to combat injustice.

You may abhor the notion that some humans are inherently superior to others, but that is what you advocate when you support something like embryonic selection based on subjective criteria.

 

[ribozyme]

What facet of eugenics do you support?

Eugenics can enhance ability and relieve suffering. I wonder if the means of eugenics can justify this end. Of course, eugenics has the potential to cause much suffering. We should remember the egregious action done in the name of human betterment such as the Holocaust.

I’ll quote this dialogue from Star Trek as I do think it is germane to your question:

SOONG: How can a supposedly intelligent species reject technology that would enhance ability, relieve suffering?
ARCHER: Genetic engineering has caused a lot of suffering.
SOONG: So did splitting the atom, yet the first ships to colonise the solar system were nuclear-powered. But you’re not here to discuss that.

chakoteya.net/Enterprise/80.htm

You may abhor the notion that some humans are inherently superior to others, but that is what you advocate when you support something like embryonic selection based on subjective criteria.

I didn’t explicitly advocate embryo selection: I am simply saying that it is an extremely potent approach to enhance the ability of a population.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Eugenics can enhance ability and relieve suffering.

How? How can killing human beings enhance anything or relieve anything?

I wonder if the means of eugenics can justify this end. Of course, eugenics has the potential to cause much suffering. We should remember the egregious action done in the name of human betterment such as the Holocaust.

Eugenics is best understood in terms of the Nazi application – because once you accept its basic tenents, that’s where you wind up.

I’ll quote this dialogue from Star Trek as I do think it is germane to your question:

SOONG: How can a supposedly intelligent species reject technology that would enhance ability, relieve suffering?
ARCHER: Genetic engineering has caused a lot of suffering.
SOONG: So did splitting the atom, yet the first ships to colonise the solar system were nuclear-powered. But you’re not here to discuss that.

Very apropos – Star Trek is the methaphor for modern liberalism. They have this wonderful, idealistic Prime Directive – and they violate it every single episode, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have a show.

I didn’t explicitly advocate embryo selection: I am simply saying that it is an extremely potent approach to enhance the ability of a population.

And, as in Star Trek, you’ll substitute lip service for true morality.

 

[Academic]

Of course embryo selection implies that you dispose of those embryos that are not selected. I assume one could in the future select for sperms and unfertilized eggs - which we all “kill” in the millions without being bothered by it. But why that would make a major moral difference to selecting for fertilized egg cells or early stage embryos is beyond comprehension for me. It’s all just microscopic cells or cell assemblies, not individuals, not persons, and thus not something you need to bother about ethically. This may sound awfully blunt to some ears, but I dearly hope the church gets real on this issue at some point, because the current policy recommendations - based on the bizarre idea that fertilized eggs have moral rights - are often nothing but evil.

Ribozyme seems stuck with the idea that eugenics means that we should “eliminate” people. Not. I have explained at length that humane eugenics does not imply killing any one. We want to reduce suffering and promote happiness, development and creativity by changing the frequency of relevant genes in the gene pool. The difference is vast, and with a little calm, clear analysis you should be able to see that new eugenics has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Finally, Jennifer claims that we in the West are responsible for disease and poverty in the third world. This kind of senseless masochism drives me crazy. The third world was much poorer and plagued by diseases when we first came there. All traces of higher civilization in Africa - from technology to medicine to culture - have been imported from the West. When left to their own, these societies invariably collapse back to their biological level. No, I’m sorry, but the inability of certain populations to develop or maintain civilization is not our fault, and it’s important to see that clearly.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…It’s all just microscopic cells or cell assemblies, not individuals, not persons, and thus not something you need to bother about ethically… does not imply killing any one.

You seem to accept this as self-evident premise. We don’t. We call the deliberate destruction of a human embryo “killing” a human being, and we believe it is something we need to bother about ethically.

 

[Jennifer123]

Of course embryo selection implies that you dispose of those embryos that are not selected. I assume one could in the future select for sperms and unfertilized eggs - which we all “kill” in the millions without being bothered by it. But why that would make a major moral difference to selecting for fertilized egg cells or early stage embryos is beyond comprehension for me. It’s all just microscopic cells or cell assemblies, not individuals, not persons, and thus not something you need to bother about ethically. This may sound awfully blunt to some ears, but I dearly hope the church gets real on this issue at some point, because the current policy recommendations - based on the bizarre idea that fertilized eggs have moral rights - are often nothing but evil.

**Fertilized egg - the term betrays either your lack of knowledge about human reproduction or is a deliberate attempt to dehumanize in an effort to manipulate and exploit.
A “fertilized egg” is an embryo, a human being in the earliest stage of development. Development occurs all throughout our entire lives, if a human can be killed at its earliest stage of development, what stops a human from being killed at any stage of development? What stops infantcide or the euthanasia of the old, sick or dying?

If “fertilized eggs”, human beings in the embryonic stage of development, don’t have human rights, when do human rights come into existance?**

Ribozyme seems stuck with the idea that eugenics means that we should “eliminate” people. Not. I have explained at length that humane eugenics does not imply killing any one. We want to reduce suffering and promote happiness, development and creativity by changing the frequency of relevant genes in the gene pool. The difference is vast, and with a little calm, clear analysis you should be able to see that new eugenics has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Killing fetilized eggs means killing human beings, based, on your assertion, of “unwanted” genetic material, which is entirely subjective. I don’t see anything “new” about that other than it is done maybe in a petri dish rather than ovens.

Finally, Jennifer claims that we in the West are responsible for disease and poverty in the third world. This kind of senseless masochism drives me crazy. The third world was much poorer and plagued by diseases when we first came there. All traces of higher civilization in Africa - from technology to medicine to culture - have been imported from the West. When left to their own, these societies invariably collapse back to their biological level. No, I’m sorry, but the inability of certain populations to develop or maintain civilization is not our fault, and it’s important to see that clearly.

You obviously choose to ignore the nature and effect of European colonization for a start and rather base the inability of of “certain populations” (black and brown people) to maintain civilization on “poor” genetic material.