Catholic Eugenics?

[Academic]

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

I think views may differ exactly about when that happens, but it has to do with things like when the fetus develops some kind of crude consciousness and what could be reasonably regarded as a personal identity - and that’s surely far later than at the early embryonic stage. A cockroach is way more complex than an embryo at this stage. Your equating killing cell masses in a Petri dish with killing humans in an oven is, by the way, not only completely irrational but also extremely offensive - not least to the victims to Nazi murder. If we get stuck at this level, it seems pointless to try to explain further why eugenics is a good thing.

Regarding the third world. I don’t deny that a lot of inexcusable crimes were committed during the colonization era. However, this does not mean that the net effect of colonization for these countries was bad. Again, a tremendous amount of resources and know-how were brought to these countries. That they seem unable to develop this further is another, sad story. This may, unfortunately, have to do with ethnic differences in mental capacity and personality, which in turn are based in evolutionary life history - but the argument for that is very complex and not the topic of the current thread.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I knew I have heard of this book before. I believe one of Al Kresta shows mentioned this book. I also checked the Ave Maria Radio On-line Store and they have it available there with a link to Al Kresta.

 

[ribozyme]

I presume you’re a fan of Rushton. I briefly outlined the evolutionary life history argument in posts 14 and 15 though to elucidate the cruelity of eugenics.

I will reiterate my conclusion:

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Actually, if you check any embryology textbook, it will tell you that human life begins at the union of an oocyte and a sperm. For example, this science book written by embryologists states:

“Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.” (Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), p. 2., emphasis added.)

 

[ribozyme]

I will say this about embryo selection: its own weakness is actually its own strength. Embryo selection is an allusion to the cruelity of natural selection in nature (I described this in post 15). Embryo selection works too well in eliminating the weak.

If you want to embrace embryo selection, as I pointed out in the aformentioned post, we have to abandon the notion of human dignity. We have to perceive the embryos as vectors of genes, not people. If we do this, then we can easily deem most of these embryos not worthy of life.

My position on embryo selection is agnosticism though.

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.

The “vast difference” is the problem .

 

[Academic]

I don’t want to bring up the whole issue of abortion, since this thread is not about that, but one point seems important.

One argument against early abortion seems to be based on the idea that the early embryo “is” a human being. Now, literally that’s of course not true. A few cells do not comprise a human. What is meant, I assume, is that under normal conditions this cell mass will develop into a human being in the womb of the mother. And then, interrupting this process is said to be (almost) equivalent to murder. This argument is not exactly compelling for a lot of people, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.

The point in this context is rather that we have an obvious and ethically relevant difference to mass production of fertilized embryos in vitro. These embryos are not humans, and they will not normally develop into humans either. If left in the dish they would just die; what is required to give the in vitro embryo a fair chance of even developing into a human, is an advanced process of implantation. So as far as I can see, there is no valid argument left for the idea that these in vitro embryos should be regarded as humans. In fact, when thinking twice about it, the whole notion seems too crazy to really convince anyone: Let’s assume we produce, say, 100,000 fertilized egg cells by some mass fertilization procedure in a Petri dish. Would flushing away the contents of this dish be equivalent to mass murder of 100,000 persons? If given a choice between these two acts, who would seriously hesitate?

I fear that rational arguments have little weight for some people, in this field, but I do think this whole issue is an important and ethically interesting question. It is also far from evident what the Church - which has quite a few clever thinkers - will say about the matter in the long run.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Excuse me?

They are individuals. They are persons. They are as human as you are.

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.

The idea that human beings may be killed at whim is evil – and that’s what you’re defending.

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.

In your very first paragraph, you advocated the killing of human beings, saying “why that would make a major moral difference to selecting for fertilized egg cells or early stage embryos is beyond comprehension for me.”

We want to reduce suffering and promote happiness, development and creativity by changing the frequency of relevant genes in the gene pool.

By committing mass murder.

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.

It has everything to do with the Holocaust. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews, calling them “untermenschen,” and you dehumanize the unborn.

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.

What racism!!

 

[Academic]

Vern Humphrey: They are individuals. They are persons. They are as human as you are.

Your definition of personhood makes no sense. If a system lacks even a limited sense of self, let alone raw awareness, and a behavorial repertoire of some kind of complexity, there is just no person there. With your definition of person, basically any living organism, including protozoa, would be persons.

Vern Humphrey: It has everything to do with the Holocaust. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews, calling them “untermenschen,” and you dehumanize the unborn.

To point out that a non-human is not a human being, is not to dehumanize. There is no human there to dehumanize. I have a certain respect for some arguments against abortion (although I believe in the final analysis, they are wrong) - those which are based on that it is wrong to interrupt a process which leads to a human, as an end-product. If I’m not mistaken, that is also the way the church argues. But to say that a fertilized egg cell is a human being is just nutty nutty. Do you have conversations with your sperm cells too?

And as already pointed out, arguments against abortion are not at all necessarily valid against elimination of mass-produced in vitro embryos.

Then I don’t see what’s racist in my earlier comments about Africa. Racism is when you discriminate or mistreat an individual, because of her/his ethnicity. I was just pointing out some glaring facts about statisticial differences in cultural capacity between ethnic groups. That’s an empirical observation which has nothing to do with racist ideology, which I by the way abhor.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern Humphrey: They are individuals. They are persons. They are as human as you are.

Your definition of personhood makes no sense. If a system lacks even a limited sense of self, let alone raw awareness, and a behavorial repertoire of some kind of complexity, there is just no person there. With your definition of person, basically any living organism, including protozoa, would be persons.

Your attempt to say there is something called “personhood” which is distinct from humanity is disingenuous.

The embryo is as human as you are.

To point out that a non-human is not a human being, is not to dehumanize. There is no human there to dehumanize.

The embryo is a human being. It has complete and personal DNA. It is as human as you are.

I have a certain respect for some arguments against abortion (although I believe in the final analysis, they are wrong) - those which are based on that it is wrong to interrupt a process which leads to a human, as an end-product. If I’m not mistaken, that is also the way the church argues. But to say that a fertilized egg cell is a human being is just nutty nutty. Do you have conversations with your sperm cells too?

I feel like I’m having a conversation with one now.

And as already pointed out, arguments against abortion are not at all necessarily valid against elimination of mass-produced in vitro embryos.

They are valid – and you saying they are not doesn’t change that.

Then I don’t see what’s racist in my earlier comments about Africa. Racism is when you discriminate or mistreat an individual, because of her/his ethnicity.

Which is exactly what you’re doing.

I was just pointing out some glaring facts about statisticial differences in cultural capacity between ethnic groups. That’s an empirical observation which has nothing to do with racist ideology, which I by the way abhor.

It’s racism – no matter how much lipstick and rouge you put on it.

 

[Academic]

vern humphrey: Your attempt to say there is something called “personhood” which is distinct from humanity is disingenuous.

“Disingenuous” is an odd wording, to say the least. By “person” I mean roughly the same as what we mean by this concept in everyday language. And by that definition, of course not every cell assembly with a human DNA is a person!! So “personhood” is very distinct from “humanity”, in the sense of “having human DNA”. Furthermore, it seems clear that our respect for humanity is rooted in our respect for persons/individuals: noone, you included, shows the same respect for 2-cell embryos that grow up to become flatfish.

vern humphrey: They are valid – and you saying they are not doesn’t change that.

Well, the thing is that your argument against abortion and embryo selection is crazy already in the premises (that a fertilized egg is a human being),so it leads nowhere in either case. I was talking about more sophisticated arguments against abortion, which may not hold against embryo selection.

vern humprey: Which is exactly what you’re doing. [mistreating or discriminating indivuals]

Which is exactly what I was careful not to do. Who was I discriminating? Pointing out facts about ethnic variation, or researching this topic empirically, is not racism. Give us a break.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Disingenuous” is an odd wording, to say the least. By “person” I mean roughly the same as what we mean by this concept in everyday language.

per·son /ˈpɜrsən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pur-suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

An embryo is clearly a human being and hence a “person.”

And by that definition, of course not every cell assembly with a human DNA is a person!! So “personhood” is very distinct from “humanity”, in the sense of “having human DNA”. Furthermore, it seems clear that our respect for humanity is rooted in our respect for persons/individuals:

One who considers other races inferior, support eugenics, and denies the humanity of the most helpeless amongst us can hardly claim to have “respect for persons/individuals.”

noone, you included, shows the same respect for 2-cell embryos that grow up to become flatfish.

That’s because they’re not human.

Well, the thing is that your argument against abortion and embryo selection is crazy already in the premises (that a fertilized egg is a human being),so it leads nowhere in either case. I was talking about more sophisticated arguments against abortion, which may not hold against embryo selection.

Well, the thing is that your argument for abortion and embryo selection is crazy already in the premises (that a fertilized egg is not a human being),so it leads nowhere in either case.

Which is exactly what I was careful not to do. Who was I discriminating? Pointing out facts about ethnic variation, or researching this topic empirically, is not racism. Give us a break.

Your “facts” are not facts and your conclusions are based on your inherent racism.

 

[ribozyme]

Which is exactly what I was careful not to do. Who was I discriminating? Pointing out facts about ethnic variation, or researching this topic empirically, is not racism. Give us a break.

It is racism, even if it is empirical; some knowledge is not worth possessing such as the inferiority of certain races.

 

[Academic]

vern humphrey: That’s because they’re [flatfish embryos] not human.

You miss the point. We have two embryos - one human, one flatfish - which are virtually indistinguishable in outer appearance and behavior. Why is it ok to kill one, but not the other? Because one of them is human, you say.

But it’s clear that your idea that it’s wrong to kill humans never would have arisen in the first place if humans never advanced past the 2-cell stage (that you and I wouldn’t have this discussion then either is irrelevant! ). So it’s some property which adult humans have which gives them moral rights, and from that you “extrapolate” to give human embryos moral rights too. This property or set of properties is what I call “personhood”: the ability to think, feel, perceive, having a self etc.

Why do I bring this up in this thread? Because it leads back to the “process argument”: the only way you could sensibly extrapolate in this way, is by arguing that the embryo is part of a process which leads to a unique individual. And, as I pointed out, this process argument doesn’t have the same force against embryo selection, since in vitro embryos don’t survive and develop unless implanted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You miss the point. We have two embryos - one human, one flatfish - which are virtually indistinguishable in outer appearance and behavior. Why is it ok to kill one, but not the other? Because one of them is human, you say.

No, you miss the point. The human embryo is human – as human as you or I.

But it’s clear that your idea that it’s wrong to kill humans never would have arisen in the first place if humans never advanced past the 2-cell stage (that you and I wouldn’t have this discussion then either is irrelevant! ).

There were no humans that “never advanced past the 2-cell stage.” Evolution doesn’t work that way.

So it’s some property which adult humans have which gives them moral rights, and from that you “extrapolate” to give human embryos moral rights too. This property or set of properties is what I call “personhood”: the ability to think, feel, perceive, having a self etc.

No it is not. All humans have a right to life – who denies that denies the very concept of human rights.

Why do I bring this up in this thread? Because it leads back to the “process argument”: the only way you could sensibly extrapolate in this way, is by arguing that the embryo is part of a process which leads to a unique individual.

The embryo** is** a unique individual/

And, as I pointed out, this process argument doesn’t have the same force against embryo selection, since in vitro embryos don’t survive and develop unless implanted.

There is no “process argument.” The unborn child, from the moment of conception, is as human as you are and has the same right to life.

 

[Academic]

vern: You simply avoid my argument. Let me it put it more simple then: Why do you think humans have moral rights, but not flatfish?

ribozyme: I simply can not believe that it ever would be better to consciously deny or avoid the truth, and stick to sweet lies. I feel sorry for you because I think you really suffer from having become persuaded that there are ethnic group differences in innate ability. But I don’t think this has to be so terrible: We should be able to live with that, without falling into racism (and no, empirical data do never by themselves constitute racism, because they are independent of values and ideology). Also, many good things could come of it too: What could be more important for Africa, for instance, than adopting an efficient eugenic program? And, in general, how can we solve a problem if we do not understand its underlying mechanisms?

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern: You simply avoid my argument. Let me it put it more simple then: Why do you think humans have moral rights, but not flatfish?

Because they are human, of course!

Do you feel flatfish should have human rights? Do you want to go out and register them all to vote?

ribozyme: I simply can not believe that it ever would be better to consciously deny or avoid the truth, and stick to sweet lies.

And yet you consciously deny or avoid the truth, and stick to sweet lies. You deny the humanity of the unborn, you trumpet the “inferiority” of Blacks.

I feel sorry for you because I think you really suffer from having become persuaded that there are ethnic group differences in innate ability.

Pardon me, but aren’t you also “persuaded that there are ethnic group differences in innate ability?”

But I don’t think this has to be so terrible: We should be able to live with that, without falling into racism (and no, empirical data do never by themselves constitute racism, because they are independent of values and ideology).

Your interpretation of questionable data does constitute racism.

Also, many good things could come of it too: What could be more important for Africa, for instance, than adopting an efficient eugenic program?

Thereby wiping out all those “inferior” genes, eh?

And, in general, how can we solve a problem if we do not understand its underlying mechanisms?

Blowing your horn for eugenics is hardly contributing to understanding the underlying mechanisms of any problem.

 

[Academic]

vern humphreys: Because they are human, of course!
Do you feel flatfish should have human rights? Do you want to go out and register them all to vote?

Well, I don’t. But if I were you I wouldn’t laugh that much. Please tell us why flatfish shouldn’t be allowed to vote and shouldn’t have moral rights? And when you explain why, please imagine that you are speaking to someone who never met humans or flatfish. . My point will become clear soon…

vern humphreys: Pardon me, but aren’t you also “persuaded that there are ethnic group differences in innate ability?”

After having studied the extensive literature on this topic for a couple of years, I can tell you that there is little doubt that there are such differences. I base this opinion on convergent evidence from: (i) mental testing of different populations in the US; (ii) mental testing of different populations all over the world (Lynn); (iii) statistical analysis showing that the best tests are not ethnically biased, and equally valid for different groups; (iv) statistical analysis showing that black/white differences on mental tests are related to differences in general intelligence; (v) the constancy of ethnic differences in mental test results over time; (vi) ethnic differences in cultural level, educational achivement, academic achievement, technological and cultural level and other sociological variables which mimic the differences in mental test results; (vii) within race and between race correlation between intelligence and biological brain properties; (vii) interracial adoption studies; (viii) studies of racial hybrids; (viii) Baker’s analysis of the contributions of different populations to civilization over historical time; (ix) the correlation between mental test results and sexual behavior (Rushton’s model) and the plausibility of an evolutionary psychological explanation for this whole data matrix.

But this is not the topic of the current thread, so I won’t develop further. And again, this does not imply racism is good!

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme: I simply can not believe that it ever would be better to consciously deny or avoid the truth, and stick to sweet lies. I feel sorry for you because I think you really suffer from having become persuaded that there are ethnic group differences in innate ability. But I don’t think this has to be so terrible: We should be able to live with that, without falling into racism (and no, empirical data do never by themselves constitute racism, because they are independent of values and ideology). Also, many good things could come of it too: What could be more important for Africa, for instance, than adopting an efficient eugenic program? And, in general, how can we solve a problem if we do not understand its underlying mechanisms?

I do not want to metamorphize into a venomous racist that is why I fear the research.

Vern: I’ll leave it up to Academic to argue that races do differ in innate ability. I do not want to corrupt your mind and poison your soul. I agree with Richard Lynn that these differences have a Darwinian explanation.

One particular pithy quote by Richard Lynn that had a profound effect on me was:

The position of environmentalists that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race. Or both.

wspublishers.com/

When I first read that quote, it became obvious that I was ignoring everything I had learned about evolution in AP Biology and whatever else I read in the peer-reviewed literature. I was arguing for racial equality based on some ethical agenda. I want to believe in human equality though.

I also found this quote from a biochemistry textbook:

The incidence of the most common form of glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, characterized by a tenfold reduction in enzymatic activity in red blood cells, is 11% among Americans of African heritage. This high frequency suggests that the deficiency may be advantageous under certain environmental conditions. Indeed, glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency protects against falciparum malaria. The parasites causing this disease require reduced glutathione and the products of the pentose phosphate pathway for optimal growth. Thus, glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency is a mechanism of protection against malaria, which accounts for its high frequency in malaria-infested regions of the world. We see here once again the interplay of heredity and environment in the production of disease.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=books&doptcmdl=GenBookHL&term=glucose+dehydrogenase+AND+stryer%5Bbook%5D+AND+216499%5Buid%5D&rid=stryer.section.2836#2837

So why couldn’t African populations and “Cacausoids” differ in allele frequencies for intelligence alleles? Why couldn’t “Caucasoids” and “Mongoloids” experience selection pressures in their environment that augmented their intelligence, just like the prevalence of malaria favored G6P dehydrogenase deficiency? When I first encountered this, I continued to deny it, but eventually the wall of denial crumbled.

I occasionally feel like crying after acknowledging this as I have to jettison the treasured concept of human equality. It was a heartrending unpleasant experience.

Academic, I think Rushton’s claims about human evolution are exaggerated, but not without merit.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I asked:

Do you feel flatfish should have human rights? Do you want to go out and register them all to vote?

And you said:

Well, I don’t. But if I were you I wouldn’t laugh that much. Please tell us why flatfish shouldn’t be allowed to vote and shouldn’t have moral rights?

Because they’re not human, of course.

And when you explain why, please imagine that you are speaking to someone who never met humans or flatfish. .

I had begun to suspect that.

My point will become clear soon…

I saw it when you took off your hat.

After having studied the extensive literature on this topic for a couple of years, I can tell you that there is little doubt that there are such differences.

The True Believer will seek out evidence to support his beliefs – but that don’t make it true.

I base this opinion on convergent evidence from: (i) mental testing of different populations in the US; (ii) mental testing of different populations all over the world (Lynn); (iii) statistical analysis showing that the best tests are not ethnically biased, and equally valid for different groups; (iv) statistical analysis showing that black/white differences on mental tests are related to differences in general intelligence; (v) the constancy of ethnic differences in mental test results over time; (vi) ethnic differences in cultural level, educational achivement, academic achievement, technological and cultural level and other sociological variables which mimic the differences in mental test results; (vii) within race and between race correlation between intelligence and biological brain properties; (vii) interracial adoption studies; (viii) studies of racial hybrids; (viii) Baker’s analysis of the contributions of different populations to civilization over historical time; (ix) the correlation between mental test results and sexual behavior (Rushton’s model) and the plausibility of an evolutionary psychological explanation for this whole data matrix.

And your degrees are in what field?

But this is not the topic of the current thread, so I won’t develop further. And again, this does not imply racism is good!

Then why be a racist? Why advance racist positions?

 

[Academic]

My degrees are in neuroscience, and I believe I have enough first-hand knowledge of this literature. And then to argue that humans should have special rights just because they are human is just idiotical, a zero argument.