Catholic Eugenics?

[ribozyme]

I do not find incentives to highly educated couples >particularly potent in a eugenics program. It is far too
slow to generate a meaningful boost in intelligence.

I finally have a copy of Richard Lynn’s Eugenics: A Reassessment to read, and I will retain my argument that coercive embryo selection is the lesser of the two evils in comparison to mandatory embryo selection:

Possibly, embryo selection will eventually be adopted by 80 percent to 90 percent of the population and will stabilize at this level. The remaining 20 percent of babies will continue to be conceived by sexual intercourse. These would be born largely to couples of low intelligence and psychopathic personality who conceive by accident by accident and do not have their unplanned pregnancies terminated.

When this point is reached, two populations will diverge genetically. A gulf will open up between the embryo-selected children and the “unplanned,” as those conceived by sexual intercourse may come to be known. If, as seems probably, the parents of the unplanned come from the bottom 10 percent to 20 percent of the population for intelligence, their mean IQ would be around 80 and the mean IQs of their children would be around 84. The remaining 80 percent to 90 percent of the population who had their children by embryo selection would have a mean IQ of about 110. By using embryo selection they could have children with IQs 15 points higher than their own, giving their children a mean IQ of 125. Thus, in the first generation there would be a difference of around 40 IQ points between the average IQ of the embryo-selected and that of the unplanned… Thus, in the second generation the intelligence gap between the embryo selected and the unplanned would increase from around 40 IQ points to around 55 IQ points. This would give the embryo-selected children a huge advantage in schools, colleges, occupations, and incomes…

This will lead to the emergence of a caste society containing to genetically differentiated castes - the embryo-selected and the unplanned. (Lynn, 2001 pg. 288-289)

Lynn overestimates the proportion of people who would use embryo selection. Lynn argues that only people who have low intelligence will not use embryo selection. However, Lynn does not count people who hold certain religious beliefs. Unfortunately, their children would be at a tremendous disadvantage. If eugenics is only used to give some children an advantage over other children, it should not be utilized. However, I am willing to consider using embryo selection if it can be used to eliminate social inequality rather than exacerbate it. Eliminating social inequality should be the first priority.

 

[Jennifer123]

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?

A “fertilized egg”, or to use scientific language, an embryo, has human DNA. How is it that a “fertilized egg”, which has human DNA, not a human?

 

[Jennifer123]

This property or set of properties is what I call “personhood”: the ability to think, feel, perceive, having a self etc.

Personhood - are coma victims not human beings, since as much as we have understood up to now, they don’t have the ability to perceive, think, have a “self” (whatever that means).

Your “personhood” criteria is quite subjective and that is why we state the fact that humans have inherent dignity that is separate from the subjective issue of acquired abilities or accomplishments.

If the embryo, a human being in the early embryonic stage of development, has no rights, then there are no human rights, because the embryo is clearly a human being, it has unique human DNA, and if there were rights that followed from simply being human, the embryonic human would have them. If there are no human rights, then of course the so-called “right to privacy” or “right to an abortion” is also not a human right.

 

[Jennifer123]

Tell that to the embryonic humans you wish to eliminate due to “inferior” genetic material. The Jews were murdered for the exact same reason. Doesn’t seem irrational to me.

 

[ribozyme]

I finally have a copy of Richard Lynn’s Eugenics: A Reassessment to read, and I will retain my argument that coercive embryo selection is the lesser of the two evils in comparison to mandatory embryo selection:

I mean to say “in comparison to voluntary embryo selection”

Lynn continues:

How the Western democracies will handle this problem is difficult to predict. Probably for some decades they would strength the custodial state by incarcerating increasing numbers of the underclass in prisions, as has been done in recent decades in the United States and Europe. Possibly in due course sine Western governments mught require the genetic underclass to have their children by embryo selection, which would gradually raise their intelligence levels, improve their personality qualities, and make it possible to integrate into mainstream society. Alternatively, they might prohibit them from having children by sterilizing them or by the introduction of some form of parental licensing scheme… (Lynn, 2001, pg. 289)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Academic,

Your definitiion of when human life begins seems arbitrarily selected. Christians have an epistemology which might differ from yours. If you are going to come to a Christian forum, you might want to consider that.

Embryologists, whether Christian or not, describe the point in which human life begins. You don’t seem to even address that fact. Instead you want to declare and have us accept your personal declaration uncritically that human life doesn’t really begin when science says it begins. If that’s your best argument, then you have some work to do.

You seem so married to your agenda that you don’t seem able or willing to see that your premise regarding when human life really begins is incorrect, according the epistimology of embryologist, and according to the epistimology of Christianity.

 

[Academic]

Vern… seriously… this opinion poll was sent out to scientists actively engaged in related fields. They know the original literature. The poll is not the evidence. It is of interest as it illustrates how the members of the scientific community weigh the different types of evidence. Well, well…

Happy Easter to you all!!

 

[Academic]

itsjustdave: Your definitiion of when human life begins seems arbitrarily selected. Christians have an epistemology which might differ from yours. If you are going to come to a Christian forum, you might want to consider that.

Yes, absolutely. I am really interested in a qualified discussion of these issues from a catholic perspective. I’m not here to provoke. By the way, I have always opposed the attitude - not uncommon in scientific circles in Europe at least - that the religious arguments against abortion are not even worth considering or inviting to discussions. I think one can possibly make a case against abortion, but I still think that embryo selection is morally ok and opens fantastic possibilities.

 

[Academic]

Jennifer: Personhood - are coma victims not human beings, since as much as we have understood up to now, they don’t have the ability to perceive, think, have a “self” (whatever that means).

I think coma victims have a different moral status since they have been persons, and so have a whole web of close relations to other persons and society. An embryo has never been a person.

Jennifer: Your “personhood” criteria is quite subjective and that is why we state the fact that humans have inherent dignity that is separate from the subjective issue of acquired abilities or accomplishments.

I don’t think they are that subjective. Again, it’s absolutely obvious that - broadly speaking - these kind of “higher mental properties” are the reason we respect humans, and your respect towards any cell mass with human DNA is just a secondary extension of that intuition to anything with a human genome. The problem with this extension is that when you come down to 2-cell test tube embryos, who will never develop into adults, the DNA criterion seems completely arbitrary, indeed a form of species-ism.
(You can’t reply to this point by just reiterating that they are human.)

Jennifer: If the embryo, a human being in the early embryonic stage of development, has no rights, then there are no human rights, because the embryo is clearly a human being, it has unique human DNA, and if there were rights that followed from simply being human, the embryonic human would have them.

So I side with those who deny that human rights come all or none with just having human DNA, mainly because you end up with the bizarre situation that fertilized human cells have human rights. The scenario is so absurd, that I am sure not even you would act according to your theories in reality and, as elsewhere, a completely absurd conclusion suggests something is wrong with the argument. For sure, this question is not easy and we can feel uncomfortable about when exactly the human individual arises during prenatal development and when he/she disappears in cases of vegetative states induced by severe trauma or disease, but let’s look for the most reasonable position rather than going to simplistic extremes. And the interesting question for this thread is that mass produced in vitro embryos might be a different moral story from embryos in a womb.

 

[Academic]

ribozyme: Such research maybe interesting, but I do not think it should have any policy implications UNLESS it solves the problems.

I don’t think either that science has implications for policy. But it should inform policy. More specifically, it can validate or invalidate certain arguments that are raised to support a particular policy. In this case, e.g. all arguments for increased immigration from the third world which are based on the premise of equal mental ability between populations are falsified. (One could still argue for such a policy, but one would have to use other arguments.)

 

[ribozyme]

Jennifer: Personhood - are coma victims not human beings, since as much as we have understood up to now, they don’t have the ability to perceive, think, have a “self” (whatever that means).

I don’t think they are that subjective. Again, it’s absolutely obvious that - broadly speaking - these kind of “higher mental properties” are the reason we respect humans, and your respect towards any cell mass with human DNA is just a secondary extension of that intuition to anything with a human genome. The problem with this extension is that when you come down to 2-cell test tube embryos, who will never develop into adults, the DNA criterion seems completely arbitrary, indeed a form of species-ism.
(You can’t reply to this point by just reiterating that they are human.)

.

So I side with those who deny that human rights come all or none with just having human DNA, mainly because you end up with the bizarre situation that fertilized human cells have human rights. The scenario is so absurd, that I am sure not even you would act according to your theories in reality and, as elsewhere, a completely absurd conclusion suggests something is wrong with the argument. For sure, this question is not easy and we can feel uncomfortable about when exactly the human individual arises during prenatal development and when he/she disappears in cases of vegetative states induced by severe trauma or disease, but let’s look for the most reasonable position rather than going to simplistic extremes. And the interesting question for this thread is that mass produced in vitro embryos might be a different moral story from embryos in a womb.

I am willing to bet in Jennifer’s heart of hearts she know that the “DNA argument” is a specious argument. But if we use biochemistry to decided whether an embryo has the right to life or not it becomes arbitrary. One might define “human” as one who possesses 46 chromosomes in their somatic cells. I guess that disqualifies those who have Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and other aneuploidies. Using an empirical criterion is arbitrary as it is contingent on the whims of those who use such an argument. Academic, I know that you know that Jennifer doesn’t believe in her “DNA argument”; you know that she believes that these embryos have the right to live because God endowed them with an immortal soul. Since it is likely you are an atheist, you are not willing to accept that argument.

So what’s the difference between your perception (and Richard Lynn’s perception) and Jennifer and Dave’s views on the moral status of the embryos? The former views the discarded embryos as vectors of defective genes that should be eliminated from the gene pool; the latter sees them as unique individuals created in the image of God. Since the former does not believe in God, their views are mutually incompatible with the latter.

I will reiterate Richard Lynn’s views:

These would be born largely to couples of low intelligence and psychopathic personality who conceive by accident and do not have their unplanned pregnancies terminated.

A gulf will open up between the embryo-selected children and the “unplanned,” as those conceived by sexual intercourse may come to be known.

It is salient that he does not express any semblance for the belief in human dignity. He calls those who possess undesirable phenotypes “accidents” and “the unplanned.” I read parts of Eugenics and he does not acknowledge human dignity; instead he views the mentally retarded and criminal a genetic liability. He does not emphasize their humanity when he does this.

 

[Larry1700]

…moral entitlement is closely connected to the basic set of mental properties I include under the umbrella term “personhood”.

Academic,

Please be sure to advise your friends and family of your “basic set of mental properties” used to define personhood. Oh, and you better make sure that those are adopted by the powers that be (government, American Medical Association, etc.). When your own mental capacity declines as you get older, or you become mentally incapacitated due to illness or injury, you’ll want to be sure that everyone else abides by the same standards of “personhood” that you’ve established.

 

[Larry1700]

Academic,

If you’re quoting someone in your post, use the “quote” button at the bottom right-hand corner of their post. If you want to quote only a portion, then delete what you don’t want and insert the word “QUOTE” in brackets at the beginning of that portion, and “/QUOTE” in brackets to mark the end.

 

[Larry1700]

…moral entitlement is closely connected to the basic set of mental properties I include under the umbrella term “personhood”.

Academic,

It just dawned on me. Even if you convince family, friends, government, the AMA, etc. that your “basic set of mental properties” to define personhood is valid, you might still have a problem when your own mental capacity falls below that standard. Consensus opinion often changes with the times, and laws aren’t set in stone forever, either. Therefore 20, 30, 40 years from now, there might be someone in a position to determine your value as a person who might disagree with your standard.

Heck, maybe a group from another medical discipline, such as endocrinologists, might determine that neuroscience is an inferior discipline, and that people who believe in the principles of neuroscience are mentally inferior, and should not be allowed to procreate.

But, if you get a free trip to a deserted island, it just might be worth it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern… seriously… this opinion poll was sent out to scientists actively engaged in related fields. They know the original literature. The poll is not the evidence. It is of interest as it illustrates how the members of the scientific community weigh the different types of evidence. Well, well…

Happy Easter to you all!!

Why would a scientist use such a poll? I note that all your “authorities” seem to be a little paranoid, obsessing on “my critics” and majoritiy opinions and how someone said “Boo” to them and so on.

 

[Jennifer123]

Jennifer: Personhood - are coma victims not human beings, since as much as we have understood up to now, they don’t have the ability to perceive, think, have a “self” (whatever that means).

I think coma victims have a different moral status since they have been persons, and so have a whole web of close relations to other persons and society. An embryo has never been a person.

An embryo is a human. A person is a human. Ever met a person who wasn’t a human? Again, the burden of proof in regards to this “personhood” is yours.

Jennifer: Your “personhood” criteria is quite subjective and that is why we state the fact that humans have inherent dignity that is separate from the subjective issue of acquired abilities or accomplishments.

I don’t think they are that subjective. Again, it’s absolutely obvious that - broadly speaking - these kind of “higher mental properties” are the reason we respect humans, and your respect towards any cell mass with human DNA is just a secondary extension of that intuition to anything with a human genome. The problem with this extension is that when you come down to 2-cell test tube embryos, who will never develop into adults, the DNA criterion seems completely arbitrary, indeed a form of species-ism.
(You can’t reply to this point by just reiterating that they are human.)

Why can’t I say the embryo is human? It is human, it is not a monkey, it is not a bird, it is not a cat, it is a human being that is in its embryonic stage of development, whether it lives in a test tube or a womb.
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/00rldoe.shtml
“Scientific testimony to the Human Embryo Research Panel confirmed that human development is a continuum from the one-celled stage onward. Even the Panel’s own vice-chairman for scientific issues, a noted abortion practitioner, ended up saying that the term “pre-embryo” is “ridiculous.””

Jennifer: If the embryo, a human being in the early embryonic stage of development, has no rights, then there are no human rights, because the embryo is clearly a human being, it has unique human DNA, and if there were rights that followed from simply being human, the embryonic human would have them.

So I side with those who deny that human rights come all or none with just having human DNA, mainly because you end up with the bizarre situation that **fertilized human cells **have human rights. The scenario is so absurd, that I am sure not even you would act according to your theories in reality and, as elsewhere, a completely absurd conclusion suggests something is wrong with the argument. For sure, this question is not easy and we can feel uncomfortable about when exactly the human individual arises during prenatal development and when he/she disappears in cases of vegetative states induced by severe trauma or disease, but let’s look for the most reasonable position rather than going to simplistic extremes. And the interesting question for this thread is that mass produced in vitro embryos might be a different moral story from embryos in a womb.

So now I see, that given the scientific fact that a “fertilized egg” is indeed a human embryo, you’ve taken to calling it “fertilized human cells”. Honestly, you can’t think that you are pulling the wool over my eyes. You can dress up your language in all the faux-scientific method you wish, which may influence your friends, but it doesn’t impress me, with all due respect. Your use of unscientific terms is an effort to dehumanize what is human in order to marginalize and exploit what is life for your own benefit.

You not only deny that human rights exist for “fertilized cells” but for all mankind. When you state that a human embryo, with unique individual DNA, is less than a human being, then you must extend that logic further. Anyone, at any stage of development, race, creed or gender, can also be declared “less than human” based on subjective criteria. Blacks in this country were once declared “less than human”, denied basic human rights, and it was argued that slavery was a matter of personal liberty, a matter of conscience, regardless of what our country’s Constitution said.
Treating human life as property for our own “personal liberty” is wrong, no matter what time we live.

 

[Jennifer123]

I am willing to bet in Jennifer’s heart of hearts she know that the “DNA argument” is a specious argument. But if we use biochemistry to decided whether an embryo has the right to life or not it becomes arbitrary. One might define “human” as one who possesses 46 chromosomes in their somatic cells. I guess that disqualifies those who have Down syndrome, Turner syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and other aneuploidies. Using an empirical criterion is arbitrary as it is contingent on the whims of those who use such an argument. Academic, I know that you know that Jennifer doesn’t believe in her “DNA argument”; you know that she believes that these embryos have the right to live because God endowed them with an immortal soul. Since it is likely you are an atheist, you are not willing to accept that argument.

No, rather I believe your arguments are specious, based on subjectivity on some nebulous “personhood” that cannot be defined. Mine are based on fact. A human embryo has human DNA, therefore it is human. If human embryos, human beings in the embryonic stage of development, do not have a right to live, then none of us can claim any special inherent right to live.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have to ask yourself, “What’s the motivation here?”

Why is it important to deny the unborn are human?

Why is it important to “prove” that some races are inferior?

Why should we seek to control the human race to the point of dictating who can and who cannot reproduce?

It reminds me of a Thanksgiving cartoon, where the farmer is feeding the turkeys, and one turkey says to another, “Well, yearh, I agree he’s a nice guy. But I can’t help asking myself, ‘What’s in it for him?’”

 

[ribozyme]

You have to ask yourself, “What’s the motivation here?”

Why is it important to deny the unborn are human?

It is because Academic and Richard Lynn want to eliminate the misery caused by people possessing a paucity of g. Academic and Lynn believe this is has an inveterate genetic cause and the only way one can solve this problem is to eliminate those genes that lower g.

Why should we seek to control the human race to the point of dictating who can and who cannot reproduce?

I think Academic will tersely reply that increasing g will diminish human misery.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is because Academic and Richard Lynn want to eliminate the misery caused by people possessing a paucity of g. Academic and Lynn believe this is has an inveterate genetic cause and the only way one can solve this problem is to eliminate those genes that lower g.

I think Academic will tersely reply that increasing g will diminish human misery.

How does** increasing** human misery by the methods they advocate decrease human misery?

How does denying the humanity of many humans, and tightly controlling the rest in a totalitarian system that would make Hitler and Stalin salavate decrease human misery?