what is the church's stance on eugenics?

[someperson555]

for example, lets say a genetically healthy male wants to marry a genetically unhealthy female, then the male would be forced to donate his seed to the state selective breeding program. because its not right to waste healthy genetic material. would the church agree to something like this? and what about state controlled reproduction with the purpose of creating a healthier more intelligent society? and before people get all up in arms about this, is it really moral to allow two midgets to reproduce? or two mentally handicapped people? im NOT talking about abortion, rather sterilization.

 

[fakename]

I do have some experience with this question:

I don’t think that the Church would be in favor of restricting small people from marriage or retarded people unless they can’t give consent (obvious).

In some cases,(and this is just my opinion based on faulty memory) it appears that the Church is okay with eugenics as in regulating marriage only for grave reason like if the nation is endangered by the reproduction of those with heritable habits like a disposition to drunkeness or lust or violence.

But even in this case it only allows ostracization and not sterilization which is immoral in all cases except for health.

here’s an article on eugenics from Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm

 

[someperson555]

I do have some experience with this question:

I don’t think that the Church would be in favor of restricting small people from marriage or retarded people unless they can’t give consent (obvious).

In some cases,(and this is just my opinion based on faulty memory) it appears that the Church is okay with eugenics as in regulating marriage only for grave reason like if the nation is endangered by the reproduction of those with heritable habits like a disposition to drunkeness or lust or violence.

But even in this case it only allows ostracization and not sterilization which is immoral in all cases except for health.

here’s an article on eugenics from Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm

thank you, that was a very interesting article, ( i never knew Galton and Darwin were cousins). its seems the church also supports eugenics. unfortunately it seems the church also wants to try to preserve the “family” at the same time. this could create problems becasue if you want to breed the best with the best, the chances are very small that they will meet eachother and fall in love on their own. which is why the church would need to allow in-vitro fertilization. but other than that, im glad to see that the church actually favors soemthing progressive for a change.

 

[YADA]

for example, lets say a genetically healthy male wants to marry a genetically unhealthy female, then the male would be forced to donate his seed to the state selective breeding program. because its not right to waste healthy genetic material. would the church agree to something like this? and what about state controlled reproduction with the purpose of creating a healthier more intelligent society? and before people get all up in arms about this, is it really moral to allow two midgets to reproduce? or two mentally handicapped people? im NOT talking about abortion, rather sterilization.

Maragret Sanger and Adolf Hitler followed your reasoning … Study history - how morally acceptable did their practice of Eugenics turn out Today we abort our young thansk to Sanger and Hitler killed 10 million …

How do you define ‘intelligent’? … theres the rub! … who has value? who decides the criteria that determines best genetics… ugh

Speak to those who know people with Downs Syndrom or better yet - befriend one … they can teach you a thing or two …

 

[ricofall]

thank you, that was a very interesting article, ( i never knew Galton and Darwin were cousins). its seems the church also supports eugenics. unfortunately it seems the church also wants to try to preserve the “family” at the same time. this could create problems becasue if you want to breed the best with the best, the chances are very small that they will meet eachother and fall in love on their own. which is why the church would need to allow in-vitro fertilization. but other than that, im glad to see that the church actually favors soemthing progressive for a change.

So am I understanding that the church should allow IV fertilization to breed the best of the best? Can you elaborate for me because I am not seeing that?
Thank you

 

[Suslar]

So am I understanding that the church should allow IV fertilization to breed the best of the best? Can you elaborate for me because I am not seeing that?
Thank you

No, the RCC NEVER supports IVF.

 

[Corki]

for example, lets say a genetically healthy male wants to marry a genetically unhealthy female, then the male would be forced to donate his seed to the state selective breeding program. because its not right to waste healthy genetic material. would the church agree to something like this? and what about state controlled reproduction with the purpose of creating a healthier more intelligent society? and before people get all up in arms about this, is it really moral to allow two midgets to reproduce? or two mentally handicapped people? im NOT talking about abortion, rather sterilization.

Both “donating seed” and sterilization are immoral too. Any plan including them would be immoral.

The Church is not against genetic testing prior to conception or even before marriage to avoid passing on genetic disorders. Nor is she against using moral means of birth control to prevent a pregnancy when a genetic disorder is likely. The Church is not against choosing a spouse based on the chance of bringing healthy children into the world.

But it would be immoral to support a program that sterilizes certain individuals or prevents them from marrying or reproducing.

 

[St_Francis]

…In some cases,(and this is just my opinion based on faulty memory) it appears that the Church is okay with eugenics as in regulating marriage only for grave reason like if the nation is endangered by the reproduction of those with heritable habits like a disposition to drunkeness or lust or violence…

here’s an article on eugenics from Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm

I think you misunderstood part of the article. It is not that the Church thinks that some regulation for the pirpose of eugenics is ok, but that some regulation by the state of marriage for a grave reason is permissable.

The article was written in 1913, when the idea of eugenics was relatively new. Rather than jump on one bandwagon or another, the Church generally waits to make a definitive decision until what it is making a decision about is very clear.

The Church would quite rightly condemn any immoral activity, even for the sake of eugenics.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Eugenics is evil. Who says what “unhealthy” genetics are and what “healthy” genetics are?

That’s a dangerous way of thinking. Regardless if someone is disabled or not, they still have just as much right to live as you do. They may end up in a higher place in heaven than you.

Eugenics is based solely on pride, arrogance, and the desire for dominance. There is really nothing scientific about it.

No, the RCC NEVER supports IVF.

Agreed. IVF is pure garbage. It’s making a mockery of the sanctity and beauty of the individual human person.

 

[someperson555]

Maragret Sanger and Adolf Hitler followed your reasoning … Study history - how morally acceptable did their practice of Eugenics turn out Today we abort our young thansk to Sanger and Hitler killed 10 million …

How do you define ‘intelligent’? … theres the rub! … who has value? who decides the criteria that determines best genetics… ugh

Speak to those who know people with Downs Syndrom or better yet - befriend one … they can teach you a thing or two …

this is where theres generally a huge misunderstanding about eugenics. it does not have anything to do with abortion. yes it does advocate streilization, but ask yourself, is it morally acceptable to allow people with severe genetic defects to reproduce? i mean i remember there was this show on cable a few years back, it was about a family of midgets, and honestly i found it sickening, how could those parents have been so selfish that they made 4 kids and 3 of them had their inherited disease. its as Madison Grant states in his book:

“A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit—in other words social failures—would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums.”

• exerpt from: “the passing of the great race”

now this may seem harsh, or mean, but is it really better to see people continue to suffer from these horrible diseases? and the Church would probably agree that criminals should not be allowed reproduce… this is much more humane too than the death penalty or lengthy jail sentences. as for “defining intelligence”, thats simple, anyone with an IQ of at least 100.

 

[StarFireKK]

for example, lets say a genetically healthy male wants to marry a genetically unhealthy female, then the male would be forced to donate his seed to the state selective breeding program. because its not right to waste healthy genetic material. would the church agree to something like this? and what about state controlled reproduction with the purpose of creating a healthier more intelligent society? and before people get all up in arms about this, is it really moral to allow two midgets to reproduce? or two mentally handicapped people? im NOT talking about abortion, rather sterilization.

How do you even make that statement? How can you even decide what is or is not a waste? How do you even decide what is genetically unhealthy?

State controlled reproduction!

You know who had the same ideas as you? Hitler.

That type of reasoning leads to genocide and mass murder because it is a very small leap from “should not be born” to “should not be alive.”

 

[someperson555]

How do you even make that statement? How can you even decide what is or is not a waste? How do you even decide what is genetically unhealthy?

State controlled reproduction!

You know who had the same ideas as you? Hitler.

That type of reasoning leads to genocide and mass murder because it is a very small leap from “should not be born” to “should not be alive.”

actually America practiced eugenics before the third reich, Hitler was just one of its many supporters at that time.
and the church should really consider its position on eugenics. as the benefits definitely outweigh the negatives.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Besides, it’s none of your business who “breeds” with who. That’s God’s business. He provides the human life, while we create nothing.

Here’s a great background history on Eugenics in the US.

 

[StarFireKK]

actually America practiced eugenics before the third reich, Hitler was just one of its many supporters at that time.

Doesn’t make my argument any less true. I’m aware American has practice it- so have a lot of countries- doesn’t make it right.

No one has the right to decide who should live or die. No one has a right to decide who should or should not be born. No Government has the right to decide which citizen’s DNA is superior and force breeding- either through traditional methods or test tube babies.

Thousands of people with horrible diseases lead happy lives and are glad they lived. Their families love them and are glad they existed in this world. What’s more is they are all children of God and God loves them.

You should be careful what you argue. Because while you may wish to rid the world of those suffering from dwarfism or other “horrible diseases” I would much prefer to remove from the world folks like you who have no understanding of the true value of human life. (Heck, I’m sure I can find or fund a study to show that lack of compassion is a genetic trait.)

 

[YADA]

this is where theres generally a huge misunderstanding about eugenics. it does not have anything to do with abortion. yes it does advocate streilization, but ask yourself, is it morally acceptable to allow people with severe genetic defects to reproduce? i mean i remember there was this show on cable a few years back, it was about a family of midgets, and honestly i found it sickening, how could those parents have been so selfish that they made 4 kids and 3 of them had their inherited disease. its as Madison Grant says:

“A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit—in other words social failures—would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums.”

now this may seem harsh, or mean, but is it really better to see people continue to suffer from these horrible diseases? and the Church would probably agree that criminals should not be allowed reproduce… this is much more humane too than the death penalty or lengthy jail sentences.

You say that Eugenics has nothing to do with abortion - but sadly you are wrong … it involves both - forced sterilizations and abortion and utlimately ‘selection’ …

You do know that Margaret Sanger was the voice ad face of the American Eugenics movement? You do know that she advocated limiting procreation to those who were ‘desirable’ and limiting procreation for those wo we not? The means to limit includes abortion. Margaret Sanger traveled to Hitler’s Germany to view his Eugenics mills and delcared that they were magnificent … something that she downplayed after WWII …

People of low intelligence were “Undesirable”
People of the lower economic classes were “Undesirable”
People of various races [like black, irish, hispanics, native americans] were “Undesirable”
People who were Jewish and Catholic were also “Undersirable”

In Germany - they started euthanizing those that were severely physically disabled … later disabled began to include having large ears that stuck out … in truth -

You amy think you are superior genetically - that is why you would support this … but you would quicly change your mind should you all of a suddden realize that you are inferior in some way …

You should study the histor of the American eugenics movement - and don;t buy the idea that those managing it ‘today’ would do so better then those in history … Human nature has not changed - Sadly - the world’s sins are the same today as they were in Eden

 

[triumphguy]

Let’s take SP555 at face value (I personally think he/she is trolling).

Maybe eugenics is a good thing to help society achieve a balanced and calm perfection.

Unfortunately people with the kind of DNA that causes them to agitate, and demonstrate, and argue the status quo won’t be allowed either.

I’m sure personality is determined by genetics.

Sorry SP555: you gotta go!

Ooops there’s no-one there to defend your rights.

Shucks.

“**First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me. **Dietrich Bonhoeffer”

 

[Suslar]

actually America practiced eugenics before the third reich, Hitler was just one of its many supporters at that time.
and the church should really consider its position on eugenics. as the benefits definitely outweigh the negatives.

So in your plan, IQ would be the defining factor? What about looking at EQ? (That is all the rage now in corporate America.). And, how would you definitively test IQ since today’s tests are woefully inadequate and biased?

I shall put extra time and effort tonight into thanking God that Mother Church will never adopt a policy of death for those who don’t fit your guidelines. The Church sees the benefit in each and every human life - just as God most certainly does. There is much you can learn from spending time with “those who have IQ’s less than 100.” And far more to be learned from those with “average” IQ who offer their sufferings to the Lord.

 

[someperson555]

You say that Eugenics has nothing to do with abortion - but sadly you are wrong … it involves both - forced sterilizations and abortion and utlimately ‘selection’ …

You do know that Margaret Sanger was the voice ad face of the American Eugenics movement? You do know that she advocated limiting procreation to those who were ‘desirable’ and limiting procreation for those wo we not? The means to limit includes abortion. Margaret Sanger traveled to Hitler’s Germany to view his Eugenics mills and delcared that they were magnificent … something that she downplayed after WWII …

People of low intelligence were “Undesirable”
People of the lower economic classes were “Undesirable”
People of various races [like black, irish, hispanics, native americans] were “Undesirable”
People who were Jewish and Catholic were also “Undersirable”

In Germany - they started euthanizing those that were severely physically disabled … later disabled began to include having large ears that stuck out … in truth -

You amy think you are superior genetically - that is why you would support this … but you would quicly change your mind should you all of a suddden realize that you are inferior in some way …

You should study the histor of the American eugenics movement - and don;t buy the idea that those managing it ‘today’ would do so better then those in history … Human nature has not changed - Sadly - the world’s sins are the same today as they were in Eden

thats just not true. under the third reich, there was NO BIAS against class. the leadership specifically stated “regardless of class or occupation” and Hitler did reach a concordat with the vatican. not that i support him, but it helps to look at actual historical facts. in fact the reich propaganda minister publicly condemned abortions. the reich was more in favor of sterilizing the disabled rather than euthanizing or aborting them.

and where do you get the idea that i think im genetically superior? i dont, in fact i probably wont reproduce myself.

 

[someperson555]

Let’s take SP555 at face value (I personally think he/she is trolling).

Maybe eugenics is a good thing to help society achieve a balanced and calm perfection.

Unfortunately people with the kind of DNA that causes them to agitate, and demonstrate, and argue the status quo won’t be allowed either.

I’m sure personality is determined by genetics.

Sorry SP555: you gotta go!

Ooops there’s no-one there to defend your rights.

Shucks.

AHAHHAHA, im not a troll. you cant attack the argument, so you attack the one making the argument? real classy. by the way, that quote is funny, Hitler was a socialist, so he never went after them, he went after the marxists, theres a difference. but i guess in Canada you guys dont know that. and lets stay on topic, ok? no more posts about Hitler.

 

[someperson555]

Besides, it’s none of your business who “breeds” with who. That’s God’s business. He provides the human life, while we create nothing.

Here’s a great background history on Eugenics in the US.

I hate that guy honestly. yeah bring up a lot of half truths along with a bunch of distorted facts and you got yourself a half hour documentry!
oh by the way, ofcourse, its all the liberals and global warming is hoax! weeeee