what is the church's stance on eugenics?

[StarFireKK]

ets stay on topic, ok? no more posts about Hitler.

Hitler advocated exactly what you are talking about. Posts about Hitler ARE on topic.

The idea you are wanting to promote is evil. Pure evil.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the man who is considered one of the most evil men in the 20th century agreed with you.

 

[fakename]

user "St.Francis":

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.

I don’t think that the Church would consider eugenics (considered in the abstract) immoral; it rather seems like a very natural and good idea. And again, the article even implies as much since it takes the effort to describe the normal ordinances of the Church as eugenically valuable.

I also don’t think that eugenics is something that has to be centrally planned; things like gene therapy or counseling already exist for couples.

 

[someperson555]

I don’t think that the Church would consider eugenics (considered in the abstract) immoral; it rather seems like a very natural and good idea. And again, the article even implies as much since it takes the effort to describe the normal ordinances of the Church as eugenically valuable.

I also don’t think that eugenics is something that has to be centrally planned; things like gene therapy or counseling already exist for couples.

exactly

 

[StarFireKK]

I don’t think that the Church would consider eugenics (considered in the abstract) immoral; it rather seems like a very natural and good idea. And again, the article even implies as much since it takes the effort to describe the normal ordinances of the Church as eugenically valuable.

I also don’t think that eugenics is something that has to be centrally planned; things like gene therapy or counseling already exist for couples.

If the activity has the consent of the would-be parents - maybe. But the OP’s post have pretty well highlight he doesn’t care about the would-be parent’s opinions. He wants some objective standard…no way to do that without a central plan.

Considering the Church believes reproduction is God’s plan and children are a blessing not a burden…how can the Church support eugenics?

 

[YADA]

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.

Nazi Germany did exterminate based on many criteria in addition to sterilization - sorry but it is you who do not look at facts …

And Margaret Sanger practiced Eugenics and her practice of Eugenics included abortion - that is a fact - uncomfortable but true … and she did factor race, ethnicity and social economic status …

Study the eugenics movement in america …

FYI - promoters of Eugenics typically beleive that they are the ‘desirable’ … - you can bet that Sanger and all who practice Eugenics believe that they are …

 

[jilly4ski]

If the activity has the consent of the would-be parents - maybe. But the OP’s post have pretty well highlight he doesn’t care about the would-be parent’s opinions. He wants some objective standard…no way to do that without a central plan.

Considering the Church believes reproduction is God’s plan and children are a blessing not a burden…how can the Church support eugenics?

It doesn’t. Sterilization is a sin if used for birth control (not for a medically needed procedure). When and if to bear children is up to the married couple, using either complete or periodic abstinence. Thus there can be no eugenics plan put in place that the Church would find acceptable. (Except for the limits on marriage like you can’t marry your first cousin). I suppose the state could place even stricter limits on consanguinity. But in the Church’s view, the limits could only go so far, before they become immoral, as the Church sees marriage as a right, ordered by God.

 

[someperson555]

It doesn’t. Sterilization is a sin if used for birth control (not for a medically needed procedure). When and if to bear children is up to the married couple, using either complete or periodic abstinence. Thus there can be no eugenics plan put in place that the Church would find acceptable. (Except for the limits on marriage like you can’t marry your first cousin). I suppose the state could place even stricter limits on consanguinity. But in the Church’s view, the limits could only go so far, before they become immoral, as the Church sees marriage as a right, ordered by God.

heres the other logical fallacy i see in your reasoning, you are OK with the Church telling you how to breed, yet you are against the state telling you how to breed? how exactly do you reason?

 

[fakename]

user "jilly4ski":

Considering the Church believes reproduction is God’s plan and children are a blessing not a burden…how can the Church support eugenics?

Again, this is just my opinion, but if the nation is endangered by a proliferation of “degenerates”, then society can preserve itself through eugenics. So the Church doesn’t say that eugenics as state policy is good all the time but only when the dysgenic threats are too great and even then some eugenic policy is off the table (like sterilization, etc.).

Here’s a non-rhetorical question from me, what if we lived in Ireland and irish people really did have a strong disposition to immoderate drinking? Would it be okay to pursue some eugenic policy to breed this trait out?

 

[Leegal]

The forums are for discussion – not a “vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda”
which is anti-thetical to the Church’s teachings.

 

[triumphguy]

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.

I can attack the argument real easily - in fact I just did, by taking your own argument at face value, and taking it towards it’s limit. Not a personal attack at all. I do think you’re trolling though - that’s not an observation of you, but your actions…

Hey, and I was quoting Detrich Bonhoffer, a guy who died in a Nazi prison camp, so I guess he knew what he was taking about when he said the Nazi’s came for the Socialists.

And get your facts straight - Hitler was no socialist. Or I guess you don’t know the difference between National Socialism and Socialism.

 

[someperson555]

I can attack the argument real easily - in fact I just did, by taking your own argument at face value, and taking it towards it’s limit. Not a personal attack at all. I do think you’re trolling though - that’s not an observation of you, but your actions…

Hey, and I was quoting Detrich Bonhoffer, a guy who died in a Nazi prison camp, so I guess he knew what he was taking about when he said the Nazi’s came for the Socialists.

And get your facts straight - Hitler was no socialist. Or I guess you don’t know the difference between National Socialism and Socialism.

this should be ineteresting, why do you think im trolling? Geez, im sorry if my threads are a bit deeper than “looking at women’s breasts” or “downloading files”. come on, its fun to debate. or do you hate being challenged a little bit? im just asking questions, because ranks and titles dont impress me, therefore i will question my own church even. and there ARE a LOT of inconsistencies and double standards within church laws in my opinion. for example, the Church doesnt allow infertile people to marry, yet they allow two menatlly retarded people to marry?? now where is the logic in that? they dont alow a healthy married couple to use condoms, yet they have no problem with drug addicts birthing 18 kids. seriously W T F. and if you cant answer these questions, then is that MY fault?? if this forum doesnt want “hot button issues” like this to be debated, then they should say so.
oh and im sorry to say this, but you need a history lesson, Hitler WAS a socialist. there are many different types of socialism. the nazis opposed marxism but they supported revisionist socialism, but i dont want to get into THAT debate, thats for another time.

 

[triumphguy]

What makes you think I’m challenged by your arguments?

A lot of your arguments are off base.

Example: you say the Church doesn’t allow infertile people to marry: The Church does allow infertile people to marry - seniors for instance are perfectly able to get married.

menatlly retarded people

What does that mean? You are arguing about eugenics based on metal capacity, but your spelling sucks (OK that was personal). What it suggests is that you are in the heat of debate and are just throwing all kinds of stuff against the wall to see what sticks.

Just to revisit your phrase “menatlly retarded people” once more. As the dad of a child with Down Syndrome I find phrases like that just as offensive as words to describe people based on the colour of their skin. I also find that such phrases say more about the person using them.

 

[CDB1718]

for example, the Church doesnt allow infertile people to marry, yet they allow two menatlly retarded people to marry?? now where is the logic in that?

Someone who is incapable of making long-term commitments and decisions or who is unable to grasp or carry out the responsibilities of marriage, either due to immaturity or intellectual disability, is not able to be validly married. Further, it is not infertility but impotence, which is a big difference. They have to be capable of consenting both mentally and physically. Either one disqualifies. It’s a false dichotomy.

they dont alow a healthy married couple to use condoms, yet they have no problem with drug addicts birthing 18 kids.

The church condemns addiction. It also condemns relations outside marriage. It promotes responsible parenthood. There are plenty of problems with a drug addict giving birth to 18 children, but the children aren’t among those problems. The church provides counseling, medical care, parenting classes, adoption services, job training, and many other services to address the root problem. The person should be able to give herself freely within a marriage. The same applies to a physically healthy married couple. Again you create a false dichotomy.

The church is consistent in her teachings which respect all people. Your condemnation of people as being less worthy of life or love than someone who is taller or follows directions faster is far more telling about your values than about the church’s.

 

[fakename]

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But the Church, too, has a doctrine concerning marriage and its use, and also a doctrine and a method of dealing with racial defects. The Church therefore has no fault to find with race culture as such. Rather does she encourage it. But she wishes it carried out on right lines.”

I wonder though if the high value of marriage is the sake why there must be a grave reason to est. eugenic policies or if the high value of subsidiarity is the reason?

 

[ricofall]

No, the RCC NEVER supports IVF.

I know, I am just seeing where he is coming from.

 

[StarFireKK]

this should be ineteresting, why do you think im trolling? Geez, im sorry if my threads are a bit deeper than “looking at women’s breasts” or “downloading files”. come on, its fun to debate. or do you hate being challenged a little bit? im just asking questions, because ranks and titles dont impress me, therefore i will question my own church even. and there ARE a LOT of inconsistencies and double standards within church laws in my opinion. for example, the Church doesnt allow infertile people to marry, yet they allow two menatlly retarded people to marry?? now where is the logic in that? they dont alow a healthy married couple to use condoms, yet they have no problem with drug addicts birthing 18 kids. seriously W T F. and if you cant answer these questions, then is that MY fault?? if this forum doesnt want “hot button issues” like this to be debated, then they should say so.
oh and im sorry to say this, but you need a history lesson, Hitler WAS a socialist. there are many different types of socialism. the nazis opposed marxism but they supported revisionist socialism, but i dont want to get into THAT debate, thats for another time.

You need to actually learn what the Church teaches, not just what you THINK the Church teaches.

The Church does allow infertile people to marry. The Church requires you to be “open to life” there is not requirement you have to be capable of producing life (provided you didn’t purposefully cause this state) or that there is a high probability you will conceive.

Second, the Church has certain requirements before a couple can marry. Two of them being having an understanding of what it means to be married and have the ability to consent. You understand there are variations of mental retardation? For some, these two requirements would be a walk in the park, for others they may never have the mental facilities to meet those requirements.

As for the condoms vs. 18 kids. The Church sees those as two different problems. One is the problem of ABC and its role (or lack thereof) in a marriage. The other is a issue of addiction, sin and prudence. You are drawing a false correlation between these two issues.

I hate to tell you but this is not a deep thread. You aren’t interested in a real discussion otherwise you would’ve answered the questions I posed.

1. Considering in history there is a very small line between eugenics and killing of the undesirables— how would you protect against that, or would you?
2. Considering the Church’s stances on ABC, Abortion, consent of the parents and the fact that ALL children are blessings- how can the Church ever support eugenics.

As for the Church telling us to breed. Oh please, first of all you have the ability to follow the Church’s teachings or not. The consequences of not following are huge…but they aren’t earthly. The State is a completely different creature…the state actually does have the power to sterilize people against their will or take their DNA and make “perfect” children. The Church allows consent to their teachings…the State would not.

 

[StarFireKK]

Again, this is just my opinion, but if the nation is endangered by a proliferation of “degenerates”, then society can preserve itself through eugenics. So the Church doesn’t say that eugenics as state policy is good all the time but only when the dysgenic threats are too great and even then some eugenic policy is off the table (like sterilization, etc.).

Who decides who are the “degenerates”? How do you decide when the threat is so large it is worth taking on this policy? Do you have ANY example of this ever happening in history with good results?

Here’s a non-rhetorical question from me, what if we lived in Ireland and irish people really did have a strong disposition to immoderate drinking? Would it be okay to pursue some eugenic policy to breed this trait out?

No.

 

[Triumpha]

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.

What??

… would the church agree to something like this? and what about state controlled reproduction with the purpose of creating a healthier more intelligent society?

No.

 

[Triumpha]

… its seems the church also supports eugenics. unfortunately it seems the church also wants to try to preserve the “family” at the same time. …

What??

 

[Triumpha]

… but ask yourself, is it morally acceptable to allow people with severe genetic defects to reproduce?

If they are allowed to marry, it’s not morally permissible to forbid them 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.

Is being a midget really so burdensome?