Making Humans Better
Running on a Platform of Executing the Small, Unwanted and Unfit.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Life Issues — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Ed. Note - I had originally intended to hold this piece until after the election; in light of the fact that Talent's Senate race has been turned, in many ways, into a referendum on embryo destruction, I thought that the more appropriate time might be now.
We civilized men do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
-Charles Darwin1
Where am I going with this? Below the fold...
The central tenet of the philosophy of modernism is the belief in the power of humans to “to make, improve and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation.”2 The heady rush of the Enlightenment, which had produced numerous laudible scientific achievements, began to create in mankind a belief that everything in nature was subject to successful human manipulation; that if only we tinkered long enough and retained our commitment to dispassionate observation, we might find a cure for all of nature’s ills. Darwin’s observation, quoted above, was merely a passive Enlightenment observation about the way things were – it was left to the modernists like Francis Galton to take the next step and suggest that perhaps something could be done to fix the problem of poorly designed humans.3 This suggestion would set in motion an as-yet unresolved conflict between our commitment to modernism, and our commitment to the sanctity of human life. The purpose of this article is to suggest that, despite sporadic setbacks, the commitment to modernism continues to make consistent and alarming encroachments on our commitment to the sanctity of human life. Eugenics, the bold and logical conclusion of modernism as applied to humans, has theoretically been consigned to the dustbin of history, but the truth is that the devotees of eugenics have merely become more subtle and devious in their methods, and have thus succeeded in having their ideas accepted by an unwitting populace.
Francis Galton and the Improvement of Humans
Sir Francis Galton was one of the foremost thinkers and writers of the modern movement. Galton is known for many scientific achievements, including the creation of the first weather maps, the discovery of the significance of fingerprints as an index of personal identity, and the development of the statistical concepts of correlation and regression to the mean.4 Galton’s primary fascination, however, was with the work of his cousin, Charles Darwin:
In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?"
Galton thus made the leap from Darwin’s observation about the way nature supposedly operated, to the ever-present modernist question: “May this be turned to our advantage?” Galton observed (to his dismay) that human “civilization” tended to weaken the quality of the gene pool by allowing its weak and unfit members to reproduce. Interestingly enough, it was in this context that Dalton found inspiration for the statistical concept of “regression towards the mean” – it was originally intended to designate the tendency of humans to experience a “reversion towards mediocrity” through policies which allowed the “unfit” members of society to breed.6 Galton’s famous work on eugenics, Hereditary Genius, opened by proclaiming:
I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.
Thus the science of eugenics was born. It is important to realize at the outset that Galton realized that in order for eugenics to become a successful movement, social norms would have to be put in place that would discourage the poor and less intelligent from breeding, since in his view they were already outbreeding the intelligent members of society.8 The birth control movement of the early 20th century would take up this mantle.
The Birth Control Movement and Eugenics
Perhaps no person was more central to the creation of the birth control movement than Margaret Sanger, co-founder of the American Birth Control League (which would later become Planned Parenthood). So great was Sanger’s influence on her day, and so far-reaching was her success in mainstreaming eugenic beliefs, that H.G. Wells would proclaim in 1931, “When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine.” 9 Sanger was a tireless crusader for birth control, opening one of the first “family planning” clinics in the country in 1916 in defiance of state law.10 Sanger dedicated her life to making birth control available, and was the central public figure for the birth control movement in the early twentieth century. It is important to realize that while some have erroneously claimed that Sanger engaged in her crusade in an attempt to make sure that “women mattered,”11 and were given equal freedom, the truth was that Margaret Sanger did not perceive sexual freedom as a positive good – and in fact argued against it.12 To Sanger and many other birth control activists, the primary reason to make birth control more available was to advance the process of eugenics. Sanger once declared “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”13 Apart from more conventional methods of birth control, Sanger also advocated “[a] stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”14
It should be noted that these ideas concerning birth control came to be very widely accepted during the first half of the twentieth century, particularly among the intelligensia, and that notions of eugenics were almost inextricably intertwined with birth control. For instance, in a majority Supreme Court opinion upholding the validity of a forced sterilization statute, Supreme Court Justice and legal giant Oliver Wendell Holmes declared:
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes the order… We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.15
This opinion carried the day at the Supreme Court by an 8-1 margin; Justice Butler offered nothing in his dissent to refute this damnable doctrine.
Eugenics also laid the foundation for other significant policies that were popular in the early and mid-twentieth century, including laws against miscegenation, and those supporting segregation and forced sterilization.16 These policies were enacted into law in at least 27 states.17 Eugenics also laid the foundation for far more insidious policies which would eventually be carried out in Europe. Edwin Black discusses how eugenics laid the foundation for the Holocaust:
The superior species the eugenics movement sought was populated not merely by tall, strong, talented people. Eugenicists craved blond, blue-eyed Nordic types. This group alone, they believed, was fit to inherit the Earth. In the process, the movement intended to subtract emancipated Negroes, immigrant Asian laborers, Indians, Hispanics, East Europeans, Jews, dark- haired hill folk, poor people, the infirm and anyone classified outside the gentrified genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
How? By identifying so-called defective family trees and subjecting them to lifelong segregation and sterilization programs to kill their bloodlines. The grand plan was to literally wipe away the reproductive capability of those deemed weak and inferior -- the so-called unfit. The eugenicists hoped to neutralize the viability of 10 percent of the population at a sweep, until none were left except themselves.18
Black notes that the more extreme eugenicists theorized that the best way to eliminate large sections of a population (“eugenicide”) would probably be the large-scale use of gas chambers.19 The eugenicists also practiced cruel experiments in efforts to weed out the eugenically “unfit” – many of these experiments were performed on infants:
One institution in Lincoln, Ill., fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to 40 percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide [allowing the infant to starve for a predetermined amount of time to see if it would survive] one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.20
Needless to say, Hitler was very impressed with it all:
Hitler studied American eugenics laws. He tried to legitimize his anti- Semitism by medicalizing it, and wrapping it in the more palatable pseudoscientific facade of eugenics. Hitler was able to recruit more followers among reasonable Germans by claiming that science was on his side…
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenics leader Madison Grant, calling his race-based eugenics book, "The Passing of the Great Race," his "bible."21
Black also dispels the myth that the birth control movement had anything to do with advancing the sexual freedom of women:
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first 25 years of eugenics legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At the Sonoma State Home, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia.22
With the rise of Hitler to power in Germany, he provided the eugenicists with a national laboratory in which they might test their theories. In the pre-Holocaust years of 1934 and 1937, Hitler had an estimated 400,000 “unfit” individuals forcibly sterilized on the basis of physical or mental infirmity. The pace of German sterilization prompted American eugenicists to complain vocally that the Germans were “beating us at our own game.”23 During the heat of World War II, the United States Supreme Court was still issuing opinions which gave explicit nods to the validity of eugenics as a science, and the legality of forced sterilization to achieve eugenic ends.24 Eventually, of course, the Germans took the further step of adopting the radical eugenic policies of “forced euthanasia,” executing millions based on alleged genetic impurity, which they claimed could be identified (at least in part) by race.
When the extent of the Holocaust became known, the public was horrified by the result, and eugenics suffered a serious blow in credibility. It was not, however, completely erased from the mainstream of American viewpoints, as evidenced by its mention in the landmark 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, which resulted in the temporary end of the death penalty.25 By and large, though, eugenics had been tainted by association with racism and atrocity, and public espousal of eugenics was to fade from national consciousness during the 60s and 70s. The notion that humans could be made better by weeding out the less desirable members of society, however, had not.
Eugenics and the Modern Birth Control Movement
The forces which gave rise to the birth control movement of the last four decades are manifold and complex, and do not admit of easy categorization, as the forces which gave rise to the early birth control movement did. When the issue of birth control gained steam for a second time during the early 60s and into the 70s, there was undoubtedly an element of desire for lifestyle freedom, born in part from the increased involvement of women in the workforce as a consequence of World War II, and a desire for sexual freedom born of the “sexual revolution” of the 60s. There is no doubt that, whatever their worth, these forces played a significant part in the movement to legalize birth control and abortion – a movement which gained a series of momentous legal victories in the 60s and 70s, when the Supreme Court declared that the government could not prohibit married couples from obtaining contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut, and when the Supreme Court declared that abortion-on-demand was a constitutional right in the twin cases of Roe and Doe. To neglect these forces is to miss the whole picture; however, it would also not be appropriate to neglect the role eugenics played for many of the proponents of the modern birth control movement. For instance, Ron Weddington, the victorious co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, wrote a letter to then-President Bill Clinton in January of 1993, declaring his support for social eugenics:
He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."
Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."26
The statistics with respect to abortion present troubling racial implications. According to the CDC, black women are approximately 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.27 The abortion rate for black children is an astonishing 491 abortions per 1000 live births.28 Indeed, one could scarcely invent a policy short of active eugenocide that would more effectively stagnate and/or reduce the black proportional population than legalized abortion. The effect of abortion on the black community is so pervasive that Jesse Jackson once exclaimed:
That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us "n*****s." It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking. life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder; they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.29
Numerous public supporters of legalized abortion – too many to count – have also publicly made the eugenistic argument that abortion must remain legal so that there will not be a sudden influx of poor children in society.30
Perhaps just as troubling, the advances of modern science combined with the legalization of abortion-on-demand have supposedly created a world in which the truly unwanted can be eliminated before they are born. This reality is especially insidious because it provides the so-called “benefits” of eugenics, without forcing people to confront the reality of what means are necessary to produce those benefits. Before, someone had to leave the child born with Down’s Syndrome outside to starve; a choice not many have the intestinal fortitude to make. Now, the mother can just get an amniocentesis, and have the “unfit” child eliminated before anyone has to look it in the face and make the conscious choice that it does not deserve to live. The evidence suggests that as many as 80 per cent of children who are prenatally diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted today,31 which suggests that we have come to the a priori conclusion that those with Down’s Syndrome do not deserve to live. When those sorts of decisions are made a priori, rather than on a case-by-case basis, monstrosity is never far around the corner.
For instance, Britain recently legalized the practice of screening out embryos which carry certain genetic mutations that increase the risk of cancer.32 The specific mutations listed in the article are the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations – mutations which run in my immediate family. I am certain that at least three members of my immediate family have this mutation, and I may indeed have it myself. The only effect of this mutation upon the life of those who have it is an increased risk of breast cancer. I will not air the personal struggles of my family members in this article, but suffice it to say that none of them has ever expressed to me that they would rather have never been born. It appears clear, however, that we are moving toward a world in which the smart and sensible thing to do is improve the gene pool of the human race, and preemptively eliminate all those who do not fit the genetic mold of “perfection.” Such a solution might make the human race “better,” as some would use that word, but I doubt that it would make us better humans for the monstrosities we would commit seeking it.
The latest modernistic attempt to improve the human race does not involve eugenics at all, but deserves mention in this article because it may yet be the most insidious. I am talking, of course, about the destruction of human embryos for the harvesting of Embryonic Stem Cells, which we are constantly assured will provide the cure for Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, paralysis, cancer, heart disease, and maybe hemorrhoids. The potential efficacy of the science is beyond the purview of this article – the implications of the policy itself are not. Like eugenics, this particular foray into the improvement of the human species involves killing some humans in the hope of making the human race better. However, unlike eugenics, the humans who are chosen for elimination are not chosen on the basis of some supposed genetic defect, but rather solely on the basis of being unwanted.
The public hypnosis with the promise of human betterment through the use of Embryonic Stem Cells has reached an alarming level. If polls are to be believed, a significant portion of individuals who do not favor the legalized killing of an embryo implanted on the uterine wall do favor federal subsidization of the killing of embryos located in Petri dishes.33 The primary difference, of course, is that the former does not offer the promise of the betterment of the human race, except to those with eugenic sympathies. The latter, however, offers the siren call of modernism – things can be made better, we can improve everything, even human beings, if you give us the chance. In the midst of a heated Missouri Senate race this year, Michael J. Fox appeared in television commercials for Democratic challenger, visibly shaking from his Parkinson’s medication, pleading on behalf of a candidate who will stand aside for the march of modernism. Why? Because Michael J. Fox is talented, he is an actor, he is beloved by society, and those who must be sacrificed in the hope of curing his disease are so very small and besides which unwanted, and they’ll never make a show like Family Ties for you.
Under countless circumstances, we have heeded the call of modernism, and justly so. We have, however, allowed ourselves to believe that we will not listen to that call when the cost for the betterment of humanity is the lives of selected human beings. The current debate over the destruction of embryos suggests that if only the human beings are small enough that they can be safely ignored, we are perfectly capable of ignoring them and reverting to our old practices. Perhaps we have not come so far from the 1940s after all.
Modernistic Eugenics in a Postmodern World
A full examination of this issue must include an examination of why people today are instinctively bothered by a recounting of the history of eugenics, yet seem strangely content to ignore the de facto effort to eliminate children with Down’s Syndrome or other genetic abnormalities, and the (conscious or unconscious) elimination of poor, black children in this country. This is to say nothing of the commonly accepted practice of destroying the youngest members of our society that we might harvest their stem cells to cure the diseases of the old. Why, we should ask, are we comfortable with the latter, but not the former?
It might first be objected that today’s efforts at improving the human race do not involve the elimination of individuals based on race. However, to concede this as a legitimate point is to say that the efforts of the eugenicists were legitimate, but overinclusive since genetic undesirability does not perfectly correspond to race. Surely, the rejection of eugenics involves more than a complaint that eugenics swept up some good with the bad. Is our society really ready to accept that the eugenicists had the basic principle right, but merely lacked the science to accurately target those whose very existence affronted our species? This argument also ignores the reality that the eugenicists of old did not specifically target race qua race, but rather believed that certain races were populated with many more genetically unfit individuals, and hence were subject to greater scrutiny. Thus the Holocaust swept up Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, physically and mentally handicapped individuals, and others. In the same way, the modern statistics regarding abortion tell what should be a very troubling tale about the gutting of a particular economic class, especially as it implicates a particular race.
Whatever the case, the inevitable march of science has made available new avenues of testing our commitment to the worth of each individual human life. Against this commitment, science has raised the possibility of better days on the horizon for the whole human species; the unending modernistic promise that if we just tinker with human beings enough, we can make humanity better. The only thing that stands in our way is the foolish insistence on commitment to the worth of each individual human, Will we continue to let this commitment stand in the way of the ultimate fulfillment of modernism?
1 Stephen R.L. Clark, Deconstructing Darwin, Address at Alan Richardson Lecture (Mar. 04, 1999), in Instilling Ethics (Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, Maryland 2000), 2000, at 119.
2 Modernism, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
3 Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Darwin, PBS.org, at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
4 Human Intelligence: Francis Galton, University of Indiana, at http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/galton.shtml (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
5 Kevles, In the Name of Darwin, supra note 3
6 See Eugenics, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics (visited Oct. 23, 2006), citing Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge (Edinburgh University Press 1981).
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Gloria Steinem, Margaret Sanger, The Time 100, at http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger.html (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
10 See Margaret Sanger, Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
11 See Steinem, Margaret Sanger, supra note 9.
12 Sanger, supra note 10 (“Though sex cells are placed in a part of the anatomy for the essential purpose of easily expelling them into the female for the purpose of reproduction, there are other elements in the sexual fluid which are the essence of blood, nerve, brain, and muscle. When redirected in to the building and strengthening of these, we find men or women of the greatest endurance greatest magnetic power. A girl can waste her creative powers by brooding over a love affair to the extent of exhausting her system, with the results not unlike the effects of masturbation and debauchery.”)
13 Id., citing Margaret Sanger, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, 1921 Birth Control Rev. 1, 5 (1921).
14 Id.
15 Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (U.S. 1927).
16 Edwin Black, Eugenics and the Nazis -- The California connection, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2003, at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/1....
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Eugenics, supra note 6, citing Selgelid, Michael J., Neugenics?, 19 Monash Bioethics Rev. 9 (2000).
24 See Skinner v. State of Okla. ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1942). The court overturned the sterilization statute in question on equal protection grounds, but gave such a blessing to the principles of eugenics that Justice Jackson felt it necessary to point out in a concurrence that, while he was in agreement with Buck v. Bell, supra, “There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the dignity and personality and natural powers of a minority -- even those who have been guilty of what the majority define as crimes. But this Act falls down before reaching this problem, which I mention only to avoid the implication that such a question may not exist because not discussed. On it I would also reserve judgment.” (at 546-47)
25 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 342 (U.S. 1972) (Marshall, J., concurring) (Justice Marshall’s mention of Eugenics is not exactly favorable, but neither is it condemnatory, and it leaves open the proposition that a state might defend the use of the death penalty on eugenic grounds).
26 Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor', WorldNet Daily, at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50191 (last modified May 13, 2006).
27 Lilo T Strauss, Joy Herndon, et. al, Abortion Surveillance ---- United States, 2001, CDC.gov, at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm (visited Oct. 23, 2006).
28 Id.
29 Jesse Jackson, How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue, Right to Life News (1977).
30 See, e.g., http://www.balancedpolitics.org/abortion.htm#no. Presumably, it is better to not exist than to be poor.
31 George F. Will, Eugenics by Abortion: Is perfection an entitlement?, Washington Post, April 14, 2005, at A27.
32 Rick Weiss, Human Embryos in Britain May be Screened for Cancer Risk, Washington Post, May 11, 2006, at A12.
33 See, e.g., Jesse F. Derris, Life Support? Stem Cell Backing Holds at Six in Ten, ABCNEWS.com, at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010803.html (visited Oct. 24, 2006).
« First Principles — Comments (34) | Elephant Appreciation Day Open Thread — Comments (24) »
Making Humans Better 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
That Darwin never advocated ending the practice of humanitarianism; Galton, on the other hand, did. Perhaps you didn't read far enough.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Darwin’s observation, quoted above, was merely a passive Enlightenment observation about the way things were – it was left to the modernists like Francis Galton to take the next step and suggest that perhaps something could be done to fix the problem of poorly designed humans.3 This suggestion would set in motion an as-yet unresolved conflict between our commitment to modernism, and our commitment to the sanctity of human life.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
since your thesis is about the evils of eugenics, I think it was relevant that Darwin himself considered it evil.
a very good argument - moral and scientific - could be made against Eugenics, and invoking Darwin on the side of the angels here would lend such an argument immense rigour.
Leaving out the quote tends to imply that a logical extension of Darwin's theory of evolution (note: not abiogeneis!) is Eugenics. That is a conclusion many readers here might be predisposed towards. The distinction therefore is critical.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
It would create that impression in anyone who didn't bother to read the second full paragraph of the story, I guess, but I fail to see why I should rework my entire post to make sure that such an audience won't be deceived, since they're not going to get the full picture anyway.
I stated explicitly that Darwin's observation was a passive one, and that it wasn't until Galton came along that people sought to actually influence the human genetic pool based on this passive observation. Thus, insofar as Darwin's belief system finds itself in the hands of modernists, then Eugenics is a natural consequence of Darwinism. Which is the point of this whole article.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
I think you underestimate the antipathy towards Darwin in social conservative circles. I have more commentary on this elsewhere so I don't further threadjack. Sorry.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
In calling this entire discussion a threadjack, because it has nothing to do with the point of my piece. Love Darwin or hate him, it's all irrelevant to the larger issue. I was very careful not to lay the blame for this at Darwin's feet, and I don't feel like I should be made to answer for doing so; I chose the quote from him because, whatever his personal views, the statement itself has value in helping to understand the mindset of Galton and his progeny.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
"Leaving out the quote tends to imply that a logical extension of Darwin's theory of evolution (note: not abiogeneis!) is Eugenics."
Just because Darwin did not advocate Eugenics does not mean the logical extension of evolution is not Eugenics. Quite to the contrary, the fact that Darwin felt the need to qualify his remarks to exclude the human race implicitly admits that there is a logical correlation.
Logical extension to evolution? Logical "correlation"? Maybe you should open up a science book. How humans choose to apply science has nothing to do with a "logcal extension" of the science. If eugenics is a logical extension of evolution, then nuclear genocide is logical extension to nuclear physics. Not to mention that eugenics is not really a science.
Currently, we do have services of genetic screening which allow you to see whether your future offspring would have higher chances of suffering from a genetic disease. Is that so bad? Not to mention the countless drugs on the market whose design was made posible due to the advancement in evolutionary models of DNA, etc. If there is any "logical extension" of evolution, than this is it. Anything else is plain rubbish.
but I agree with azizhp. You discard a powerful ally by leaving out Darwin's full context. An ally that as a biologist I was unware of.
A small tweak, and great forces come to aid.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Leon, you continue to terrify me with your posts, with regards to the potential threats my own Down Syndrome daughter could one day face.
I also have to agree with you, based on personal and anecdotal evidence, that the trend in this country is heading in the wrong direction. I believe that there is a portion of our society that is moving beyond the stage of simply denying the humanity of the unborn and therefore excusing its murder, into rejecting the humanity of the already born. I have personally had the experience of sitting and talking to someone, with my beautiful, cute, happy, and radiant daughter sitting on my lap, and had the person I was speaking to suggest that they don't think she should have been born. I heard a story from another Down Syndrome mom who spoke about the woman who came to her home to provide therapy for her daughter and said something along the lines of, "You're both doctors, why didn't you do something about this?", implying she and her husband should have aborted the child. Another story I read recently recounted the experience of another DS mother who sat at a luncheon with several prominent speakers. One, who was a member of the medical community, spoke out about how miserable the lives of these children are, and stated that it was cruel for us to subject them to a life of misery and despair, and that it was a great kindness to abort them before they were ever born. The mother pointed out that her teenage DS daughter would definitely disagree with him. The doctor simply refused to speak to her after that. I've heard plenty of others stories along similar lines.
I get so furious when I hear people speaking about how these children are unworthy of life or are a burden to mankind. How much evil in this world has been caused by the intellectuals and other "superior" human beings? I'd like to see that compared to the simple and easy smiles my daughter brings to the faces of most people in a room when she comes into their presence. And it is an absolute lie to suggest that her life is miserable; I have never known a more content, happy, and ready to laugh child in my life.
Thank you again, Leon, for speaking out against the evil society continues to contemplate against these precious human beings (and I know you're not focusing only on the DS kids). I just pray to God we can somehow reverse some of these evil trends.
For starters:
This essay is a long-winded way of explaining why I will not allow my children to be genetically tested in the womb. Heck, i don't even want ultrasounds. It's not neccessary for the health of either the chid or the mother and I worry that if one of my children Is diagnosed with Downs' Syndrome or any of a number of other serious conditions, that I will pursue the abortion. Crime is a combination of Desire and opportunity. Eliminate the opportunity and the desires matters not.
The other point I have is on the Embryonic Stem Cell issue.
These embryoes are created, in large part, with the expectation that the vast majority of them will die because they will prove to be inviable in the invitro fertilization proccess. These are only POTENTIAL human lives. Just like every individual Sperm or Egg is. They are not yet Viable human lives, or even fetuses. Furthermore, if they are not implanted into the prospective mother's womb, they will be discarded. Should we permit that rather than use a Potentially invaluable resource as best we can? Or should we revert to making masturbation illegal, but this time on the grounds of destroying potential human lives?
That said, as Private experimentation has already come to the apparent conclusion that utero stem cells and Adult stem cells are more viable sources of future (and even current) cures and therapies, Both arguments, in truth, become moot. Leaving us with the question of "What do we do with all these embryoes now?"
That last is what we should be pushing. Not "It's wrong to destroy potential hman lives!" but rather, "Medical Science has moved on. Embryonic stem cells are a waste of time and money!"
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
This is a really well written and impressive posting. I'm most impressed by all the citations, really a high level of quality and effort. Surely you could have gotten paid for this in a magazine or journal somewhere else, I appreciate that you shared it here instead!
It seems petty to quibble over a minor point in light of the really well researched and written piece, but it's a peeve of mine:
when the Supreme Court declared that abortion-on-demand was a constitutional right in the twin cases of Roe and Doe.
Neither ruling says that; in fact they emphatically deny that there is a constitutional right to abortion of demand; from Doe:
A. Roe v. Wade, supra, sets forth our conclusion that a pregnant woman does not have an absolute constitutional right to an abortion on her demand. What is said there is applicable here, and need not be repeated. [p190]
It's not helpful repeating a misperception about what these rulings actually say, because (IMHO) it tends to misdirect your allies away from more logical means to attack the opinions.
That said, I recognize abortion is not your posting's main topic, and I repeat that I think it really sets a big standard in quality and research that your fellow site owners are going to have a hard time matching!
Finally, acknowledging the comments up above, Darwin fans and foes might be interested in this: The complete work of Charles Darwin Online, perhaps useful when researching his work for quotations and so forth...
Your misperception of Roe and Doe is commonplace.
Neither ruling says that; in fact they emphatically deny that there is a constitutional right to abortion of demand; from Doe:
This overlooks:
(1) The effect of the paired rulings (the trimester framework is negated by the health requirement of Doe);
(2) Every Supreme Court abortion case that followed after this (and applied those precedents); and
(3) The ultimate fate of laws passed across the country that forbade third-trimester abortions without a health exception (which is always granted) following those companion cases.
In other words, while I agree that (1) this is a phenomenal piece, and (2) our comments are a threadjack, you're simply wrong.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
In the absense of any Supreme Court opinion text in Roe and Doe stating that there is an absolute constitutional right to abortion on demand, and in the presence of Supreme Court opinion text that states (emphasis mine): [from DOE, majority] "a pregnant woman does not have an absolute constitutional right to an abortion on her demand"; [from DOE, concurring] "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."; [from ROE, majority] "appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree."; [from THORNBURGH, 1986, dissent] "In short, every Member of the Roe Court rejected the idea of abortion on demand.; [from PLANNED PARENTHOOD, 1992, majority] "Even the broadest reading of Roe, however, has not suggested that there is a constitutional right to abortion on demand."... I must find your rebuttal lacking and stand by my statement that neither ROE nor DOE declared an absolute right to abortion on demand. You may be able to cite and correctly blame other Court opinions for declaring such a right - and if any Justice did so and cited ROE or DOE as supporting their argument for it, I'd say they're incorrect and have completely misread ROE and/or DOE.
I submit this respectfully, and will certainly disengage in further debate in this thread. Thank you.
The passages of the two cases, not you or your comment.
End threadjack.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
We have reached the stage where everything we thought was morally repugnent is justified in the name of science. All you need to do is tie a human need to the project and you will drag in someone with that need and morality be damned.
Government and the law used to keep this in check. Now with our feel good society everything goes.
Prefaces to textbooks sometimes contain valuable insights. One referred to an earlier time when the climate of England was briefly warm enough to allow the seeds of tropical plants carried north and west by the Gulf Stream to the southern tip of the British Isles to germinate, and in some cases to flourish. However, the climate soon returned to normal temperate conditions and the new flora arrivals vanished as quickly as they had appeared. Another told the story of a species of white moth that, as the industrial revolution progressed, slowly changed shade to allow it to blend in with its newly smudge covered environment. When the intensity of industrialization began to ebb and the coatings on trees, buildings, posts, and the moth's other resting places began to return to their normal hue, the moth's previous evolutionary white shade reappeared.
Its the same with human activities. The hula hoop came and went. So did Rubik's cube. Oftentimes, like the moth and the English tropical plants, the dissappearance is the result of overwhelming external events. The flapper and her cloche hat as well as the speak easy, were submerged under the weight of the Great Depression. Occasionally, personal survival, rather than survival of the status quo are at stake.The inhabitants of Galveston Island in September, 1903 and the human occupants of the Florida Keys affected by the 1930's Labor Day Hurricane knew just such events.
One of humanity's traits since time immemorial, has been to care for the weak. Excavated Neanderthal gravesites thousands of years old reveal the stories of individuals crippled by injuries so severe as to render them incapable of providing for themselves, yet they lived long enough for the injuries suffered to have healed over. Someone cared enough thousands of years ago to care for them.
up eugenics.
We may put fancy words on the tests, and use "pro choice" and other words, but the reality is that eugenics is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about-and some even deny exists.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
Leon, I think the full quote of Darwin provides the missing context.
Emphasis mine. Cross-posted at Nation-Building.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism