Eugenics - Ethical or Evil?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ra2JfHdOAQ...enics-sign.jpg


A few months ago, I saw a post on Tumblr advocating Eugenics. Eugenics, which you may have heard of whilst studying Nazi Germany, is a Social Philosophy aimed at "improving" the genetic quality of humans. This is done through encouraging the reproduction of those with "desirable" human traits and discouraging, or even banning, those with "undesirable" human traits from procreating. In the past, countries have carried out eugenic policies such as banning marriage between "undesirables" and have even forced abortions and sterilizations of these people.

Naturally, I was enraged. Who is to decide who is fit enough to reproduce and who isn't? Indeed, it is often the oppressed minorities whom are subjected to eugenics, being forced out of having a family because they are not seen as worthy of continuing the human race. On the other hand, criminals and deviants have also been subjected to eugenics, with supporters arguing that banning paedophilles, serial killers and alcoholics from procreating will reduce future crime due to the belief that each behaviour is inherited.

Whilst initially shocked that anyone could justify this "movement", today I realised I had engaged in a form of eugenics when I got tested for a heredity disorder which would allow me to decide whether or not to have children and risk passing the painful and life limiting disorder on.

Before you make up your mind on the debate, there may be a few points you wish to consider.

PRO EUGENICS ARGUMENTS
1) Disallowing disabled people to reproduce reduces the number of people born with unnecessary suffering, as well as reducing the amount of families who suffer from having a disabled child. Could opposing eugenics actually be unethical, as doing so causes people to continue to suffer with disabilities they cannot cure?
2) Disabled people take up more resources, such as hospital treatment, reducing the amount of money that can be spent elsewhere.
3) As previously mentioned, if criminals were banned from having children, any genetic predisposition for the behaviour may be eradicated, thus resulting in a safer society.

ANTI EUGENICS ARGUMENTS
1) Not all disabilities and disorders are inherited, therefore is it right to ban someone from having children on the assumption their child will be an "undesirable"? Furthermore, those deemed physically and mentally healthy may still have disabled or ill children, particularly since illnesses can occur within the womb and not through genetics.
2) Not all those born with disabilities are at an advantage in society. Many have a high quality of life and argue that they are happy they were born.
3) As previously mentioned, it can become misused e.g. justifying it as a way to get rid of certain minorities. Indeed, what is deemed "undesirable" depends on those few in a privileged position in society.

Quote:

---

The debate is now up to you! Good contributions will be rewarded with reputation throughout the thread and the member who makes the best contributions throughout the month win the Debater of the Month award, VIP, as well as rep and/or tokens. Creating interesting member debates will also win you reputation/tokens!

---

Closes 6th September.

I guess its a good idea if you want to kill off the criminals and all that, but even if that kind of behaviour can be inherited, it'll only end up being used in other means, like you said to kill of minorities. I don't think I believe in that kind of thing - banning someone from doing one of the most natural things a human can do (make life) is immoral and shouldn't even be considered. Saying that, don't dog breeders do this? Only pick the strongest and best and then breed to get rid of the lesser lines.

From a purely pragmatic point of view it does make sense - you reduce potential future suffering of the human race by attempting to ensure that each new generation is as healthy and well-equipped for life as possible - but of course it's highly unethical to regulate a person's right to life and/or right to reproduce in the present generation, so it's not something I'd actually promote. What I WOULD be in favour of (should it ever become a viable option) is medical intervention of embryos to make "designer babies" but onlyyyyyyyyyyyyy as a private voluntary option of the parents, not as something that the government enforces

I'm writing a fictional story about this where the society believes their eugenic policy is for the greater good at the expense of freedom and liberty. I do enjoy these sort of dystopian novels but I'd rather it stayed fictional rather than real (Holocaust - well most people believe that anyway ;))
What is desirable or undesirable varies from person to person and I do not believe any individual or group should have that sort of power. That poem where it says 'first they came for the.... but I was not a...' and ends with 'then they came for me and there was no-one left' or something along those lines has stuck with me ever since I first read it in secondary school.

You're writing Brave New World?

lol I know the theme has been explored in fiction a lot but that's cos it's just so good. Not read that one, might give it a go.

I'm teasing but yessss it's one of my favourite books in the world it deals with it so well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

From a purely pragmatic point of view it does make sense - you reduce potential future suffering of the human race by attempting to ensure that each new generation is as healthy and well-equipped for life as possible - but of course it's highly unethical to regulate a person's right to life and/or right to reproduce in the present generation, so it's not something I'd actually promote. What I WOULD be in favour of (should it ever become a viable option) is medical intervention of embryos to make "designer babies" but onlyyyyyyyyyyyyy as a private voluntary option of the parents, not as something that the government enforces

---

what kind of designer babies?? what kind of traits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

What is desirable or undesirable varies from person to person and I do not believe any individual or group should have that sort of power.

---

what about having the power for yourself? for example, there is a heredity disorder in my family and now that we have the knowledge, we can essentially eradicate that disorder within our family by choosing OURSELVES whether or not we reproduce. i know that i carry the disorder and if my partner carries it too, there is a 25% chance our children will get the disorder and a 50% chance they will carry it. if we did choose to have children with both of us carrying the disorder (my mum said if she knew there was the chance, she would never have had children), i can have the child checked for the disorder WHILST i'm pregnant, which i can then choose whether to keep the child or abort (i'd choose the latter, no question). so basically, i'm able to choose to eradicate a disorder within my children and if they do carry the disorder, they also have the knowledge and choice to eradicate it from their potential children. it does feel a bit like playing God but i'm so glad i have the choice.

Being a man allows me the privilege to be both pro-life and pro-choice. I do not personally approve of abortion and would be against it if it was my choice but I also know that I'll never have to make that choice and I don't think my own personal view about it should stop other people from having that choice.

With this particular scenario, my own views about disability are influenced by my two uncles who have Downs Syndrome. One is very severe (I think he's got other conditions as well): he can't talk, he wears adult diapers and he has to be looked after 24/7. But he also has a cheeky personality. He'll get up and see how far he can get before he is brought back. When you take him back to his chair, he has a huge grin on his face like he's trying to say "haha this is fun, I'll get further next time." He'll hold out his hand and wait for you to take it and then rock. He holds out his arms for a hug. He pats his chin to say thank you (well that's what we think it means, it might just be "**** off and give me my damn drink already"). My other uncle is not as severe. He has recently had to have heart surgery and needs a transplant. He has to carry around this laptop bag with him everywhere he goes. His heart is essentially a battery that he has to charge up right now. But he can talk (in fact, he never shuts up), he likes watching Eastenders, dancing away on the dancefloor even if he's the only one on it, laughs at his own jokes, enjoys wordsearches, Harry Potter and Doctor Who, has a season ticket for the Boro and knows everyone's birthdays and ages off by heart.

Having a disability does not have to define a person's life. It'll be there, we can't ignore it, and raising a child with a disability, especially if it's a particularly nasty one, is never easy but it can have its own rewards. As with everything in life, there are good times and bad times. I can't stand the quality of life argument (I know you didn't argue this, I'm just rambling now) because you won't know what quality of life they'll have until they've been given the chance to live it.

Your scenario is eugenics on a personal level rather than socially (which was the first thought in my head). You'd be able to make that choice to eradicate it but you wouldn't have the power to decide if someone else in the same boat should make the same choice so it is not as bad but for me, it's still... I can't think of the word I need to describe it. If I think of it, I'll come back lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

what kind of designer babies?? what kind of traits?

---

Exactly the kind of thing that you described below but on a GM/DNA level. You obviously can't eradicate the chance of someone getting cancer or having their arm cut off in a machine accident later in life but if the science is available then I'd 100% support trying to give future offspring the best chances in life from the very beginning. I know people these days like to chat about how disability is somehow empowering but let's be honest that's a load of nonsense and being healthy is much easier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Having a disability does not have to define a person's life. It'll be there, we can't ignore it, and raising a child with a disability, especially if it's a particularly nasty one, is never easy but it can have its own rewards. As with everything in life, there are good times and bad times. I can't stand the quality of life argument (I know you didn't argue this, I'm just rambling now) because you won't know what quality of life they'll have until they've been given the chance to live it.

---

I totally understand and my brother (the one with the disorder) would agree - he says he's glad that he was the one who got it instead of me or our cousins and that he's glad he was born and had the chance to be a father. Just cause he's not physically able to do stuff and even though his life is cut short, he will probably live a better life than someone born "normal". So I do agree. But on the other hand, seeing how it has devastated my mum (who blames herself because if she knew about the disorder, she wouldn't have had children. She's also against abortion so she would have decided to not have children at all) and other family members, that's where my choice to abort/not reproduce has come from.

A domestic house cat is evil from a pigeons perspective.

I do not approve of this idea if it were to be government enforcing it. It shouldn't be the governments right to physically alter someone in this kind of way and is ultimately authoritarian which is very much against my views. They should, on the other hand, offer those who choose to get abortions/sterilsations the chance to do so. However, government and the state should not be involved further than this if someone has willingly brought a "deformed" child into the world they know will take up these resources. If the parents are willing to pay for all the treatment and that out of pocket, then good for them and everyone is the winner but I see no reason why I should be when, to a certain extent, it is self inflicted. Though, if they were unaware of the disabilities beforehand then do I sympathise. Obviously this way of thinking is unenforceable for many reasons but that's my personal view.

Half of me wishes disorders never existed because nobody would have to be in pain and/or struggle at the beginning or a bit later in life (or in many cases until the end) physically or mentally, but the other half of me knows that people with disorders in the past and present have used their disorder in a way to make a difference for others around them, the world, and/or themselves in a positive way. If a parent(s) decides to keep a child knowing that they have a disability or a possibility that they could have one (genetic or not) then yes it will be tough and they'll need to be ready for those challenges ahead.

Saying this, I'm sure that anybody would want their children or any child to be healthy in every way and live with zero disorders, but it just isn't right for someone else to have that ability to decide who gets to have children and who doesn't because the choice goes to each person themselves and like I've already said that child could make a positive difference in many ways.

Already talked to you about this yesterday Jenny because I could see where both point of views about eugenics (pro and anti) are coming from, but at the same time I was overthinking eugenics as a whole in my mind (then again I tend to over-think things lol) so my mind was in a bit of a whirl. Talking about it really did clear up some things for me though, thank you. :Mini-Smile:

My opinion on abortion was actually changed with eugenics a while ago now. On reading the similarities between those who justified abortion on medical grounds and how in the 1930s the unborn were made out to be non-human it opened my eyes to how humans will decieve themselves on the most appalling acts to justify what they are doing. In terms of eugenics itself, I am not totally against helping make sure the most awful diseases and conditions aren't inflicted down the generations but the ideal of achieving human perfection is a scary one as we've seen before. It's always the case that utopian visions are splattered with blood and I would wonder how far off we'd be from the stage where we start aborting the unborn based on the slightest imperfection... as well as the scientific consequences down the line when you mess with the work of God in the creation of mankind.

It's like with euthanasia how i've become more sceptical over time. Innocent human life is so precious and should be protected to the maximum.