What Is Eugenics?

Ezra writes that it's "very unfair" to apply the word "eugenics" to, say, the contemporary trend toward the elimination of Down's Syndrome by selective abortion, because "traditionally, the term has been used to denote efforts to direct or encourage breeding by high status, socially dominant individuals in order to select for their characteristics, and discourage breeding by low status individuals (criminals, the insane, blacks, etc) in order to wipe their characteristics from the gene pool. For Ross to conflate that with parents who decide to abort infants with medically disastrous genetic mutations is a real stretch."

First of all, Down's Syndrome is not a "medically disastrous" genetic mutation, unless you take an extremely broad definition of the term "disastrous." Second, while the means of "traditional eugenics" were obviously very different from what's emerging now - involving state power rather than parental choice, and selective breeding/sterilization rather than prenatal genetic screening and abortion - the ends were the same: the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process. Obviously, the question of whether and when to apply the term is contested, since nobody wants to be associated with the way early-twentieth century eugenics was practiced in the United States. But the use of the word to describe the abortion of the genetically-disordered, and the possible long-term Gattacization of reproduction, is hardly a reductio ad Hitlerum; it's more of a reductio ad these guys. Moreover, the usage hardly unique to the political Right - see here and here and here and here and so on. (That guy Habermas: What a wingnut!) Indeed, many defenders of genetic enhancement through prenatal intervention - and by other means as they become available - have embraced the term "liberal eugenics" (to be contrasted with the old, authoritarian eugenics), rather than repudiating it. Which suggests that it's not all that "unfair" a word for conservatives to use to describes the practices and trends in question.

Comments

What is fair or unfair? It's so subjective.
It is however misleading and confusing to call what happens when men and women plan their families today; eugenics.

Historical eugenics is a collective social movement that uses state power, be it federal or local, to sterilize people against their will for fear of "enfeabling" the "race".

Modern decisions to proceed with an 1st trimester abortion based on a probability of birth defect are based on personal choice, not state choice, and reflect a desire to protect the family and protect its life liberty and persuit of happyness.

Now maybe we need a larger debate on the social morality of allowing families to make this choice independent of community approval, but I think that to call it "eugenics" obsures the issue rather than clarify it.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 31, 2007 10:30 AM

Second, while the means of "traditional eugenics" were obviously very different from what's emerging now - involving state power rather than parental choice, and selective breeding/sterilization rather than prenatal genetic screening and abortion - the ends were the same: the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process.

The "scientific management" of the reproductive process is completely non-parallel in these two examples. We're talking about state coercion on the one hand, and decisions made by individuals and families on the other. That's about as bad an analogy as it's possible to make in a political science context.

The stated goal of the early 20th Century eugenics movement was the genetic improvement of the human species. Is there really any fundamentally wrong, per se, with a "genetically improved human species?" That's the question, isn't it?

Eugenics has a deservedly poor reputation because of its means, not its ends. It involved elites applying their own racial and cultural biases to designate "undesirable" populations and then taking coercive steps to reduce the ability of so-called undesirables to bear and raise children. In its most virulent strain, of course, it played a significant role in the Holocaust.

Nowadays, there are still a fair number of people who wish to use government policy toward eugenic ends, and these people are almost exclusively on the Right. Witness your own frequent commenter Steve Sailer, and his belief that America needs to improve its gene pool by reducing immigration from "low IQ countries".

The literal meaning of eugenics is "good genes," and it is true that legalized abortion and prenatal screening give parents the option of ending pregnancies when the child is carrying a gene the parents do not want. And it is probable that this trend is going to culminate in fewer children with conditions like Down Syndrome. But the word "eugenics" is commonly understood to describe a deliberate social policy that is committed to bringing about these changes against the wishes of parents and potential parents. THAT is why "eugenics" is a dirty word.

The only way to prevent a substantial reduction in the number of Down Syndrome children is going to require coercive state policies that FORCE women to carry such children to term. Are pro-life conservatives willing to pay for this child's medical care and education. Are they willing to adopt such children if the parents don't want the responsibility? Are they actually willing to use the power of the state to PREVENT people from making sure that their children are born healthy?

Or are you just all talking out of your asses, as usual, because the entire purpose of this conversation is to provide feel-good excuses for banning abortion?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 10:33 AM

I'll add that Down's Syndrome is a particularly bad example because it's not heritable - it is typically caused by an atypical formation in the egg or sperm, and most people with Down's Syndrome are infertile or nearly so. There is neither an attempt to "improve the race" nor is there an act being done which has that effect.

I think it's wrong to abort Down's Syndrome babies, in the general case, but I don't think that "eugenics" is the term to use here.

There is, as you point out, a certain movement in political theory to start to talk about the ways in which modern genetics risks recapitulating the crimes of eugenics. But I don't see how applying the term here is helpful.

I mean, if aborting a Down's Syndrome fetus is eugenics, then strict immigration reform is super-duper ultra eugenics.

Posted by DivGuy | July 31, 2007 10:36 AM

Ezra used the words "medically disastrous" in connection with a statistic you cited showing a decline in neonatal mortality. He is not talking about Down's Syndrome, he is talking about conditions that cause neonatal death.

You can certainly believe that it is immoral to have an abortion, rather than give birth to a baby who will suffer for six months and then die, but for you to suggest that such a choice is "eugenic" is monstrous.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 10:46 AM

I think Ezra, as well as others, are being a little too nonjudgemental here. Ezra says its "fair enough" to believe that its immoral to abort Downs Syndrome fetuses. Let's be honest. "Moral" beliefs that elevate sentimentality above all other concerns should be called what they are: irrational and kind of crazy.

Posted by Jim W | July 31, 2007 10:59 AM

The difference between eugenics and a family deciding to have an abortion is equivalent to the difference between the Chinese government mandating that each family may have only one child, and an American family deciding to only have one child.

People who abort Down's Syndrome babies aren't doing it for "the genetic improvement of the human species" (since, among other things, it's not an inherited trait). They're doing it because they, themselves, do not want to raise a child with Down's Syndrome.

Posted by Steve | July 31, 2007 11:13 AM

As I've repeatedly noted, the dodging and weaving here is getting pretty silly.

If you agree that your terminology isn't just a backhanded way of attacking abortion itself (which I'm not convinced of either), then if you are consistent you must apply your "eugenics" smear to individuals picking out mates non-randomly. Or avoiding reproduction because of Tay Sachs genes. All of these individual choices affect and potentially "improve" the gene pool.

And, as another person has pointed out, Down's Syndrome isn't even a particularly heritable trait: not having Down's Syndrome babies isn't going to change the human gene pool much in any case in regards to its likelihood of this going wrong in utero. So even THAT idea, pretty darn central to the concept of eugenics, is basically missing from your already bizarre usage.

And wait, Ross, weren't you just the guy complaining that a difference in opinion on bioethics shouldn't be grounds for smears? What is the point of using an inflammatory term like eugenics if not as a smear?

Posted by plunge | July 31, 2007 11:20 AM

The decisions of individuals, not encouraged by the state or other groups, are not eugenics. If Kevin Garnett chooses to marry and reproduce with a tall, black woman, that is not eugenics.

Like the focus on intact dilation and extraction, this is an effort to nibble around the edges to raise concerns without mentioning the belief that all abortions should be banned. That, of course, is what drives all these peripheral arguments.

Posted by Ron Mexico | July 31, 2007 11:20 AM

Ross: DivGuy is right on this one. Eugenics are about improving the gene pool. Aborting children with Downs Syndrome is not about improving the gene pool.

And your other commenters are right that taking the position "trying to pass good genes on to your children is wrong" is completely absurd. In the Ashkenazi Jewish community, it is common to do pre-marital genetic counseling to determine whether bride and groom are both Tay-Sachs carriers. If they both are, they may choose not to wed in order not to produce children who suffer from Tay-Sachs. That's eugenics inasmuch as it's a conscious effort to improve the gene pool. It's non-coercive and non-destructive eugenics. I'm quite certain you think it's a good thing. If you don't, I'd really like to know why.

The most important question at issue is where moral lines are drawn with regard to means. The secondary question is whether eugenic ends *trade off* against other ends. I don't think the notion "thinking eugenically is wrong as such" holds water.

Your commenters generally are drawing a moral line at *coercive* eugenics. Forced sterilization and abortion, government arrangement of marriages - these are wrong things. So long as reproductive decisions are made privately and voluntarily, they don't see any moral issue. You may or may not find certain kinds of coercive eugenics acceptable. I don't know, for example, whether you would support or oppose a law that *required* couples seeking to marry to undergo genetic counseling, so as to inform them of any potentially deleterious genetic consequences to their union, much as many states have required blood tests to get a marriage license. Such a law would be moderately coercive and certainly eugenic in intent, and it's not *obviously* wrong, assuming the couples compelled to share this information with each other had the *right* to marry even if the results showed the potential for genetic problems in their children.

Where you draw the line is at *destructive* eugenics. You think it's wrong to kill a fetus for eugenic reasons. You also think it's wrong to kill a fetus for all sorts of other reasons. Indeed, you think it's wrong to kill a fetus for any reason (or you may make an exception for reasonable risk to the life of the mother, I don't know). So I'm not sure that the question of "eugenics" really bears on your opposition to abortion at all. If it does, I only see it doing so in one of two ways.

First, you might feel that eugenics is so *compelling* as an end that you think it will lead people to pursue it by *evil means.* That doesn't seem to be the argument you are making, but I suspect it is a better argument than the one you are making.

Second, you might feel that while eugenics is a *legitimate* end, it trades off against other ends that may be *more valuable* in the final analysis. For example, the New Atlantic folks demonstrate a lot of concern about the relationship between parent and child; that a child should be understood as a gift rather than a product, and that eugenic abortion, genetic screening, and a future of genetic enhancement all undermine the former and enhance the latter understanding of the relationship. If you believe this, the real question is what the scope, if any, of the state should be in trying to shape what is really the spiritual nature of a relationship within families. The conservative position would properly be: none or virtually none. Which means you should be talking about private efforts to change the culture rather than policy.

Posted by Noah Millman | July 31, 2007 11:24 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

Tell me: where does the dictionary definition of "eugenics" make any reference to state coercion?

Posted by John | July 31, 2007 11:43 AM

The definition doesn't require coercion. Just encouragement. But it clearly states that eugenics involves encouraging others to take actions to improve the gene pool. So, if just taking an action yourself would not constitute eugenics.

Posted by Jim W | July 31, 2007 11:52 AM

even if most folks believe (as it appears from scanning the comments) there isn't an issue at this stage because the choices are being made by individuals and those individuals are not coerced by the state, it's still something we have to worry about going forward. Assuming that the gov't is going to be more involved in heathcare going forward (a fair assumption), we are likely going to see situations in which the state is acting coercively. I don't see any way around that; there are going to be some very tough decisions.

Posted by hugo | July 31, 2007 11:56 AM

John-- from your own link:

the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

How could "controlled selective breeding" be non-coercive?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 11:58 AM

At least it's nice to see that the left recoil from the term eugenics. Actually, the entire pro-choice movement from Margaret Sanger on is tied to the eugenics movement; right down to the unpleasant notions of racial superiority.

Semantic differences about what the "real" meaning of eugenics are a little beside the point: selective abortions are about weeding out babies we think are inferior. Whatever term you give that, it's pretty despicable.

Jim W expresses the sentiments of the early eugenicists succintly when he says: "'Moral' beliefs that elevate sentimentality above all other concerns should be called what they are: irrational and kind of crazy."

I'd like to hear what he bases his moral beliefs on.

Actually, on second thoughts, perhaps I wouldn't.

Posted by Tom O'Gorman | July 31, 2007 12:04 PM

I'm not sure what hangs on the example, and perhaps you could recast the argument using other diseases, but Down Syndrome is a very bad case for you, Ross. The reason is that Down Syndrome is not part of the ordinary genetic variation in human beings--as hereditary differences in intelligence would be. Rather Down Syndrome is the product of an error during Meiosis that results in the child having three copies of the 21st chromosome. But there's ordinarily no hereditary difference in the number of chromosomes that humans possess. Eugenics, is naturally the idea of eliminating elements of ordinary human variation that are judged harmful. If I understand correctly, the proponents of eugenics had the view that "sure, people naturally fall into the smarter and stupider kinds, and we just want to prevent the stupid kind from breeding."

To use an analogy, consider the difference between giving a short or averaged height human growth hormone to improve his social standing and giving a child growth hormone after a tumor damaged his pituitary gland.

Posted by Justin | July 31, 2007 12:05 PM

This discussion is orbiting the issue only; it hasn't yet made landing.

Aborting a fetus will eventually be considered a crude relic of a less-sophisticated past. The amount of control we are developing over the reproductive process will soon give way to binary decisions -- enable/disable -- over the entire spectrum of development. Therefore, this abortion debate will be preempted; proactive measures will all but eliminate the need for post facto termination.

The discussion we should be having is "yes/no" on biological fatalism, "yes/no" on categories of biological preemption (negative preemption regarding vulnerabilities and disease, positive preemption for chosen traits, etc.), and "yes/no" on policy measures that reinforce our collective decisions on the subject.

Forget abortion. The questions are: when we can, should we? -- if yes, to what extent? -- how do we use the feedback mechanisms of law to manifest our will?

Posted by JA | July 31, 2007 12:07 PM

In response to Tom O'Gorman,

I stated my reasoning in a different comment thread, but its basically that, when parents choose not to abort a fetus with Downs Syndrome, this means that, on average (due to financial and/or emotional limitations), it is one fewer child they will have in the future. So, they are most likely preventing a genetically healthy child from being born due to a sentimental attachment to a fetus with a serious abnormality. Why isn't depriving the potential life of a future healthy child even more "despicable" than depriving the life of one with a serious abnormality?

Posted by Jim W | July 31, 2007 12:14 PM

It's important to remember here that the discussion started when Ross accused people who support the right to abortion of implictly supporting eugenics. This is nonsense even if we think aborting fetuses with genetic defects is eugenics. All of the rights we have give us the freedom to do immoral things; supporting those rights is not the same as endorsing every possible action they allow.

I'm glad someone linked to a dictionary because it makes it much clearer to me that Ross is trying to use the word eugenics in a way that it has never commonly been used before. This might be justified, if he could make some kind of coherent argument that what he is describing is substantially equivalent to the common use of the word eugenics.

But such an argument breaks down in a number of ways. First, as a number of commenters have pointed out, the anti-eugenic argument applies just as well to choosing with whom we have children. The case against aborting fetuses with genetic disorders is therefore either 1) identical with the case against aborting any fetus and therefore not related to eugenics, or 2) what Noah Millman said, an argument about the proper relationship between parent and child, and about why we ought to value human life. In fact I would say I agree with some version of the second argument. But it also has nothing to do with eugenics.

Anyway anyone who wants a heavy dose of unabashed contemporary eugenics can click on the link to Steve Sailer's blog at right and read how we need to worry about "dysgenic breeding" among non-whites. No advocate of abortion rights has anything like Sailer's callous disregard for the value of human life.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 12:16 PM

I vote for a biological Bush-Doctrine on fixable genetic errors and diseases. At least.

Posted by JA | July 31, 2007 12:16 PM

I also just read that Wikipedia article "Liberal eugenics" seems to refer to two things: 1) fixing genetic disorders before birth, and 2) Gattaca-style genetic improvements. It's possible to make slippery-slope arguments about 1). But, to take the least controversial example I can imagine, how many people of any political persuasion would seriously suggest that it's immoral to eliminate Tay-Sachs in vitro? The first part of the "liberal eugenics" program is not on its face either "eugenics" or immoral.

Part 2) however is a fringe. You will find a lot on Wikipedia about "transhumanism," but this has to do with the kind of people who write and edit Wikipedia articles. It has nothing to do with American political liberalism.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 12:34 PM

1) Just what's wrong with a "backhanded way of attacking abortion itself"?

2) Down's syndrome isn't classic eugenics to improve the race. It is in a line of practice and thought extending earlier than the Nazi (and pre-Nazi) elimination of the mentally retarded as life unfit to live. Not eugenics proper, perhaps, due to the point of heritability, but in the same line of thought.

The difference is simply that the 20th century discovered that state-run malice and murder is inefficient. The market-oriented reliance on human selfishness and "attaining fulfillment" at the cost of such foibles as love based not on the intelligence or beauty of the loved one -- this works much better.

Two cheers for capitalism, and three cheers for murder!

Posted by the marquis of carabas | July 31, 2007 12:44 PM

Jeez, what is with you conservatives and Gattaca? Yesterday Larison, today Douthat.

It was a crummy movie, guys. Even if it were legitimate to use works of fiction as evidence to bolster one's arguments, this probably wouldn't be the best example.

Posted by dan | July 31, 2007 12:57 PM

I agree with Marquis. Many of the posters have argued that "It's not state-run, so it's not eugenics and it's not bad." But is putting genetically enhancing technologies in the hands of the free market any better? Think of all the complaints we have already of the inequalities of health care. Now imagine that multiplied by a thousand.

Posted by Adam | July 31, 2007 1:11 PM

Hey! Gattacca was a pretty good movie - stylishly shot, decently written, and with a break-out performance by Jude Law.

Say what you will about Douthat, but "Gattacca was a crummy movie" - those are fighting words!

Noah Millman is always hard to argue with, and until Ross or a particularly insightful commentator responds to him, I think he may have preempted the debate.

Posted by J Mann | July 31, 2007 1:21 PM

And, as usual, the anti-abortion crowd shows up to cast aspersions without answering the questions.

We all agree that people with Down Syndrome, and the mentally handicapped, are just as human as the rest of us. We all agree that any plan to forcibly institutionalize such children and sterilize them would be an atrocity.

But it is also almost certainly true that no one prays to God and asks Him to deliver them a child with a genetic disorder. If there were to be fewer children born with these conditions, there would be a great many thankful parents. So where, exactly, is the moral harm involved allowing such selective abortions, unless you believe that abortion constitutes a killing. And if you do believe this, then why are selective abortions any more or less abhorrent than others?

It seems that Ross and some of the commenters here understand that ending the practice of medical abortion will result in far more handicapped children with special medical and educational needs. Are you willing to pay higher taxes to support these children? Are you willing to adopt these children? If you want to use the power of the state to STOP the "improvement" of the gene pool, and COMPEL women to raise severely handicapped children, are you willing to make any personal sacrifices of your own to bring about this oh-so-enlightened society you desire?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that government should regulate individual choices in the free market for the sake of the public interest. Now please explain to me why a dramatic increase in births of children with genetic disorders is in the public interest, in an explanation that doesn't hinge upon your belief that abortion ought to be illegal anyway.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 1:29 PM

Conservatives in the US, who advocate criminal punishment for homosexuality and taking measures intended to diminish voter turnout among minorities, are Nazis.

You can agree or disagree with those policies, but those are policies that Nazis supported. A difference of opinion about the treatment of minorities isn't a smear.

Posted by Ron Mexico | July 31, 2007 1:46 PM

But it is also almost certainly true that no one prays to God and asks Him to deliver them a child with a genetic disorder. If there were to be fewer children born with these conditions, there would be a great many thankful parents. So where, exactly, is the moral harm involved allowing such selective abortions, unless you believe that abortion constitutes a killing. And if you do believe this, then why are selective abortions any more or less abhorrent than others?

Whether parents are thankful or not is a poor criteria for assessing the value of a child. Every child has characteristics that their parents are thankful for, and characteristics that their parents are not thankful for. The problem highlighted by selective abortion of Down's children is the stance taken towards the child: if it doesn't meet my specifications, then it doesn't deserve to live. These specifications run along a continuum from anencephalic babies to children with lower IQ than average (or less than optimal athletic ability, or what have you). At one end of the continuum, sympathy for selective abortion is higher, while at the other end it's negligible. The specifications also include financial costs: it's much more expensive financially to raise a severely disabled child than it is a healthy one. But it's also more expensive to raise a child who needs lots of medication, lots of orthodontics, or lots of surgeries. Once you establish the principle that it's OK to kill a child in the womb if some parental specifications aren't met, then the specifications will inevitably move along the continuum. It seems reasonable for people to be concerned about the slippery slope in the absence of any signs of stopping it.

Posted by Mike S. | July 31, 2007 2:13 PM

1) yes, there is a lot of debate about the term 'eugenics.'

2) it is certainly correct that the original eugenicists were focused on 'normal human variation.' they emerged out of the biometrical movement (which became quantitative genetics), so that makes sense. their focus were on heritable traits which could respond to selection.

3) by that definition DS does not "count," because the fitness of this individuals is very low in the first place, and the heritability is questionable (though some of the literature i have read shows some possibility of elevated risk of meiosis problems).

4) one must distinguish between

a) positive eugenics (promoting the reproduction of those who carry traits you prefer)

b) negative eugenics (discouraging the reproduction of those who carry traits you do not prefer)

historically negative eugenics has become totally identified with eugenics, but please note that positive eugenics was very popular in england. r.a. fisher, the father of modern evolutionary genetics (along with sewall wright and jbs haldane) had many children because he "practiced what he preached." so one thing people seem to forget is that instead of disincentivizing reproduction (or sterilization) you could incentivize the reproduction of those you want to reproduce. this has been attempted in singapore (college educated women), though with little success from what i recall.

5) and of course we're probably going to shift from 'diseases' to 'normal human variation.' we already know the locus that is responsible for 75% of the variation for eye color in europeans. we know the loci for skin color with reasonable certitude. parents could 'load the die,' so to speak, with relative ease.

6) the case of tay sachs is interesting, because it could be argued that it is anti-eugenical, that is, the frequency of carriers is going to be greater than would otherwise be the case if 'selection' (infant mortality) was allowed to work. technically it is increasing 'genetic load.'

7) but proximately, i don't know if these distinctions matter that much. the primary issue is positive vs. negative and state intervention.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 2:16 PM

You can agree or disagree with those policies, but those are policies that Nazis supported.

so were environmentalism and raw foodism ;-) seriously.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 2:17 PM

How is ensuring that there are fewer babies born with Down's not improving the gene pool?

Posted by Bill | July 31, 2007 2:19 PM

How is ensuring that there are fewer babies born with Down's not improving the gene pool?

they barely reproduce. the gene pool = those who might reproduce to the next generation.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 2:20 PM

they barely reproduce. the gene pool = those who might reproduce to the next generation.

But if you abort a Down's baby and have a normal one in its place?

Posted by Bill | July 31, 2007 2:23 PM

But if you abort a Down's baby and have a normal one in its place?

the distribution of expected allele frequencies is not changed.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 2:27 PM

to be clear, if there is a correlation between particular alleles and those who have DS then your model might be relevant. but i know of no such correlation, so DS are just epiphenomenal in a genetic sense.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 2:29 PM

Mike S.

"Whether parents are thankful or not is a poor criteria for assessing the value of a child."

I'll give you that. But the legalization of abortion is based on the principle that a fetus is not yet a child and therefore this is a matter of family planning. And no one would plan to have a child with a severe medical condition. You're once again reducing this issue to a question of whether abortion should be legal, not whether the reduced number of children born with severe birth defects is a social ill.

I'll also give you credit for admitting that you're making a slippery slope argument. But it's a weak one, at best. In the future, as it becomes possible to engineer children to specifications, a line may need to be drawn. I don't believe it is in our best interest to allow the genetic diversity of the human race to be reduced to achieve frivolous cosmetic ends. But should traits that cause severe clinical impairment really be considered healthy diversity? How is a woman who decides she can't afford to raise a child she knows will be severely ill and whom few will want to adopt any more morally questionable than a woman who decides she can't afford to raise any child?

And again, are you willing to pay to support the social costs of banning selective abortions?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 2:43 PM

A few points:

Many commenters have said that it is unfair for Ross to use eugenics to describe aborting babies with Down Syndrome because there is no state coercion involved, but Ross said that while the means might be different, the ends are still the same. And I think all the focus on genes obscures as much as it clarifies (eugenics does not in fact literally mean good genes, it means well born). Whether or not DS is a genetic condition or not is largely beside the point. There is still at root a motivation that seems to say that it is better if this person were not to live, which is pernicious whether the accompanying decision will impact the gene pool or not.

Now people may respond that it was the Nazis and others who used scientific racism to better the gene pool and thus it is unfair to associate people who defend aborting babies with DS with these types. And I agree, and I think Ross does too which is why he rejected the reductio ad Hitlerum argument.

But to me, aborting DS babies is far worse than restricting low-IQ immigration because the former involves destruction of innoncent human life. If we were to make a scale of eugenics with what the Nazis did as the most pernicious while choosing somebody with desirable traits as a marriage partner being the most benign, then I think aborting DS babies is not that far from what the Nazis did in terms of what actually takes place, even if the motivations are entirely different.

But one point that makes me pause, and I wonder what Ross would say about this, is that if the abortion rate of DS babies is so high, then I wonder what the break down is in terms of the religious orientation of those who are aborting. I can't believe it is just secular liberals who are doing of all this aborting. So when LaFollette Progressive asks how many conservatives are willing to adopt babies with DS, I wonder if you even have to go that far. How many conservatives or relgious-minded folks have also aborted DS babies? I have no idea, or if anyone else does either. But I have a strong feeling that many people who would consider themselves conservative or religious have done this very thing, which is one more reason why deploying the term eugenics should not be done lightly.

Posted by torourke | July 31, 2007 2:47 PM

LaFolette,

It sounds like you would be willing to ban first trimester abortions of children who would turn out gay, or be under 5'5" or have IQs less that 95. How does that work with an absolute right of women to bodily autonomy?

Posted by Pithlord | July 31, 2007 3:02 PM

What many of you are missing (or ignoring) is this: What's the purpose of "improving the gene pool" (aka eugenics)? Answer: allowing only "healthy" or "desirable" human beings to be born.

Functionally, if our society descends to the point where certain Untermenschen simply aren't allowed to be born, we are indeed functionally engaging in eugenics. We simply haven't gone to the length of sterilizing the offending gene holders. But then again we don't have to. Because it doesn't matter of some of their inferior eggs and sperm are allowed to multiply for a few months in utero -- we're not about to allow them to enter the world.

Posted by Jasper | July 31, 2007 3:03 PM

Unlike what many commenting here seem to believe, arguing that the world would be better off without Downs Syndrome is not the same as arguing that that the world would be better off without individuals with Downs Syndrome. Equating the former with the later hinges on a ridiculously strong conception of human identity and its consistency across counterfactuals. Likewise, a world without cancer is not identical to a world without those individuals who happen to have cancer in our world.

Posted by Glenn | July 31, 2007 3:04 PM

Anyone who suggests that a parent of a child with a serious genetic condition who is thinking of aborting is sitting around saying "I really need to ensure this fetus never becomes a contributor to the gene pool" is both deeply stupid and unspeakably cruel.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 3:07 PM

if our society descends to the point where certain Untermenschen simply aren't allowed to be born

just to be clear though, it seems possible that the majority of fertilizations are spontaneously miscarried because of genetic (chromosomal) abnormalities. DS makes it to viability because it is on the smallest chromosome resulting in the fewest dosage dependent havoc.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 3:11 PM

torourke:

This is all very much tied up in the question of abortion question.

The number of potential children in the world, by which I mean in a very abstract sense every possible combination of every possible gamete in the entire human population, is incomprehensibly vast. Most of those combinations will produce healthy children, and some will produce children with genetic diseases. I think we can agree, uncontroversially, before any of those potential children are actually conceived, that it would be better if all of the children that actually come into being were genetically healthy.

The question then is whether a particular combination of genes becomes an actual, existing child at the moment of conception, or whether it remains a potential child. This is of course very difficult. I think a fetus that's several months old is arguably an actual child. But I have trouble saying with any certainty that an embryo of one or two cells is an actual, rather than a potential, child. You really have to believe that something magical, supernatural happens at the moment of conception. And that is what religious opponents of abortion believe, I think.

(That answer to the question of when life begins is as satisfying as any, which is to say it is not very satisfying and somewhat arbitrary, and I don't understand the argument that the question should be up to the state.)

Anyway, if you think a fetus with a genetic disorder is a potential and not an actual child then aborting it is morally no worse than genetic screening for Tay-Sachs.

My worry, about this, is more pragmatic. It seems to me that there are problems that might arise because genetic testing is readily available only to the wealthy.

I wish people in this discussion would be more direct about what policy prescriptions they are advocating. I can understand some of the moral arguments being made, but not if they require abortion to be criminalized.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 3:12 PM

It seems to me that there are problems that might arise because genetic testing is readily available only to the wealthy.

the price of screenings and full genome sequences is going down very fast (the demand is high). i don't think in the first world the issue of testing is going to be very constrained by wealth within the next 10 years.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 3:15 PM

Re: "You really have to believe that something magical, supernatural happens at the moment of conception. And that is what religious opponents of abortion believe, I think."

I think the technical term is "ensoulment" (trying not to laugh...)

Posted by Jim W | July 31, 2007 3:27 PM

pithlord-- "It sounds like you would be willing to ban first trimester abortions of children who would turn out gay, or be under 5'5" or have IQs less that 95."

I can't see where you get that from what I wrote. I believe it might someday be appropriate to limit or ban the artificial construction of designer children to avert the dystopian Gattaca scenario, but we are a very long way from that point. I suppose I would favor addressing the issue by banning the deliberate laboratory construction of designer embryos, not by restricting abortion or blocking parental access to laboratory screening results.

However, we're decades away from this being a relevant issue and science fictionish slippery-slope arguments are rarely a productive way to address ethical issues. Which was the point of my comment.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 31, 2007 3:33 PM

AS I said on the other thread: Wanting to improve the lot of your children, and wanting to improve the human race are two entirely different desires, even when some of the measures for what is "good" and some of the methods of achieving it overlap. The second is eugenics. The first simply isn't. Otherwise the word stops having any meaning.

Posted by Steve | July 31, 2007 3:36 PM

However, we're decades away from this being a relevant issue and science fictionish slippery-slope arguments are rarely a productive way to address ethical issues.

well, a locus of large effect was recently detected in northern europeans via twin studies for height. decades might be = 20 years.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 3:50 PM

J Mann-

I'll concede that 'crummy' might not be the appropriate adjective for Gattaca in a world in which the likes of Michael Bay or Brett Ratner are bankable filmmakers.

That said - especially in light of the recent deaths of Bergman and Antonioni - Gattaca is hardly what one would call quality film. I mean, Ethan Hawke is in it for God's sake.

I'll also concede that after Millman's post, comments like mine are simply a waste of time and pixels.

Posted by dan | July 31, 2007 3:59 PM

Well, OK, if you think it is fine to abort fetuses with genetic predispositions to be gay or under 5'5" or with IQs less than 95, then how unfair is it to call that privatized eugenics?

Posted by Pithlord | July 31, 2007 4:01 PM

p.s. i think the near term relevance of genetic technology has many parameters, but here are two

a) heritability (how much environmental noise is there in the system)

b) number of loci (the genes which contribute to the trait)

the lower heritability and more genes the more messy and non-cost effective it gets. height for example is 80% heritable, but is localized on a lot of genes. blue vs. brown eyes is 3/4 due within population variation because of 1 gene, and there aren't that many modifiers.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 4:03 PM

Liberals are trending towards eugenics far less than Ross's and the Rights'love of genital mutilation.

Posted by lebeau | July 31, 2007 4:13 PM

There are certainly good arguments one could make to discourage someone you know from aborting her fetus because it might be too low IQ (or too high--"I don't think I'd know how to raise a kid who was too much smarter than me") or because of height or sexual orientation or because the child is likely to be deaf (or, for deaf parents, because the child is going to be hearing). But whatever the parents' choice, it's simply not eugenics.

"Privatized eugenics" is a non-sequitor like "pivatized socialism"

Posted by Steve | July 31, 2007 4:20 PM

I think a number of people here are irritated that this concern is a stalking horse for opposition to all abortion.

Of course it is, in part -- it's real concern (based on slippery slopes, reading BRAVE NEW WORLD, and actually listening to what some liberals and libertarians say when they think the proles aren't listening). A lot of "normal" people are, on the one hand, pretty much fine with aborting _themselves_ to avoid a Down's child -- but also uncomfortable in general with "eugenic" abortion, even that kind. This is indeed argument from sentiment, often made by those who find abortion in general wrong and so need not invoke the argument from eugenics, in part emphasized because it _appeals to those who do not share the logical/moral judgment against abortion in all cases_. There is nothing wrong with making arguments designed to appeal to people who aren't committed to all your positions, or with appealing to sentiment rather than cold utilitarian logic.

For one thing, cold utilitarian logic is nonsense, at root.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | July 31, 2007 4:24 PM

One of the things that has always facinated me about religious opposition to abortion is how modern it is. I mean you don't see any of this coming up in the past. There is no large body of theological work on the subject until modernity itself made knowledge of the reproductive process more concrete and less mystical. For me this makes the religious opposition inherently weak since it relies on secular rather than religious knowledge, and in a sense mixes the two to come up with a conclusion on right and wrong. The basic point being that it is unclear how from a theological point of view you can argue for the ensoulment of the unborn. It is no accident that the political opposition to abortion originated with the most theologically unsound segments of Christianity, American Protestant fundamentalists. The Catholic Church's jump on to the bandwagon seem nothing less than religious opportunism, a chance to get in on the action so to speak and reassert control over the laity. But theological justification for the focus on deliberate miscarrage as a consuming focus for the Church? I'm not convinced. Also, is prohibition of the act by secular authorities a legitimate religious goal? Is a focus on moral condemnation the Christ like thing to do in this case? Why do women abort some fetuses? How can the Church help? I see the return of the baby drop in some Churches as a step in the right direction. Killing doctors and nurses is not the answer. Neither is delivering votes of the faithful to a dishonest and violent political party.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 31, 2007 4:51 PM

There is nothing wrong with making arguments designed to appeal to people who aren't committed to all your positions, or with appealing to sentiment rather than cold utilitarian logic.

Ignoring for a moment your nonsensical opposition of "sentiment" and "cold utilitarian logic" as the two means of debate between which you must choose, it seems you've agreed with what Douthat's critics have been saying all along: his argument makes no sense. You and Douthat are of course free to make nonsensical arguments that appeal emotionally if they aren't considered very carefully, but the rest of us are right to point out that this is what you are doing.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 4:56 PM

Re: "You really have to believe that something magical, supernatural happens at the moment of conception. And that is what religious opponents of abortion believe, I think.

I don't know about all 'religious opponents of abortion', but I certainly believe that. There is necessarily SOME point in time at which ensoulment occurs. Unless of course you don't believe that we have a soul in the first place, which I think is both absurd and logically self-refuting. (If we don't have a soul, and our thoughts and emotions are completely physically determined, then any conclusions that our minds come to are also the product of physical causation, and therefore are not the products of reason, which means that we have no reason to believe them.) Unless you believe that thought, emotion, and the moral sense are ultimately influenced by something beyond the physical, and which is not causally determined, then the very idea of rational thought is impossible.

If one does believe in the existence of a soul, then of course we can't know for sure when it happens; but isn't conception the most logical and likely point?

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 31, 2007 5:26 PM

A few facts might interfere with all the fun of ahistorical assertions, but at the risk of being a killjoy:

Eugenics was highly popular with the non-religious center-left in the early decades of the 20th Century. The term was invented by Darwin's half-cousin Sir Francis Galton, a Liberal, and enthusiastic eugenicists included Fabian socialists like George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells, the leading Labour Party intellectual Harold Laski, Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, atheist pragmatists like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr,, Stalinists like geneticist Herman Muller, and Winston Churchill during his Liberal Party years.

There wasn't much agreement among eugenicists over specific policies, with Galton, for example, favoring voluntary measures to encourage favorable marriages but Wells being totalitarian, if not genocidal.

In the English-speaking world, eugenicists tended to be WASPs, with Laski being a prominent exception.

Despite Muller's best efforts to talk Stalin into supporting eugenics, Communists favored Lysenkoism, sending geneticists to the Gulag.

Perhaps the leading opponent of eugenics in the English language was Catholic convert G.K. Chesterton, author of the 1922 book "Eugenics and Other Evils."

In the U.S., eugenic sterilization laws were most popular in Progressive states such as California and the upper Midwest, and were least popular in the Bible Belt of the lower Midwest and the South.

In Social Democratic Sweden, eugenic sterilization was carried on into the 1970s.

Modern statistics is, more than anything else, the product of the eugenics movement, with the outspoken eugenicsts Galton, Karl Pearson (a Marxist who changed the spelling of his first name from Carl to Karl to honor his hero), and Ronald A. Fisher, being three of the most important progenitors of the statistical techniques used every day in medical research and the like.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2007 5:45 PM

"It is no accident that the political opposition to abortion originated with the most theologically unsound segments of Christianity, American Protestant fundamentalists. The Catholic Church's jump on to the bandwagon seem nothing less than religious opportunism, a chance to get in on the action so to speak and reassert control over the laity."

Huh? Where do you get this? I was raised Southern Baptist, and I can assure you that abortion was hardly on the evangelical radar screen before the 1970s. The right-to-life movement as it developed starting in the 1960s was firmly rooted in Catholicism [Ever heard of Humanae Vitae? The Protestant Right didn't really sign on until the coalescence of the Relgious Right at the end of the 1970s.

Posted by David | July 31, 2007 5:57 PM

Despite the conventional wisdom that links eugenics utterly to Hitlerism, the most successful eugenic enterprise at present is found among very orthodox Jews. A rabbi who lost four children to Tay-Sachs started a eugenic testing service for Ashkenazi Jews that has proved highly successful in reducing the incidence of the disease. Of course, he was helped by that his brand of Jewish adherents tend to have arranged marriages.

This points out G.K. Chesterton's objection to the practicality of eugenics: if the eugenicists actually succeeded in breeding healthier, smarter, more formidable Englishmen, the first thing these semi-supermen would do is tell the eugenicists to butt out of arranging their marriages and go back to marrying whomever they loved.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2007 5:58 PM

BP,

How would you engage in moral argument without reference to "sentiment"? It would be quite a trick. You should publish immediately.

Posted by Pithlord | July 31, 2007 6:07 PM

Huh? Where do you get this? I was raised Southern Baptist, and I can assure you that abortion was hardly on the evangelical radar screen before the 1970s. The right-to-life movement as it developed starting in the 1960s was firmly rooted in Catholicism [Ever heard of Humanae Vitae? The Protestant Right didn't really sign on until the coalescence of the Relgious Right at the end of the 1970s.

this is exactly what i've read too. kind of funny that people just make crap up.

Posted by razib | July 31, 2007 6:19 PM

And how many of the people posting here are a) men b) will never have to deal with the problems of raising a Down's Syndrome or other severely handicapped child? (Not to say that there aren't fathers of Down Syndrome children who pull a full load--just that I bet that in most cases the brunt of the work of supporting a Down's Syndrome child is still done by the mother.)

Very soulful to natter about the ethics of decisions you know you're unlikely to get stuck with the bill for. And in a lot of cases, gee, people suddenly change their mind, at least for themselves (the syndrome of "my abortion is necessary and moral, as opposed to what those dirty sluts are doing.")

Have noticed that countries end up having the ethics their economies can afford.

Assume a space colony. It would probably insist on prenatal testing and "eugenics" (however one slices it) because the colony would not be able to afford any non-productive human adult.

And so it goes.

Posted by grumpy realist | July 31, 2007 6:59 PM

Carrie Buck, of Buck v. Bell fame, was sterilized in that progressive Yankee state of Virginia for example so Steve Sailer must have a point. Some where.

Posted by ellenbrenna | July 31, 2007 7:00 PM

How would you engage in moral argument without reference to "sentiment"? It would be quite a trick. You should publish immediately.

I would, but I'm afraid Aquinas and Kant beat me.

Anyway I wasn't objecting to sentiment, but to the idea that the debate here represents some kind of opposition between sentiment and reason. Both can play a role in moral argument.

Hector:

I don't object to the belief in ensoulment at conception per se. As I said, it's as good a belief as any. But I don't agree that it is obvious a priori. The question seems to me to admit no clear answer, unless you think you possess revealed truth.

Posted by BP | July 31, 2007 8:05 PM

Eugenics was highly popular with the non-religious center-left in the early decades of the 20th Century.

And segregation was popular with the center-right in the middle decades (and arguably the later decades, too) of the 20th century. (Read the National Review's writings on segregation when it was a contested political topic).

Also, slavery was popular in the South until the middle decades of the 19th century, but less popular in the North.

Why is it relevant?

Just about no one in the early decades of the 20th century had views on all subjects that would today be considered within the mainstream.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 31, 2007 8:09 PM

And how often do liberals/progressives/whatevers bring up past conservative support for segregation?

24/7?

So, why shouldn't a religious conservative like Ross bring up the fact that nonreligious progressives of the center-left were wild for eugenics for several decades? And that a similar tendency is arising again?

It doesn't hurt people to be reminded that their side often went off the tracks in the past.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 31, 2007 8:41 PM

BP,

I don't have any 'revealed truth' on the matter. (Thinking about it more closely, I'm not sure whether I think that conception, implantation, or some other very early moment marks the time of ensoulment). I do think that it's likely that ensoulment happens very early on in the process. But since we don't have particular reason to believe that any other moment is the moment of ensoulment, then we should at least consider seriously the position of those who do claim that they have revealed truth on the matter. It seems to be a lot more likely that ensoulment happens at or very soon after conception, rather than say two or three months later.

Furthermore, I don't think Aquinas said you could prove Christianity by pure reason, rather I think he meant informed reason, which would be reason informed by moral intuitions (our desire not to hurt other people without a good reason, our desire to love and be loved by our neighbor, our affection for small children, etc.)

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | July 31, 2007 10:10 PM

Now, Steve Sailer, don't be coy... you're the hottest thing in eugenics going. Come on. Tell us all about blacks genetic predisposition to violence and stupidity. Let's have it. I mean, that is absolutely your position, isn't it? That African-Americans have a genetic predisposition to being violent and unintelligent? Don't just tiptoe up to the line. Dive right in.

Posted by Freddie | July 31, 2007 11:03 PM

I find it positively stupifying that there have been nearly 70 comments on a thread about the 90% abortion rate for Down fetuses without one single person asking the obvious question: If an overwhelming majority of people who have the option to do something do one thing -- abort the fetus -- as opposed to the other, why?

I can only answer for myself, but I had amnio with both my pregnancies with the quite open intention of terminating of the test showed abnormalities. (I was lucky and neither son has any obvious chromosome flaws.) I did this, and would have had an abortion because raising a developmentally disabled kid is astronomically difficult and expensive. Mr. Douthat's insistence that Down's isn't a dreadful could only be produced by someone who's never been around mentally disabled people. Just because a condition won't kill you within the next week or so doesn't mean it isn't a real bitch to live with. This post by a liberal evangelical Christian discusses this issue quite nicely, as do Michael Berube's posts on the subject. I'm sure than most parents of developmentally delayed kids go through their struggles gladly, and give and receive the love of their children without a complaint. They are heroic, but I know myself well enough to know I'm never going to be a hero.

Seriously, if you want to reduce the abortion rate for kids with severe disabilities, find a way to cure the disabilities. PKU is a genetic disorder that once caused a significant number of kids to suffer mental retardation every year. Now, it's treated by diet and completely cured. Instead of insulting parents who can't shoulder this kind of crushing responsibility, find a way to lighten or eliminate the load. Also, think about those people who weigh others with heavy burdens and then don't help them carry the bundles.

Posted by Karen | August 1, 2007 12:08 AM

Well, Karen may have a point. All I have in response is anecdotal evidence. My parents have friends who had a Down Syndrome child -- my exact contemporary. They were impeccable progressives. The father was at one point in politics on behalf of the NDP, the Canadian social democratic party. Their child died at 21.

Their policy response to this experience? Although they remained "pro-choice", they became passionately opposed to abortion of "disabled children" (as they would put it). That may not be a coherent position, but it was the product of their experience.

There are now hardly any Down Syndrome kids, so fewer people to experience this change of perspective. Will the same be true in the future of other conditions? Almost certainly.

Posted by Pithlord | August 1, 2007 9:21 AM

Re: "I do think that it's likely that ensoulment happens very early on in the process."

If we don't have a coherent definition of what a soul is, then the whole question is nonsensical. If, by "soul", you mean "mind", then it does exist. If you mean some extra mystical entity that predates mind, then, its something outside rational debate.

What we do know is that the mind exists. The evidence is overwhelming that consciousness arises out of the physcial processes of the nervous system (how? why? no one knows).

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the mind develops gradually in tandem with the development of the nervous system, not just before birth but after it. So, its reasonable to say that a 3 year old has more consciousness than a 2 year old, and a 2 year old more than a 1 year old, etc. Many people seem unable to grasp the concept of something developing continuously, but that's the way it is.

Its almost like asking: when does height happen?

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2007 9:43 AM

Dan,

Thanks. In return, I'll concede that Gattaca is not high philosophy. OTOH, it is kind of an effective metaphor for a possible future, even if it's a crude one. Although probably better works artistically, 1984 and Brave New World served similar functions.

Posted by J Mann | August 1, 2007 9:45 AM

Hector--

Without revealed truth the question becomes very difficult. If you believe that the "soul" is merely epiphenomenal to the brain (I am agnostic about this), then certainly there is no soul until there is a brain of reasonable complexity. But my larger point is that the nature of the question puts it outside the purview of state authority; so that however interesting it may be, with regards to abortion it is properly weighed by the mother.

In my understanding Aquinas believed that morality rests on natural law, which we can know through moral intuition and reason, but which preexists and does not depend on our intution. I may not understand him correctly, though.

Posted by BP | August 1, 2007 11:39 AM

it seems you've agreed with what Douthat's critics have been saying all along: his argument makes no sense.

No. I think the argument makes sense -- one of the objections raised here is that the argument is essentially, for many of those making it (not some of the folks Ross keeps linking too, mind you), superfluous. If all abortion is murder, why argue against some abortions as really bad abortions?

But that's rather strange logic -- all murders are bad. But in general, we get more upset about murders done for sheer fun, or out of ideological hatred, than we do about "personal" murders -- the barroom fight between drunken friends, the wife who shoots her philandering and cruel husband. The later type are tragic, and often equally _wrong_ -- but they are an expected (if, of course, still illegal) feature of society, given what human beings are like. A rising incidence of ideological or joy-killing, on the other hand, speaks to a transformation of society into something that we know is not good.

All abortions are bad, and I'd like to outlaw them all. But some are bad things people do for reasons that will always be around (you don't think most pro-lifers with any sense think abortion will actually vanish totally if outlawed, do you?) -- while others are signs of an attitude to children (products that need to meet a certain specification in order to be worthy of life, love, and money) that could transform society into something worse than it is now.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | August 1, 2007 12:21 PM

Jim W.,

The soul is distinct from the mind. The soul is almost by definition not something that 'arises out of the physical processes of the nervous system.' Nor is the evidence that consciousness arises out of purely physical processes at all overwhelming, in fact it's quite underwhelming. We have reason to believe that physical processes form the mechanisms through which thought propagates and intera