Your (Don't Call It) Eugenics Roundup

I said I wouldn't post any more about this, but I'm going to cheat a little by posting links to other people, starting with Yuval Levin:

... surely the most essential problem with the eugenics movement was not coercion or collectivism. It wasn’t even the revolting notion of some duty to improve the race. The deepest and most significant contention of the progressive eugenicists was that science had shown the principle of human equality to be unfounded. These eugenicists badly misread Darwin. The eugenicists of today, in contrast, employ actual scientific principles to support their beliefs; nevertheless, their abuse of science is no less misguided. It is, again, being used to demonstrate distinctions among human beings that—the new eugenicists claim—are so fundamental as to make some lives not worth living, and therefore not worth protecting.

The challenge of eugenics was, and is again, a challenge to our egalitarianism. That is what lies at the heart of the abortion debate, and of the larger debate about emerging biotechnologies. These arguments are not about when a new human life begins—an empirical matter not in real dispute—but about whether every human life is equal. That question is a perfectly serious one, and there are defensible positions on both sides. But too many American progressives have answered in the negative without thinking through the consequences. And increasingly the reasons they give are not liberal reasons—reasons of liberty and personal choice—but scientific reasons, be it the great promise of some very particular avenue of medical research, or the instrument readings that demonstrate Down’s or another genetic condition.

See also Cheryl Miller, Matt's remarks and Reihan's response, and Cheryl again.

Comments

"It is, again, being used to demonstrate distinctions among human beings that—the new eugenicists claim—are so fundamental as to make some lives not worth living, and therefore not worth protecting."

No. Simply no. It neccesarily follows from this claim that a couple who decide not to reproduce because they would risk passing on a genetic disaese are committing a grave moral wrong.

People continualy fail at distinguishing between potential human lives and actual human lives and it leads them to spout utter nonsense.

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 9:52 AM

These arguments are not about when a new human life begins—an empirical matter not in real dispute—but about whether every human life is equal.

Many parties to the debate, including Catholics, take the position that a human life begins when God endows the fertilized egg with a soul. That is not an empirical matter.

And increasingly the reasons they give [for holding that not every life is equal] are not liberal reasons—reasons of liberty and personal choice—but scientific reasons, be it the great promise of some very particular avenue of medical research, or the instrument readings that demonstrate Down’s or another genetic condition.

Please find me even one person who cites scientific or medical benefit (e.g. of stem cell research) as a reason to believe that not all human lives are equal. Levin's argument is extremely shoddy here. He's got it precisely backwards: the moral permissibility of such promising avenues of medical research follows from a particular view of the moral status of the embryo/fetus/etc.; the promise of the avenue is not used as a reason to assign such moral status.

And it bears repeating one more time: nothing in all the verbiage slung around here lately does anything to show that it is legitimate to tar a woman making an individual decision as to whether to abort with the brush of 'eugenics,' no matter how many semantic backflips you do.

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 10:16 AM

Glenn's response above is typical of the pro-eugenics and pro-abortion argument: the goal posts keep getting moved. His counter-example does not not apposite.

Again, the question can be rather tidily put. Are there human lives which are not worth living? Are there forms of human life which do not warrant equal protection under law? Are there human beings who are not human persons?

As far as questions of moral philosophy go, this is actually a very elegant and understandable question.

Are all forms of human life equally human because of their intrinsic humanity? Or is the word "human" applied only to a certain segment of human beings--perhaps those with more developed reasoning skills, those full conscious, those who are not tiny, those who don't have white skin, etc.

Posted by Thomas Nelson | August 2, 2007 10:16 AM

This is what you believe? This is stupid.

Obviously, the pro-choice movement believes that human life does not begin at conception. They believe that the embryo is effectively a part of a woman's body which she has autonomous control over. When it becomes a fetus, the lines get fuzzier for some, but they're against government intervention to make a determination.

Whether you agree or not, this is what the pro-choice movement believes.

You're saying that being pro-choice is simply a form of eugenics. You're equating the abortion of genetically troubled fetuses to the vast majority, which are about bodily autonomy and life situation. That's quite stupid, and it's beneath you to cite such a stupid argument without comment.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 10:21 AM

Glenn, I don't see why what you say "follows from" the claim above. Do you deny that there is a tendency among many in our society to think that, e.g., the life of a child with Down's Syndrome isn't worth living? And can you really not see that there might be something morally problematic here?

Moreover, I don't see how the distinction you draw is relevant: in the first place, there's no scientific question that fetuses are ACTUAL human lives. But in the second place, that's not what's at issue here: the question is whether the idea that it's better not to bring children into the world if there's a good chance that they'll have a serious disease or disability is a problematic idea. Even if we leave aside traditional Christian ethics pertaining to abortion, birth control, etc., it seems clear that there's an issue here, since a society where this sort of belief is widespread can easily turn into a society where individuals with conditions of these sorts are undervalued even once they're OUT of the womb. This isn't to say that there are NO cases where a couple might reasonably choose not to reproduce, but it is to say that the - increasingly widespread - tendency toward "designer babies" should at least raise some eyebrows.

Posted by John | August 2, 2007 10:21 AM

Do you deny that there is a tendency among many in our society to think that, e.g., the life of a child with Down's Syndrome isn't worth living? And can you really not see that there might be something morally problematic here?

What people are objecting to is not the moral problematization of parents' choices to keep or not to keep a fetus with Down's Syndrome. I think we all agree that that's complicated.

I think, further, that there's another step, which is that movements toward the future genetic "improvement" of the human race (or the white race, as Sailer hopes) may become possible through genetics, and that would be deeply morally problematic.

I think most of Ross' responders agree on these points.

The issue is (a) calling it eugenics in all cases and (b) saying that abortion in all cases is about such genetic "improvement."

I'm arguing (1) for the separation of questions about Down's Syndrome, which is neither genetically based nor passed on by those with Down's Syndrome, from the eugenics argument and (2) most forcefully, against the stupid, disingenuous and offensive argument that abortion is actually about eugenics.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 10:27 AM

DivGuy has it. There is a huge, huge debate over when life begins, for the reasons DivGuy sets out.

The challenge of eugenics was, and is again, a challenge to our egalitarianism. That is what lies at the heart of the abortion debate

No. No, it doesn't.

You can make that argument only if you assume that life begins at or before conception. But that is precisely the matter in dispute.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 2, 2007 10:31 AM

I'm also interested in whether, if Ross is so deeply opposed to anything with the barest hint of eugenics - or, per Levin, with the barest hint of a belief in the non-egalitarian genetics of humanity - whether he's start wielding this smear against his friends in the anti-immigration camp. If you go to vDare (and don't do it on a work computer), you'll see explicitly eugenic arguments made against immigration from a man who posts regularly on Ross' site, and whom Ross has mentioned before as someone whose arguments he finds increasingly interesting.

If Ross is so opposed to eugenics, I'd like to see the multi-post attack on Sailer's explicit, racist eugenics. Otherwise, I begin to think this is all merely a political game to Ross.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 10:31 AM

The debate is pervaded here and elsewhere by a failure to distinguish two different notions of 'human life': one purely biological, with no presumption of moral status, and one that comes pre-loaded with moral status.

In the purely biological sense, everything from the fertilized egg to an irreversibly brain-dead person is a human life (what other species would it belong to?); the question then does become one of determining what rights (e.g. the right not to be destroyed) attach to the particular individual, based on actual morally relevant characteristics actually possessed by that individual.

In the morally loaded sense, the term 'human life' is taken to imply that those rights already attach to the being in question: 'human' already has the moral weight built into it. It's possible to use the term that way, but failure to distinguish the two senses creates a lot of confusion. In particular, people often begin with the purely biological sense and then move to the morally loaded sense without argument or acknowledgement that that is what they are doing.

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 10:46 AM

But surely the most essential problem with the eugenics movement was not coercion or collectivism.

No, actually, the most essential problem with the old eugenics movement was coercion and collectivism. And this perhaps is why we don't give conservatives points for opposing eugenics back in the day--they seem to have fixated on the wrong reasons for opposing it. Today's anti-eugenicists aren't anywhere near as offended by coercion as liberals are. Conservatives are creeped out by the wrong stuff.

Liberals who think everyone should be able to decide the worth of their own genes and gametes. A person has a right to decide if their own life is worth living, a woman has a right to decide what child she bears. It's not eugenics for me to value my genes--or a subset of my genes--more than my neighbors', it's eugenics when I insist my neighbor share my point of view. Prefering some genes to others is built into the very concept of sexual selection.

It is the traditionalist that attempts to force their view of genomic value on everyone else--human DNA is sacred, all other DNA is junk. This is not only coercive, but also seems profoundly silly: a fertilized human egg would have greater rights than a full-grown chimp.

Posted by Consumatopia | August 2, 2007 10:56 AM

In the purely biological sense, everything from the fertilized egg to an irreversibly brain-dead person is a human life (what other species would it belong to?)

This is not true. There is massive debate among scientists as to what may be considered "biologically" as the beginning of human life.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:01 AM

There is no child with Down's syndrome(or Tay-Sachs or what have you) when the decision is being made! We are, to borrow from Rawls, behind the veil of ignorance about the identity of the child. All we know is that this child, whatever else he or she may be, is that it has Downs syndrome. Preferring that this child does not have Down's syndrome is no different from preferring that it not get cancer or that it not get crippled by a drunk driver or whatever. Once the child exists, it inheres with all sorts of rights that we assign in an egalitarian fashion. Only then is it wrong to say that the life is not worth living, because there is a specific life that can be meaningfully discussed.

People are assigning full bundles of rights to strands of DNA. We don't do it for skins cells, why should we for semen and eggs?

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 11:05 AM

DivGuy, thanks for showing me that. My point remains that there is an important distinction to be made between a purely biological, morally neutral sense of 'human life' and the morally loaded sense, regardless of exactly where human life is taken to begin biologically.

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 11:11 AM

It might lower the level of debate here a bit, but the short clip linked at my handle is interesting to me because it indicates that everyone seems to have a moral intuition that abortion is not murder.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 2, 2007 11:12 AM

"Many parties to the debate, including Catholics, take the position that a human life begins when God endows the fertilized egg with a soul. That is not an empirical matter."

This is simply factually incorrect. The argument for "ensoulment" is not the argument for when life begins. Pro-lifers & anti-eugenicists posit that life begins were science tells us it begins, - at conception. They then argue that human life deserves legal protection no matter its utility or state of development. It is a basic human rights argument never touching on revealed theological notions.

"The debate is pervaded here and elsewhere by a failure to distinguish two different notions of 'human life': one purely biological, with no presumption of moral status, and one that comes pre-loaded with moral status."

The distinction is a false one. It is morally reprehensible, inhumane & degrades the sanctity of life.

The distinction (one we understand) is "life unworthy of life" and "life deemed worthy".
is not one we fail to understand but one we reject.

"In the morally loaded sense, the term 'human life' is taken to imply that those rights already attach to the being in question: 'human' already has the moral weight" built into it.

The term is not "morally loaded", rather life itself is inherently "morally loaded".

This is not some semantic parlor game, it our humanity.

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 11:16 AM

Additionally, introducing the question of abortion into this debate is a red herring. Suppose a couple knows that its offspring will carry a gene they do not wish to pass on. Abstaining from reproduction has the same practical impact as conceiving and then aborting the child. The abortion may be a seperate evil, but it is evil because we believe that life starts at conception and abortion is thus murder, not because they are denying the afflicted child life because of its genetic inheritance, otherwise we would condemn the abstinance of the first couple as well.

This is not to mention that technological progress will soon render abortion unnecessary as childs DNA will be selected pre-conception so as to avoid genetic landmines.

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 11:17 AM

Pro-lifers & anti-eugenicists posit that life begins were science tells us it begins, - at conception.

(1) Then does the fact that very few scientists think life begins at conception change your mind? Conception is not a unitary moment, so does life begin at the end of conception? Does it begin at the moment when the zygote probably won't split into two separate beings? Does it begin at implantation, when the body will most likely not flush it out, and when it becomes impossible for it to split? Does it begin at a certain point in neurological development? Or general development toward survivability? Or at birth, when it is not longer a part of another's body? These are all positions taken by scientists attempting to define life "biologically." There are no easy answers.

2) Anti-eugenicist? I trust you're ready to take up your fight against the eugenicists in the anti-immigration movement!

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:25 AM

Glenn,

People are assigning full bundles of rights to strands of DNA. We don't do it for skins cells, why should we for semen and eggs?

We don't "assign full bundles of rights" (like the right to vote?) to "strands of DNA". As Thomas Nelson points out, the issue is whether there is such a thing as a human being without any intrinsic rights. That is, are human rights intrinsic to being a human being, or are they extrinsic (i.e. assigned by others) based upon particular characteristics that the organism in question has obtained. Skin cells, sperm cells, and eggs are not human beings, but are parts of existing human beings. When a sperm cell and an egg cell combine to form a zygote, or when the DNA of a skin cell is transferred to an enucleated egg and a proper stimulus is given, a new human organism has been created that directs its own development.

Consumatopia,

It is the traditionalist that attempts to force their view of genomic value on everyone else--human DNA is sacred, all other DNA is junk. This is not only coercive,...

What is silly is arguing that supporting a particular view of human rights is "coercive". Any laws that are enforced by the state are by definition coercive. Politics is the process whereby we figure out which laws we're going to have the state enforce (coercively, if necessary).

but also seems profoundly silly: a fertilized human egg would have greater rights than a full-grown chimp.

Well, why should a full-grown chimp have any rights? What are the nature of those rights? In fact, full-grown chimps have fewer rights than 6-month old human babies - is this unjust?

Posted by Mike S. | August 2, 2007 11:28 AM

From my link before, this paragraph sums up pretty well the state of things in developmental biology:

However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:30 AM

I will say that - while I have to go soon - I am glad to be having this argument about the parameters of human life and autonomy. This is the actual argument about abortion, at a philosophical level. At least in comments we can have this discussion, whereas Ross seems to want to float above it as if it had already been decided and smear his opponents on the basis of a belief they do not hold.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:35 AM

"It is, again, being used to demonstrate distinctions among human beings that - the new eugenicists claim - are so fundamental as to make some lives not worth living, and therefore not worth protecting."

Let me add my voice to the chorus of those who find this passage not just wrong-headed, but disgustingly, appallingly wrong-headed. It is very definitely _not_ part of the basic liberal case for abortion rights that some embryos should be protected, and others not, on the basis of some attributed 'quality'. As others have noted, from a pro-choice perspective aborting a fetus with Tay-Sachs is morally indistinguishable from taking steps to avoid conceiving an embryo with Tay-Sachs in the first place.

There are really interesting questions here about what the moral implications are for our becoming able to control our children's genetics. When conservatives stop muddying the waters with spurious connections to abortion, maybe we can start having that conversation for real.

Posted by philosopher | August 2, 2007 11:35 AM

"As Thomas Nelson points out, the issue is whether there is such a thing as a human being without any intrinsic rights. That is, are human rights intrinsic to being a human being, or are they extrinsic (i.e. assigned by others) based upon particular characteristics that the organism in question has obtained."

This is a fallacious equivocation on how you use "human."

"a new human organism has been created that directs its own development."

Conditions in the womb have a rather large impact on embryonic development. Not to mention that "directs" connotes a unitary identity, which is exactly the issue under contention.

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 11:36 AM

You can make that argument only if you assume that life begins at or before conception. But that is precisely the matter in dispute.

Elvis, I don't see how this changes anything. First of all, there is no "argument" about when life begins - nobody disputes that an embryo is human, or that it is alive. The argument is over whether that organism is a being with intrinsic rights. Which is precisely the question of egalitariansm: are we equal because we're human, or are we equal because we share some particular characteristics, which some human beings don't share and which some animals might?

Second, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that "life" (i.e. a rights-bearing being) begins at some point after conception, the egalitarianism question doesn't go away. One is still making a distinction between, e.g., the fetus with Down syndrome and the one without: one's life is worth living (or bringing into existence), while the other's isn't. The implicit assumption is that people who are born with Down's syndrome have lives that are inferior (or at least that their parent's life is inferior). How can it be otherwise?

Here's another scenario: let's say that a mother is implanted with IVF embryos, and it turns out that the wrong ones were implanted. She becomes pregnant with (fraternal) twins, with one of the twins from the correct (white) father, while the other (incorrectly implanted) is from a black father. She decides to have a selective abortion to get rid of the half-black child. How is this not a direct repudiation of egalitarianism between different races?

Posted by Mike S. | August 2, 2007 11:39 AM

nobody disputes that an embryo is human, or that it is alive

You can assert this to your heart's content.

It's not true. I dispute it. Majorities of scientists dispute it.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:41 AM

"Then does the fact that very few scientists think life begins at conception change your mind? Conception is not a unitary moment, so does life begin at the end of conception? Does it begin at the moment when the zygote probably won't split into two separate beings? Does it begin at implantation, when the body will most likely not flush it out, and when it becomes impossible for it to split? Does it begin at a certain point in neurological development? Or general development toward survivability? Or at birth, when it is not longer a part of another's body? These are all positions taken by scientists attempting to define life "biologically." There are no easy answers."

Apparently there are “easy answers” – because we know (regardless of how we answer any of these questions) that this “question mark” can be killed for any reason through these stage up to the point of birth.

“People are assigning full bundles of rights to strands of DNA. We don't do it for skins cells, why should we for semen and eggs?”

Skin cells are not a fully integrated self actualizing human life that (uninterrupted) will develop into an adult human being.

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 11:43 AM

Skin cells are not a fully integrated self actualizing human life that (uninterrupted) will develop into an adult human being.

"Self-actualizing"?? That's hilarious.

So we were assigned Maslow in our intro psych class, but we never quite got around to reading it, huh?

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:47 AM

Once again, I don't see why the moral status of abortion itself is relevant. What is at issue is whether it's okay for a society to take measures, of whatever sort, to prevent the "less fit" from being born. Obviously there are going to be gray areas, but certainly it can be recognized by all parties that this is a fraught issue, and that there are genuine moral questions in the vicinity even if abortion, contraception, genetic modification, etc. are per se unproblematic.

Posted by John | August 2, 2007 11:50 AM

Once again, I don't see why the moral status of abortion itself is relevant. What is at issue is whether it's okay for a society to take measures, of whatever sort, to prevent the "less fit" from being born. Obviously there are going to be gray areas, but certainly it can be recognized by all parties that this is a fraught issue, and that there are genuine moral questions in the vicinity even if abortion, contraception, genetic modification, etc. are per se unproblematic.

The moral status of abortion is irrelevant to the issue you raise.

However, Ross cites Levin making the argument that the problem of the moral status of abortion is exactly equivalent to the problem of whether a society can take measure to prevent the "less fit" from being born, or whether a society to take measures to ensure that the "less fit" are born. I agree with you that this should be a separate debate, but Ross, Levin, and many commenters think it isn't.

Posted by DivGuy | August 2, 2007 11:53 AM

DivGuy

For some, conversations such as these are far too serious for the injection of snarky rudeness and self aggrandizing references.

Yes, from the moment of conception a human life is self actualizing. It directs it own development internally, requiring from the outside world only the elements we all require, nutrition, oxygen...

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 11:55 AM

"How is this not a direct repudiation of egalitarianism between different races?" Well, for starters, the woman presumably would have done the exact same thing regardless of the racial genetics of the embryo -- most of us care that the right other person is the co-parent of our offspring! But, even putting that aside, the case wouldn't be such a "repudiation" any more so than, say, choosing only to try to procreate with people from one race and not others; or raising your children to feel contempt towards members of other races; or publishing a racist newsletter or website. Yet people in our society are generally free to do all of these things, and it is right that they are free to do so, even if we find the views that they are thus freely endorsing & acting on are ones we legitimately find repugnant.

Posted by philosopher | August 2, 2007 12:16 PM

"At least in comments we can have this discussion, whereas Ross seems to want to float above it as if it had already been decided and smear his opponents on the basis of a belief they do not hold."

Hear hear. And he STILL hasn't acknowledged that Down Syndrome isn't so simply a "trait" that's being erased from the gene pool.

The claim that science says life begins at conception is pure driven nonsense. Life does not really "begin" period and sexual reproduction is a _sub-variation_ of asexual budding. Reproduction it is a continuity of causal steps, ALL of which are necessary, NONE of which are "magic" moments.

There is no "moment" of conception: even after the first cell division, the sperm and egg DNA are not completely integrated. Nor does it even make much sense to talk of fully integrated DNA as a person. An embryo is a cell process. It is what it is. It is not the final result of that process any more than a paper copy of a recipe and some creamed sugar is a wedding cake.

An embryo may well have an internal (though its often glossed over that virtually ALL of the raw materials for this process as well as key chemical signals come from external source: the womb) set of orders to "self-actualize" towards a certain direction (though, frankly, given that this process naturally fails more than it succeeds, it's just as "scientific" to say that the "actualization" is towards miscarriage, not birth) but trying to envision that as any sort of human-like intention is a use of the pathetic fallacy. That "actualization" is that of cells carrying out DNA instructions, no different than cell processes throughout every human body.

If someone wants to argue that a fetus with a nervous system is a being that we should protect, there's legitimate grounds there for debate.

Arguing that a blastocyst should have rights or that we should have moral concern for its interests, on the other hand, is like waving a big red flag that reads "I don't understand what morality is: it's just a bunch of rules I try (often too literally) to apply without having any idea what they are for or why they would be so."

Posted by plunge | August 2, 2007 12:17 PM

“Once again, I don't see why the moral status of abortion itself is relevant. What is at issue is whether it's okay for a society to take measures, of whatever sort, to prevent the "less fit" from being born. Obviously there are going to be gray areas, but certainly it can be recognized by all parties that this is a fraught issue, and that there are genuine moral questions in the vicinity even if abortion, contraception, genetic modification, etc. are per se unproblematic.”

I would say that it is not the pro-life side that wants to drag abortion into the debate over eugenics. Rather it is a debate over eugenics that implicates abortion to such an extent that the cultural left knows a debate about eugenics will ultimately betray their worldview.

Hence the reason for distancing themselves from the term eugenics.

Allow me to illustrate. At present children are being routinely aborted because they have Down syndrome or cerebral palsy and the like. To establish that this is a inhumane trend would be to beg the question…”why is it wrong to kill a fetus that has Down Syndrome but permissible to abort a perfectly healthy child because you feel that three children is more than enough, (or because your not ready for children at this point in your life ect, ect,).

For practical political reasons I (personally) would love to separate the arguments as if they were distinct. Such an approach may yield the common ground necessary to halt our slide toward eugenics.

However, such an approach necessarily implicates to many sacred cows for the pro-choice position to allow it to progress logically.

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 12:18 PM

"Arguing that a blastocyst should have rights or that we should have moral concern for its interests, on the other hand, is like waving a big red flag that reads "I don't understand what morality is: it's just a bunch of rules I try (often too literally) to apply without having any idea what they are for or why they would be so."

Such an approach is a-historical. The fact of the matter is that nascent human life been protected in the womb in multiple cultures across human history.

The separation is not a philosophical debate, but rather a political one. On their own initiative a contemporary political movement has decided to call into profound question the very sanctity and origins of human life.

This represents a bright line test. A clear and obvious departure from our law, culture, morality and science as practiced.

This is why the eugenics debate becomes incomprehensible in light of abortion. The rightness or wrongness of deeming life as unfit crumbles under the greater obfuscation of comments like [t]he claim that science says life begins at conception is pure driven nonsense. Life does not really "begin" period and sexual reproduction is a _sub-variation_ of asexual budding. Reproduction it is a continuity of causal steps, ALL of which are necessary, NONE of which are "magic" moments.”

Nor “moral moments” it would seem.

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 12:33 PM

Then does the fact that very few scientists think life begins at conception change your mind? Conception is not a unitary moment, so does life begin at the end of conception? Does it begin at the moment when the zygote probably won't split into two separate beings? Does it begin at implantation, when the body will most likely not flush it out, and when it becomes impossible for it to split? Does it begin at a certain point in neurological development? Or general development toward survivability? Or at birth, when it is not longer a part of another's body? These are all positions taken by scientists attempting to define life "biologically."

DivGuy: Frankly, I think the debate reflected in the website you linked to is loaded with political and social baggage and is not really about biology so much as philosophy. After conception you have an entity that is genetically human. It has human DNA. No reasonable dispute there, right? The entity is something that, in any other scientific context, would be considered alive. Do you think if the issue were identifying life on another planet, scientists would not treat an entity found on some moon of Jupiter with the biological characteristics of a zygote as alive? Of course they would. But once you put the words "human" and "life" together, you get a concept that transcends biology. Hence the debate about the beginning of "human life." And you're right that THAT debate can't be resolved scientifically.

Posted by Led | August 2, 2007 12:51 PM

DivGuy, plunge, and live have got Levin dead to rights.

Ross has twice cited the arguments made by Habermas, presumably because Habermas wrote a paper entitled "On the way to a liberal eugenics?" which was a handy rhetorical prop. However, if you even bother to skim the Habermas paper, it's abundantly clear that he's not comparing the selective abortion of children with genetic disorders to eugenics. What he's doing is raising concerns about the ethical ramifications of the arguments in favor of abortion rights, as we move into a future where it will likely be possible to "improve" one's children, and raising concerns that the outcomes of such practices may be incompatible with a liberal society.

"Authoritarian eugenicists would do away with ordinary procreative freedoms. Liberals instead propose radical extension of them... This program, however, is compatible with the foundations of political liberalism only if positive... genetic interventions neither limit the opportunities to lead an autonomous life for the person genetically treated, nor constrain the conditions for him or her to interact with other persons on an egalitarian basis."

In a practical sense, Habermas is suggesting that the radically individualist, market-driven approach to family planning may eventually need to be restricted in order to protect the egalitarian nature of our society from the ability of wealthy elites to engineer a biologically elite class of children. This, by American standards, is a politically Progressive concern.

Levin, by contrast, is cynically presenting the idea that human equality begins at conception and ends at birth. It could best be described as authoritarian kakogenics. No matter what sort of crippling genetic defects your offspring may be carrying, the state will mandate that you carry this child to term and raise him or her as an "equal," with an equal amount of assistance from the state (i.e. none), and with an unregulated marketplace for adoption in which few, if any, good homes are willing to take the child.

To paraphrase Anatole France, the law, in its majestic equality, will compel rich and poor alike to raise their "equally valuable" handicapped children at their own expense and compete for jobs and housing on an "egalitarian" basis with the healthy and wealthy.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 2, 2007 1:00 PM

Fitz:

1) Do you believe homosexuality is (a) an inherent trait or is it (b) behaviour, i.e. is it something someone is or is it something someone does?

2) For the sake of argument, let's assume it's a genetic trait. Would you be for or against the termination of a pregnancy should a couple determine that their baby would most likely grow up to be gay?

Posted by Secret Squirrel | August 2, 2007 1:03 PM

"But once you put the words "human" and "life" together, you get a concept that transcends biology."

This is a splendid demonstration of the fallacy of equivocation that was (rightly) attributed earlier. There are two concepts here: "human life" in some ethical sense that outstrips biology; and "human life" in the biological sense, which really is just what you get when all you do is concatenate "human" and "life". And the fact that something falls under one of these concepts does not entail that it follows under the other.

Posted by philosopher | August 2, 2007 1:26 PM

levin's post seems the worst of the lot so far. i don't know what he's talking about.

Posted by razib | August 2, 2007 1:32 PM

Mike S.

What is silly is arguing that supporting a particular view of human rights is "coercive". Any laws that are enforced by the state are by definition coercive.

So we never worry about coercion because all laws are coercive? That's novel. In the case of assisted suicide, the traditionalist wants to force people to live, the liberal lets them choose. You can try to define the coercion out of that. You'll look pathetic, though.

This is just more evidence that conservatives want to redefine eugenics away from coercion because coercion doesn't particularly bother them.

Thomas Nelson points out, the issue is whether there is such a thing as a human being without any intrinsic rights.

...

Well, why should a full-grown chimp have any rights?

That you would ask the question about chimps clearly shows that it is not about human beings without any intrinsic rights, but whether there are breathing, sentient, pain-feeling, intelligent, independent beings without rights. All that makes something "human" or "animal" is few proteins here and there--that's still extrinsic. So it's a matter of whether we determine rights by sensible extrinsic qualities or absurd ones.

Posted by Consumatopia | August 2, 2007 1:36 PM

my god, is no one here a lawyer except me?

There is an enormous difference between philosophical debates about the beginning of human life (best answer -- a few million years ago when H. Sapiens became a separate species) and legal debates about the powers of the State to restrict a woman's autonomy.

So much of this thread (esp. Fitz) appears to treat a uterus as a passive bowl in which new life grows. While that's certainly wrong on a biological basis, that view ignores the legal issue that the bowl is attached to a rights-holder.

Posted by Francis | August 2, 2007 2:31 PM

DivGuy,

You are simply wrong about whether scientists dispute when life begins. Peruse any textbook used in an embryology class, and the scientific consensus is clear:

"Human development begains at fertilization...This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual" (Moore and Persuad)

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)....The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual" (Carlson)

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because...a new genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed..." (O'Rahilly and Muller)

This is embryology 101 (with thanks to William L. Saunders Jr.)

Posted by torourke | August 2, 2007 2:34 PM

"Do you believe homosexuality is (a) an inherent trait or is it (b) behaviour, i.e. is it something someone is or is it something someone does?"

Cant really pin down what you mean by "inherent trait"?, hereditary? genentic? influenced by biology.

I can say that homosexual practice is what someone does rather than "who they are".

Regardless it’s irrelevant concerning #2.

"2) For the sake of argument, let's assume it's a genetic trait. Would you be for or against the termination of a pregnancy should a couple determine that their baby would most likely grow up to be gay?"

Against

Posted by Fitz | August 2, 2007 2:48 PM

Elvis,

The video you link to does not prove what you think it does. Check out the NRO Symposium of 8/1 to see a multitude of responses to Anna Quindlen's article based on the silly argument arising from this video.

A few points:

Pre-1973, when every state had laws banning or restricting abortion, none of these laws proscribed jail time for women who had abortions, since they were seen as the second victims of the act. Quindlen is historically ignorant.

Secondly, the mother is not the one who kills the unborn baby, so she could not be held accountable for murder anyways. Pro-life legislation would target the abortion doctors, not the mothers.

Read the symposium at NRO for an evisceration of Quindlen's column.

Posted by torourke | August 2, 2007 3:46 PM

Torourke:

I don't think "proscribe" means what you think it means.

Also, you wrote:

"Secondly, the mother is not the one who kills the unborn baby, so she could not be held accountable for murder anyways."

Right: she hires someone else to do it. Ordinarily, hiring someone to commit murder for you brings with it not only accountability, but harsh legal penalties. What's the difference with abortion? Isn't it murder?

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 3:53 PM

This is a splendid demonstration of the fallacy of equivocation that was (rightly) attributed earlier.

Actually, no. I don't think the term "human life" has a biological sense. It just looks like it should because its a combination of words that do have a biological sense. Or, at least, whatever value or use the term has as a scientific concept is vastly outweighed by its moral and philosophical significance. Which, pragmatically speaking, is the same as saying that it has no scientific sense. In other words, scientists don't walk around talking about "human life" outside the context of these types of disputes.

Posted by Led | August 2, 2007 3:57 PM

LaFollette Progressive is right about Habermas; as I noted
in an earlier thread, Habermas explicitly distances eugenics issues from abortion issues. One wonders whether Ross made it past the title of Habermas's essay.

Led's 3:57 comment constitutes an excellent reductio ad absurdum of his or her position.

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 4:12 PM

Levin claims:

"These eugenicists badly misread Darwin."

No, they were Darwin's closest followers. Francis Galton was Darwin's half cousin (their one ancestor was the near genius Erasmus Darwin) and they admired each other and learned much from each other. Make up a list of Darwinian theorists and the top two names would likely be RA Fisher and WD Hamilton. Richard Dawkins wrotes in 2000 on Hamilton's death: "W D Hamilton is a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin. Other candidates would have to include R A Fisher ..." Both were staunch eugenicists.

Please, argue morality, not science.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 2, 2007 4:13 PM

Fitz,

Thank you very much. You answered my question.

Posted by Secret Squirrel | August 2, 2007 4:34 PM

Led's 3:57 comment constitutes an excellent reductio ad absurdum of his or her position.

Care to elaborate? Cause I'm not sure you understand my position. I agree for the most part with your post at 10:46 am. I just think that while it's logically possible posit a scientific meaning for the term "human life," in practice such a term has little or no scientific content. We're all better off not trying to give it any. I think(?) we agree that science tells us conception yields a genentically human entity that is biologically alive. And I think we agree that those facts are not dispositive of the moral issue.

Posted by Led | August 2, 2007 6:11 PM

Led --

My thinking was: scientists study many, many different areas of human biology: human circulation, digestion, genetics, reproduction, neurology, etc.; also, scientists study human sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. ...

These are all scientific disciplines that require scientists to identify human life as a separate subject of inquiry. So to deny that 'human life' has any scientific meaning seems obviously absurd. Demarcating the category of human life from other kinds of life is a precondition of the existence of all those scientific endeavors -- which do, of course, exist.

It sounds like maybe you have something different in mind. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but maybe we don't really disagree about it. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on my part.

Posted by live | August 2, 2007 7:05 PM

If someone wants to argue that a fetus with a nervous system is a being that we should protect, there's legitimate grounds there for debate...Arguing that a blastocyst should have rights or that we should have moral concern for its interests, on the other hand, is like waving a big red flag ..."

Utter nonsense.

Your attributing special moral status to fetuses with developed nervous systems is just as arbitrary as attributing moral status to a blastocyst. What's so "magical" about a nervous system?

Ultimately, every moral rule book relies on a priori assumptions.

Posted by Jasper | August 2, 2007 9:39 PM

"In other words, scientists don't walk around talking about "human life" outside the context of these types of disputes."

Plug "human life" into google scholar and I think you'll find that you are spectactularly wrong about this.

Posted by philosopherp | August 2, 2007 9:40 PM

Re: Pro-lifers & anti-eugenicists posit that life begins were science tells us it begins, - at conception.

Ahem-- life does not begin at conception either. It's not as if sperm and egg are "dead" and magically come to life when one penetrates the other. There is never a point in human existence when something that is not alive becomes something is alive. The question "when does life begin" is a big old red herring, a distraction from the real question: when should we extend recognition of personhood? I'm quite prepared to do so rather early on in the gestation process, but the arguments used need to be based on something other than mere biology.

Re: To paraphrase Anatole France, the law, in its majestic equality, will compel rich and poor alike to raise their "equally valuable" handicapped children at their own expense and compete for jobs and housing on an "egalitarian" basis with the healthy and wealthy.

This is not true. No one can be compelled to raise a child. Children whose parents cannot, or are not fit to rear them can always be placed with the state, with termination of parental rights and responsibilities.

Re: I can say that homosexual practice is what someone does rather than "who they are".

And I can say that Jewish or Christian practice is what one does not what one is. Nevertheless I would oppose any sort of discrmination (let alone genocide) based on religion.

Re: Secondly, the mother is not the one who kills the unborn baby, so she could not be held accountable for murder anyways.

Hmm. If I pay someone else to commit a murder I am not going to go scott free if this is discovered.

Re: What's so "magical" about a nervous system?

The cessation of brain activity is how we determine when a person has irretrievably died. Is that magical or arbitrary? If it works for the end of life why not apply the same test at the other extreme?

Posted by JonF | August 2, 2007 9:59 PM

DivGuy,

nobody disputes that an embryo is human, or that it is alive

"You can assert this to your heart's content.

It's not true. I dispute it. Majorities of scientists dispute it."

What are you disputing? That an embryo is human, or that it is alive?

The straightforward fact is that textbooks on embryology and development all agree that upon fusion of egg and sperm, a) a new, distinct organism comes into existence that b) is human, and c) directs its own development which passes through the stages of blastocyst, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult, old age, and death unless it is interrupted by natural death or is killed.

The passage you linked to above says,

The meeting of the egg and the sperm itself is not even an instantaneous process, but rather a complex biochemical interaction through which the sperm ultimately reaches the inner portion of the egg. Following fertilization, the chromosomes contained within the sperm and the chromosomes of the egg meet to form a diploid organism, now called a zygote, over a period of 24 hours. (Shannon and Wolter 1990). Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

The fact that there is a period of 12-24 hours that separates the existence of two gametes, on the one hand, and a zygote, on the other, is irrelevant except in the instance where we are discussing destroying the entity during those 12-24 hours. Once the zygote exists, a unique human organism has come into existence that will continually direct its own development. It's obviously human (it's not going to turn into a giraffe), and it's obviously alive. When we observe any other entity that has the characteristics of a zygote/embryo, we obviously classify it as being alive.

You quoted this bit:

However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.

Science does give a definitive answer to this question - a more definitive one than we have ever had. Note the terminological shift to "the acquisition of humanness". This indicates a question-begging move: "acquisition of humanness" implies that humanness is a continuous variable that an organism gradually accrues more of. A human being passes through various stages of development, and has differing characteristics at different stages. The issue is whether human rights (specifically, the right not to be killed) is dependent upon a particular set of characteristics or not. The term "acquisition of humanness" is another way of saying "accrual of rights".

Scientists who dispute that a human embryo is not human or that it's not alive are most likely making that claim based upon their prior commitment to abortion and/or embryonic stem cell research, not based on objective scientific criteria.

Posted by Mike S. | August 2, 2007 10:28 PM

The cessation of brain activity is how we determine when a person has irretrievably died. Is that magical or arbitrary? If it works for the end of life why not apply the same test at the other extreme?

When brain activity has ceased, the organism has ceased to be directing it's own development/function. It's no longer alive, even if we can mechanically keep its other organs functioning. See here for an extended argument.

Posted by Mike S. | August 2, 2007 10:35 PM

Re: Once the zygote exists, a unique human organism has come into existence

Not quite. The zygote can still twin for several days, so there's it's uniquly individual yet until that stage is past.

Re: When brain activity has ceased, the organism has ceased to be directing it's own development/function.

I agree. But I don't see how that's an argument against using brain activity as the ethical boundary at the early phase of life as well.

Posted by JonF | August 3, 2007 6:29 AM

Cross posting from "Asymmetrical Information":

A couple of points, as I was one of the commenters over at Ross' site:

First, i think there needs to be a distinction drawn between "positive" eugenics and "negative" eugenics: Positive is selectively breeding for certain characteristics, and negative is either culling "defectives" or sterilizing them.

Another point is that while what you do may not be characteristic in a formal sense of a certain movement, the eventual result is. To trot out the good old Nazi analogy – you may not believe in a German fatherland based on the ancient boundaries of the Teutonic state populated by Aryans, but you can still be considered one if you display enough of the primary identifying traits. Fill in those yourself.

The point is that the current powerhouses of the “pro-choice” movement had their roots in Margaret Sanger’s philosophies, which were based on Eugenics. Steven Levitt’s “Freakonomics” postulated that crime declined due to the advent of legalized abortion in the 70’s. This engendered much thoughtful nodding of heads, I mean – sure makes sense, don’t it?

The upshot of the abortion it to allow women to control their reproductive tracts, and have or not have children as they choose. Covering abortion with the holy cloak of privacy makes it difficult to bring up motives in polite society. Motive are what are in question here, and to be frank, the majority of what passes for rationale for abortion (down’s syndromes, birth defects, health of *blank*, only have children that will be loved, etc) all polite fictions compensating for the fact that most all reasons for aborting a child are ultimately selfish.

It helps to have a fig leaf like eugenics.

Posted by Liam Colvin | August 3, 2007 10:05 AM

I think it was Jonah Goldberg who once pointed out (paraphrasing here) that liberals would roll out the guillotines in a heartbeat if someone proved that by eliminating a segment of society you’d achieve utopia. Not to say conservatives wouldn’t too – it’s just that liberals are not immune to the concept of “improving humanity”.

It also bears noting that the Tuskegee Institute was peopled by “progressives” who understood the value of live and that sacrificing that segment of society they “everyone” understood to be of a lesser value they could better mankind as a whole. Eugenics was the invention of progressivism and was later adopted fascists. At one time negative eugenics was perfectly logical and reasonable, just as stem cell research seems today.

Logically, an embryo has no inherent value or humanity – it merely contains the possibility of humanity. If you disassociate humanity from the potential of humanity, then you can easily believe in the fact that human life is not a condition but rather a accretive process, and no one has a “right” to anything not granted by society.

While it seems counter intuitive to argue in this fashion, it is reasonable to assume that if you remove the concept of humanity from an embryo, you can move up the ladder and start judging the humanity of post-natal fetuses. Let’s all remember that at one time, even progressive’s mocked the idea of gay marriage. It’s all a matter of introducing the concept gradually and with a reasonable upside.

Posted by Liam Colvin | August 3, 2007 10:51 AM

"While it seems counter intuitive to argue in this fashion, it is reasonable to assume that if you remove the concept of humanity from an embryo, you can move up the ladder and start judging the humanity of post-natal fetuses."

Funny, though, how no one ever wants to skid along this not-really-very-slippery slope except for rabid pro-lifers.

Posted by philosopher | August 3, 2007 12:41 PM

philosopher:

Hmmm. Don't look at cats at midnight and purport to know their color.

I am actually not in favor of outlawing abortion. Given the selfish nature of the human animal, women will continue to seek them out, no matter what the legal complications, not to mention the physical ones.

I am simply pointing out that while something may be legal, the motive behind may be less than ethical.

Posted by Liam Colvin | August 3, 2007 12:54 PM

Not quite. The zygote can still twin for several days, so there's it's uniquly individual yet until that stage is past.

But nobody knows when a twin will appear. It's not as if one zygote has two human beings contained in it, while another has one, but we just can't tell the difference by looking at them. Prior to twinning, there is a unique human individual. After twinning, there are two unique human individuals. At neither point is it just to intentionally kill one of them.

But I don't see how that's an argument against using brain activity as the ethical boundary at the early phase of life as well.

The point is not the brain activity, it's the integrity of the organism. Read the article I linked to.

First, i think there needs to be a distinction drawn between "positive" eugenics and "negative" eugenics: Positive is selectively breeding for certain characteristics, and negative is either culling "defectives" or sterilizing them.

Razib made this point earlier, but I haven't seen the argument as to why it is important to distinguish between them. From the standpoint of one's view of one's child, I don't think it matters: one is still viewing the child as an extension of one's own ego, rather than as an independent human being.

Funny, though, how no one ever wants to skid along this not-really-very-slippery slope except for rabid pro-lifers.

And Peter Singer. And large sections of the academy and the mass media, who lionize him.

Posted by Mike S. | August 4, 2007 5:40 PM

re: And Peter Singer. And large sections of the academy and the mass media, who lionize him.

I have never heard anyone lionize Peter Singer/. He's as unpopular on the Left as he is one the Right, albeit for different reasons. His philosophy is as toxic to the ideology of Social Justice (the Left) as it is to the ideology of Life Issues (the Right). The guy is pretty much a lone wolf.

Posted by JonF | August 5, 2007 12:50 PM

resteel menoschetic titmouse eleonorite eucryphiaceae colilysin stylonurus getpenny
http://www.wilsonfurniture.com/ >Wilson Furniture
http://www.annaghmoregac.com/

Posted by Reginald Schmidt | December 17, 2007 11:57 PM