« Gossip Girl vs. The O.C. | Main | Why I Am A Social Conservative » Reproductive Rights and Neo-Eugenics20 Sep 2007 03:08 pm I trust that Kevin Drum will be writing a very strongly worded letter to the editors of Dissent regarding their regurgitation of talking points straight from the right-wing sandbox. (hat tip: Cheryl.) All snideness aside, the essay in question is very much worth your time. Comments (21)
And note what I did not say. I did not issue any kind of support for "culling the gene pool." My point begins and ends at the selecting of traits for new lives. 
Sorry, two more quick comments (it's a salient issue). 1. The Editors write: "How can they justify the expenditure and the godlike control they’ve assumed?" "Godlike control" is largely meaningless. Insofar as it has meaning it is "error-free, consciously imposed outcome." In that light, what's so objectionable about godlike control? 2. The Editors quote Lee Silver to the effect that, "The GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee." Speciation is sometimes a hard truth for the parent species. Titanomachia rarely go well for the Titans.* Or do you think humanity circa 2000 AD is the destination? *Unless they have Vince Young.
Well, if someone trying to be provocative in Dissent says so, I guess it's the secretly held philosophy of all liberals! Or maybe not! When religion and abortion come up, Ross, your writing seems to degenerate into a series of sneering poses. And they tend to be set off in opposition to people who tend not to have that much ability to have their views heard, much less implemented. We all can lapse into name-calling, and maybe I've missed your more thoughtful pieces, but I think that's a fair statement about your posts on this blog. Also, is it just me, or do words that begin with the letters "sn," such as "snide" and "sneer," tend to describe unpleasant things?
"And they tend to be set off in opposition to people who tend not to have that much ability to have their views heard, much less implemented." If that opposition is neo-eugenicists, then they have had there views implemented (although they prefer not to talk about them in polite company) The “they” being us...of coarse.
JA "Another fact: the link between reproduction and eugenics is not new; it's called sexual selection. As everybody knows, sexual attraction precipitates out of fitness cues, a dynamic that over time exhibits the same types of eugenic effects that concern you" Yes...but that is not the link the editors are referring to. They are referring to the "The link between reproductive rights and eugenics" In the former case, you are picking not a set of attributes; but rather an entire human being: for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness & in health, until death do them part. In those instances of assisted reproduction were sperm or egg donors are selected for attributes; we are (once again) engaging in eugenics.
I believe the goal of most mainstream members and sympathizers of the pro-choice movement is not some nebulous concept of "total reproductive freedom" in the sense that you should be able to have whatever sort of children you want. Rather, the goal is to ensure that a woman be free to make medical decisions regarding the contents of her own body, without government interference. I am pro-choice, yet I wouldn't have a problem with the government regulating what goes on in a petri dish or test tube. I just don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do inside my own uterus. Carrying a pregnancy to term has a certain set of medical risks and rewards for a given woman's body, while aborting has a different set. The woman should be able to choose between them freely. This is what makes the right to abort different than the right to have a blue-eyed child. Of course, if there was medical evidence showing that for some crazy reason certain eye-color genes have a physical effect on the mother's body during pregnancy or labor, that could complicate the discussion.
In the former case, you are picking not a set of attributes; but rather an entire human being... You're picking the sum of parts. This is not disputable.
The good news is that genetic engineering isn't progressing that fast, so we have time to talk it over before it arrives on a massive scale and has permanent effects, for better or worse, on society. The bad news is that we aren't allowed to talk about the impact of existing genes on society, so we're just going to dither away the time we have left and be just as unprepared to make decisions about genetic engineering when it does arrive as we are today.
Ross' snide comment ignores the fact that when he was using the term "eugenics", he was referring to Down Syndrome abortions. I do agree that abortions used as part of a process of creating a designer baby, as well as sex selection abortions that leave more boys than girls, raise serious issues. And one can certainly compare those issues to the issues that surround the eugenics movement. But those issues are rather different from abortions of Down Syndrome fetuses, which aren't about "bettering the breed" at all.
Steve Sailer writes: "The bad news is that we aren't allowed to talk about the impact of existing genes on society, so we're just going to dither away the time we have left and be just as unprepared to make decisions about genetic engineering when it does arrive as we are today." No one is stopping you from talking about "the impact of existing genes." You're just not willing or able to be honest in public. Is there a gene for cowardice? Can I call it the "Sailer gene"? The chickenhawk gene is already going by "Cheney gene," and I hope you're not disappointed.
Brilliant insight! That's clearly my problem: I'm just a coward when it comes to trying to get up my courage to write about controversial issues. Thanks for diagnosing it.
That people are more than the some of thier "parts" must always and everywere remain disputable.
"But those issues are rather different from abortions of Down Syndrome fetuses, which aren't about "bettering the breed" at all. How so?? Eugenicists have always spoken in terms of "bettering the breed" but also in terms of "life unworthy of life" and "drains on public and private resources"
Fitz: You are being way too abstract. I suggest you get to know some of the couples who have aborted Down Syndrome fetuses. I assure you that "life unworthy of life" and "drains on public and private resources" were not what the decision was based on. All your post establishes is that opponents of abortion rights will posit hypothetical reasons for Down Syndrome fetuses that sound in the language of eugenics. That's a lot different from the designer baby issue, where the actual motivations of couples-- not the made-up ones that pro-lifers tell themselves-- have eugenic components.
"That's a lot different from the designer baby issue, where the actual motivations of couples-- not the made-up ones that pro-lifers tell themselves-- have eugenic components." Aborting a child because it has Down Syndrome does not "have eugenic components" - it is eugenics. More superficial motivations for designer children are less consequential precisely because there presence or absence doesn’t require material & emotional sacrifice. "Pro-lifers" are not telling themselves anything. The human beings are engaging in wide spread eugenics once again.
Moe, that's the wrong tack for criticizing Sailer. I can easily think of a dozen vicious things to say about the man, but being too cowardly to speak his mind is not one of them. He thrives on the perceived "persecution" he faces. You're just fanning the flames of his ego.
Aborting a child because it has Down Syndrome does not "have eugenic components" - it is eugenics. Again, Fitz, you might want to talk to some people who have done it before you hypothesize the reasons that you think they did it. Or use google-- there are some fine first person narratives available on the web. This gets to a broader point, which is that many pro-lifers seem to have no earthly idea why people decide to have abortions (assuming that women are being pressured into doing it; assuming that people are using abortion as a form of birth control, assuming that everyone can have unplanned births with little disruption to their lives or their finances, etc.). Of course, in one sense, this is fine-- pro-lifers don't believe that abortion is justified no matter the reason. But in another sense it is not fine, because they often say the loopiest things about why people get abortions, and this could very well influence pro-lifers' thinking about how strong the countervailing interests really are.
But I haven’t said a word about why people abort their children with down syndrome. Rather, it seems to me and as the linked article in dissent point out - we have lapsed into eugenics. I believe that as a society we have come to a point of justifying eugenics under the rubric of choice. You seem to have confirmed the authors at dissents (and my own) point. "there are some fine first person narratives available on the web." Yes there are. There are also so first person narratives of people with down syndrome: coming to age intellectually- only to find the disturbing news that their kind are being driven to extinction. (Chilling)
There's something disturbing about this alliance between lefties and righties in hating on genetic engineering. Though it's not reflected in the logic of either side, quite a few of us have the common sense view that the later the abortion, the more morally problematic it is, with these extremely early embryonic destructions having the moral weight of stepping on a beetle. The Dissent view would seem to give us tight regulation of pre-implantation embryos, but complete laissez faire on the older ones.
Hey Dilan, Did you read my story about my friend's sister with Down's syndrome in the other thread?
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Thanks for the link, Ross. One comment.
The Editors write, "The link between reproductive rights and eugenics is not new; in fact, it has dogged the movement since its early days."
Another fact: the link between reproduction and eugenics is not new; it's called sexual selection. As everybody knows, sexual attraction precipitates out of fitness cues, a dynamic that over time exhibits the same types of eugenic effects that concern you (minus "late-onset, treatable diseases").
What I can't understand is why unreflective selection is good and deliberate selection is bad ("because she's hot" being unreflective). The effects of the former and the effects of the latter are the same in kind, if not degree. The difference between them is margin of error, and your argument is basically, "More error is better."
Posted by JA | September 20, 2007 4:41 PM