Why are eugenics wrong?
Thursday August 2, 2007
Categories: Eugenics
One would have thought that, given how the enthusiasm for eugenics in the early 20th-century America, and how it led to forced sterilization laws, as well as how eugenics theory led to the Holocaust in Europe, this question wouldn't even...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Eugenics can validly be attacked from two sides. The eugenics that stained American culture in the early part of the 20th century was, aside from being morally dangerous, just plain bad science. For instance, among those who were subject to compulsory sterilization under the laws upheld by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck vs. Bell were epileptics. Today we know that almost all forms of seizure disorder are post-conception in their origins, and most of them are post-natal. Similarly, people with various kinds of mental illness and developmental disabilities were subject to sterilization. Today we know that some of these problems are in varying degrees genetic, congenital (most notably fetal alcohol syndrome), and environmentally caused. We haven't even begun to figure out the origins of some of them.
But the moral questions remain. IF we ever get to the point of figuring out which forms of physical and mental impairment are purely genetic in their origins (which isn't likely to happen any time soon), would that give us the right/duty to decide who gets to "breed"?
My personal response to that, as a card-carrying liberal, is that if we ever get to that point, we should also be capable of making life liveable and valuable for the people who suffer from those impairments, which would be a lot more to the point than trying to keep them from being born.
Many of the things that make life as a disabled person most difficult in our society could be easily changed even now, if we really cared to make those changes. But most of the "pro-life" conservatives in the upper reaches of the Establishment are, for some reason, not very interested in making any of those changes. Sure, people with retardation and mental illness have every right to be born. But after that, say Sam Brownback and his buddies, they're on their own, and so are the families who care for them.
For instance, if two people with disabilities, living on SSI, choose to get married, they lose, automatically, 25% of their already-meager income. Now THERE's a "marriage penalty." Is anybody proposing to change it? Not that I know of. Not, anyway, people like Sam Brownback.If our society can't even accommodate the right of disabled people to marry, maybe they ARE better off not getting born.
People don't "breed"; animals do.
Unless people are suddenly plants, monera, or fungi, they're still memebers of Kingdom Animalia.
I agree with the comment by Marian Neudel.
I often see Eugenics discussed on here in a way that associates it with the political left/liberals. But you can't separate "eugenic thinking" from "Social Darwinist thinking." And here in the US, 90 percent of Social darwinist thinking is on the political right, not the left, because of the economic angle.
I'm referring to the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer and his American missionary, William Graham Sumner. Sumner's Forgotten Man essay can be easily googled. Most of libertarian and much conservative economic thinking in this country is just the warmed-over philosophy of William Graham Sumner.
Social Darwinism is a soul-destroying anti-Christian philosophy, worse in some ways than Marxism. For Social Darwinism: The world belongs to the Strong. We aren't our brother's keeper. We must not interfere with the natural sorting out of the winners and losers. Using the government to help people is bad because you are punishing the fit and rewarding the unfit. Government must, all niceties aside, reward the rich and punish the poor. etc etc. Instead of the historical imperative of Marxism, it gives us an overarching biological imperative.
Admittedly, I am one of those progressives who can only see the future and not the past, but I have far less confidence in Catholics and Protestant Fundamentalists than you do. It was, after all, Pope Pius XII who never uttered a public word about the Holocaust. I don't recall American fundamentalists all that concerned about the Holocaust. I do recall, however, that Protestant fundamentalists led opposition to civil rights and were the main supporters of slavery in the U.S., holding a master's whip in one hand and a Bible in the other.
Even more recently, Baptist theologian Albert Mohler has supported--when it comes to homosexuality--the kind of eugenics you seem to think Protestant Fundamentalists oppose.
Even the Protestant Fundamentalist history on Eugenics is spotty at best. Any activism on the Eugenics front from groups now associated the Protestant Fundamentlism was not based on ethical and moral grounds, but on anti-government grounds. After all, it was only three decades earlier that they were arguing Blacks were not full humans and therefore could be enslaved.
I think it is important to have conversations about the ethics technology, but hopefully it can be done with a level of rationality and respect. If you want me to respect your notion that fetal tissue is is a human life and therefore should be treated as a human, than at least respect my notion that technology isn't all bad and that the ability to identify the causes of life-threatening and life-altering disases and conditions doesn't mean we are on the road to eugenics.
Look at the phrase ~tv used in a combox comment -- "Why is it such a horrible thing to ask people who shouldn't breed to not breed?" If the point is that people shouldn't have children that they're not capable of caring for, that's a reasonable position to hold. But how do we determine who "shouldn't" breed? That's where the eugenic mentality comes in. Given that based on his frequent comments that the state should be extremely generous with welfare benefits, ~tv presumably believes that the government is obliged to subsidize unlimited childbearing among the poor. So by what criteria would he (or anybody) decide that a person, or class of people, shouldn't have children.
I'm teaching a class right now. I will be happy to address this when I get home. Let me start, however, by saying that Rod has mischaracterized my position (yet again) - especially here: ~tv presumably believes that the government is obliged to subsidize unlimited childbearing among the poor.
I believe nothing of the sort.
Talk to y'all later.
"It was, after all, Pope Pius XII who never uttered a public word about the Holocaust."
There were reasons for that, not the least of which was that he was working behind the scenes to get Jews out of Nazi areas, and didn't want to call attention to the activity.
"I do recall, however, that Protestant fundamentalists...were the main supporters of slavery in the U.S., holding a master's whip in one hand and a Bible in the other."
Uh, no, not really. First of all, during the period of slavery there were no 'Protestant fundamentalists.' Fundamentalist Protestantism was a later development that arose as a reaction to the modernist controversy in the early 20th century. Secondly, both sides in the slavery debate relied heavily on the literal understanding of the Bible, a hallmark of 'fundamentalism.' This includes the conservative and moderate abolitionists, who by today's standards would be considered fundamentalists. (For a discussion of this see Mark Noll's recent book, THE CIVIL WAR AS A THEOLOGICAL CRISIS.)
"I don't recall American fundamentalists all that concerned about the Holocaust."
Then you haven't been paying attention. Having grown up myself in the 60s and 70s as a fundamentalist, there was much discussion and concern about the Holocaust. Indeed, one of the most popular books of that time period among fundies and conservative Evangelicals was THE HIDING PLACE, the story of two Christian sisters sent to Ravensbruck for helping Jews to escape from the Nazis.
"...the ability to identify the causes of life-threatening and life-altering disases and conditions doesn't mean we are on the road to eugenics."
Ask all the Downs Syndrome children who've been aborted about this. Oh yeah....you can't.
The entire premise is flawed from the start.
There is not and cannot be a connection between what Rod rather loosely describes as "liberal eugenics" and the racial superiority ideas of the Nazis. Both are products of political philsophy. Both have at best a weak grounding in science. Neither provide any rational description of a society as a gestalt process within which there are various levels of perception and behaviors.
I'll give what should be the obvious example to anyone who reads history: the explosion of science and technology in the US during and after WWII was due in large part to those Jews who either escaped or were sent into exile from anti-Semitic Europe (one must include other nations of the continent in this, especially Russia). Q.e.d., there was no science behind the German claims of the inferiority of Jews. It was pure propaganda and political agenda.
Rod, I wish very much that you would set your sights on the political and social aspects, and give up on the pseudo-science being perpetrated in this dialogue. "Eugenics", unless you wish to redefine its usage away from any scientific implications, is not the correct term. Personally, I prefer to call it racism, or to find a semantic equivalent.
The Dutch reformed church that was the ten Boom's church in The Hiding has little relationship to contemporary Protestant Fundamentalism. OTOH, the religious beliefs and traditions of Southern slave owners has a direct link to the contemporary Protestant Fundamentalists.
Rob, you can ask all the mothers of DS children who were aborted, or alot of them anyway. If you can produce reliable statistics that they were aborted by a conscious decision based on eugenics, then you can make that assertion, not before.
A few tens of centuries ago, DS and other disabled children died for a simple reason: conditions caused their deaths. They lacked the survival skills needed. Our modern civilization has changed that, so putting a moral face on whether or not DS children survive is secondary to the simple mechanics of life.
A better question would be: is it moral to perpetuate the survival of children that nature clearly shorted in the area of survival traits?
This is the crux of the God vs. Darwin war, from my POV. God clearly would not create a world in which a person is doomed to die shortly after birth, or at least well before attaining adulthood. Nature, on the other hand, uses exactly that process to improve a species. It's instinctive in many species we've observed eating or leaving for predators their defective young. Why would aborting a DS fetus be more immoral than the observed behavior of animals? Why would God create a world like that?
That's all really rhetorical. I already know a wide variety of answers to those questions. The thing I want to know is this:
Systematic killing of living beings is wrong. We expend an awful lot of mental energy on debating things like abortion and eugenics, and damn little on the various genocides that have taken or are taking place. My personal reaction is: if you can't at least give each category equal time, what's stopping you from focusing on the genocides?
And I really don't want another round of "but Franklin, look at all the groups talking about genocide!" People are still being murdered as you read this. It is, if anything, incredibly easier to stop a genocide than it is to pass legislation making abortion illegal. I don't see the problem.
"The Dutch reformed church that was the ten Boom's church in The Hiding has little relationship to contemporary Protestant Fundamentalism."
I didn't imply that it did. What I said was that American fundamentalists' acceptance of that book as one of their favorite works speaks to their interest in and concern about the Holocaust.
"the religious beliefs and traditions of Southern slave owners has a direct link to the contemporary Protestant Fundamentalists."
Apparently not, as the existence of many Northern anti-slavery 'fundamentalists' back then demonstrates. And there are many Protestant 'fundamentalist' groups today who have no antecedents, theological or otherwise, in Southern slave culture.
God clearly would not create a world in which a person is doomed to die shortly after birth, or at least well before attaining adulthood.
How do you know that?
Okay, Rod I just want to clarify your position considering genetic manipulation to improve human life.
Are you arguing that a couple should be morally and legally prohibited from using gene therapy to cure tay sachs disease or down syndrome? Again we aren't talking about abortion, we are talking about changing a fetus’s condition so they won't die a horrible death at the age five or be mentally retarded.
Furthermore, are you arguing that curing Tay sach or Down Syndrome in the womb is tantamount to walking down a path that leads to the holocaust? Does that mean you are opposed to any genetic manipulation at any time to cure any disease, condition or syndrome?
On another note, let me say as a gay man that I am far more worried about religious conservatives beating me to death because I was in public holding my partner's hand than I am about someone potentially aborting a gay fetus. I am also far more concerned about religious conservatives preventing me from marrying and socially stigmatizing homosexuality.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but the only reason being gay is considered a disability or a drawback is because of the stigma that religions conservatives attach to it. Therego, anyone who would consider aborting a fetus because it was gay would do so either because the parent thinks being gay is wrong (ie be a religious conservative) or because they believe that being gay would be a hardship in our society (ie because of social conservatives).
So no Rod as a gay man I am not worried about the "eugenics crowd" I am far, far more worried about your crowd.
Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to fight to end the stigma of being gay so as to avoid the risk of gay fetuses being aborted?
God clearly would not create a world in which a person is doomed to die shortly after birth, or at least well before attaining adulthood.
How do you know that?
It is the logical opposite to a God that tells people that abortion is wrong. I am not a Christian, so ask them to explain the two sides.
I can prevent an abortion. I can prevent a murder. The logic is very simple.
Again, "fundamentalists" in 1830 who were opposed to slavery have little connection to contemporary Protestant Fundamentalism. Quakers, the Church of the Brethran, and Mennonites have little connection to the modern Protestant Fundamentalist movement we see exlemplified by the Southern Baptists and others. Except for Mennonites, they are much closer to Episcopalians than they are Southern Baptists.
These discussions usually become debates about what government can compel or the morality of individual choices. But these decisions are no longer just a matter of government compulsion or individual choice. Social conventions are being created. There is a growing stigma against parents who have recently had Down's Syndrome children. Aborting them has become such a common practice that many people see giving birth to a DS baby as a form of cruelty.
A couple of years ago a coworker and his wife had a baby with Down's. People around the office began whispering questions like "Didn't she get prenatal testing?" and "Did the doctors miss it?". It was assumed that they would have aborted if only they had known. I was surprised at the prevalence of this attitude. From conservative Christians to left-wing radicals, it was taken as a given that people should abort Down's babies.
As fewer Down's babies are born and aborting them becomes more normalized, this stigma is likely to grow. You can say that it still remains an individual choice because there is no government compulsion. But we are creating a cultural compulsion. Just because a compulsion isn't backed by government force doesn't mean it has no power.
'Again, "fundamentalists" in 1830 who were opposed to slavery have little connection to contemporary Protestant Fundamentalism.'
That wasn't my point. Let me put it this way: there is no one direct, causative relationship between southern slave culture and contemporary Protestant fundamentalism. There are far too many branchings, splittings, graftings, etc., to make such a simplistic statement. It overgeneralizes about contemporary fundamentalists, for one thing (Bob Jones does not equal Jerry Falwell does not equal Pat Robertson), and it elimininates from the mix all the conservative Evangelicals (who, as you say, are a different group from Mennonites, Brethren & Quakers) that were anti-slavery.
"As fewer Down's babies are born and aborting them becomes more normalized, this stigma is likely to grow. You can say that it still remains an individual choice because there is no government compulsion. But we are creating a cultural compulsion. Just because a compulsion isn't backed by government force doesn't mean it has no power."
Great point, Rich. The fact that the intention of the act isn't strictly speaking "eugenicist" (to improve the race) doesn't mean that the results and outlook aren't the same. Would it have made any difference if the Nazis had eliminated six million Jews because they were perceived as bothersome, rather than inferior?
They do it because raising a child with Down's Syndrome usually means a lifetime of care, not just 18 years; because caring for children like these is even more prohibitively expensive than raising kids already—not everyone can afford that; because parents want the best for their children, they don't want to raise a child that will be in pain or not have the same opportunities as everyone else or is going to die in a few years after lengthy hospitalization; because some people just can't handle it.
You're assigning very superficial (and I think invented) motives to people who choose not to carry these babies, and I'm sure their decision is much, much harder than you think it is.
I guess the comments here are questioning if eugenics includes persuasion, or does it have to include force?
For example, in 1939 Sanger launched what later came to be known as “the Negro Project”, building birth-control clinics in black areas to reduce African American birthrate. It seems like for many liberals here, this is not eugenics but something else. But to my mind, this is eugenics.
And this never really stopped with Sanger. Abortion is the new egenics tool: I think some 13% of American women are black, but have 35+% of the abortion.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I recalled that the founder of eugenics was one Francis Galton. I checked out his "bio" on Wikipedia and found that Galton was a genius of the highest caliber. Look up his entry. You will be amazed at the number things he developed almost from scratch. He was reading at age 2, and quoting Shakespeare at age 6, and was the half cousin of Charles Darwin.
He developed eugenics light. He merely suggested that society pay and otherwise encourage the elite to marry and procreate early and often. Here's a quick list of the things he developed:
statistical correlation
statistical regression to the mean
psychometrics
differential psychology (first mental tests)
fingerprint forensics
meteorology and first weather maps
silent dog whistle
electrocardiograph
developed genetics analysis just inferior to Mendel
conducted first studies concerning nature vs. nurture
Disproved LaMarckism, paving the way for acceptance of Darwinism
Why do few people know about this guy? His promotion of eugenics made him a historical persona non grata.
It is the logical opposite to a God that tells people that abortion is wrong.
I think you're utilizing an assumption that death is death is death. Which assumption any Christian would dispute.
I'm home from work, and have had more than a moment to reflect on this issue. The issue is this: You do not have any clue regarding what liberals and non-Christians think or believe. You may read our words, but you are completely incapable of *understanding* or *empathizing with* a Progressive. To be fair, a Progressive is just as truly inable to understand or empathize with a Conservative. We are species alien to each other. The world you live in is not the world we live in, if we're both describing the same place.
Seriously - "Liberal Eugenics?" I appreciate as much as anyone the desire to participate in the creation of a new meme (My personal favorite was "Cheap-Labor Conservatives," which sadly didn't take off as I hoped, but meh) but "liberal eugenics?" Really?? I admit it's catchy, and it'll probably get you quoted, but it's litle more than a bugaboo. It doesn't exist.
That being said...
I am partially appalled and partially impressed that would rail against the inequality you interpret from the idea of voluntary population control. The world you seek to "conserve" is wholly dependent upon inequality. Without it, that world wouldn't exist.
On to the idea itself:
Look at the phrase ~tv used in a combox comment -- "Why is it such a horrible thing to ask people who shouldn't breed to not breed?" If the point is that people shouldn't have children that they're not capable of caring for, that's a reasonable position to hold.
That's exactly the point. Your interpretation of the word "breed" to be "inhuman" is extraneous and frankly unwarranted. When have I ever espoused anything but concern (and often disgust) at the way we humans treat each other? I appreciate that you do not like the choice of the word "breed." And I also appreciate that you don't like to admit that you, as an animal, are governed by the same laws of the universe as every other breathing creature.
My point remains. I think that if people are aware that they are incapable of caring for a child, it would be a valid decision to support them if they chose not to have children. That has nothing to do with being poor, or being married, or being anything other than "capable of raising a child." I would go a step further and actually encourage the practice through some sort of subsidy, but that's me.
It has nothing to do with wanting to eliminate any "weakness" in the species or anything of the sort. My concern is for the already born. What kind of life will they live bringing children in the world that they can't afford to, don't know how to, or don't care to raise? I include rich and poor in that equation.
What's your concern for? "Those that might one day be?" What kind of world do you want them to be born into?
But how do we determine who "shouldn't" breed? That's where the eugenic mentality comes in.
You need a license to drive, but can produce offspring with impunity. I don't really see why that is logical. Both have an impact on society as a whole (concern for which is usually your beat, I'm aware, not mine) that crosses all facets of life, not just the economic.
Given that based on his frequent comments that the state should be extremely generous with welfare benefits, ~tv presumably believes that the government is obliged to subsidize unlimited childbearing among the poor. So by what criteria would he (or anybody) decide that a person, or class of people, shouldn't have children.
The government *is* obliged to be generous with "welfare benefits" because the citizenry *is* the government. It's *our* money. If the rich balk at that, they forget upon whose backs their fortunes rest.
Nice invocation of the "welfare benefits" meme, by the way. Welfare, in the general sence, benefits everyone. It seems that from the conservative perspective, it "rewards sinfulness" or something - believe me, I don't get it. The point is everyone benefits from welfare - even those who think it's bad. When the poorest of us are able to have a safe home, good food, clean water, and an education that helps them become better humans, we *all* win. That vision is not possible when people don't give a damn about the kids they're bringing into the world. And yes - having more children than one is capable of caring for is definitely an example of not giving a damn.
The only ones who don't win are the moneyed white men who depend on continued oppression for their luxury. That's a topic for another time.
I think the lesson that can be learned from Galton is that science can reveal new knowledge, but can flounder morally and produce evil. Eugenics may have won broad acceptance among the white upper class because it was originated by a recognized genius: That increased its credibility. Einstein's brilliance was also misused to produce the nuclear bomb. A movie about Galton's life and the ramifications of his work could make a heck of a film.
Hmm. Try S. M. Stirling's dystopian novels, especially DRAKON. He is a nominally secular democrat-- I won't quite say a liberal-- who sees future dangers clearly. He portrays scary 'transhuman' (post- human?) culture so well that proponents think he is on their side. He's not.
So by what criteria would he (or anybody) decide that a person, or class of people, shouldn't have children.
They would, of course, self-select. If job training is an appropriate use of public funds (which I beleive it is) I cannot see why parent training is inappropriate.
Someone will, eventually, develop a safely reversable chemical sterilization - something that will safely make one completely incapable of producing offspring, but which when given the "unlocking chemical" would allow for conception. I would see absolutely no problem making something like that available to anyone who wanted it.
To receive the 'conception key' rigorous "parent training," including interning with existing parents should be compulsory. Let people choose if they wish to remain infertile or conceive. If they wish to conceive, subsidies to allow one parent to be home full-time until the child is of age should be given.
If one's choice is to be a parent, then *be* a parent. Haivng kids and leaving them in front of the TV while parents go off to work in careers that merely interfere with the upbringing of their children is cruel and inhumane. If one chooses to remain infertile, free education in the feild of one's choice should be provided.
Allow one to choose the life they wish to lead, and make it possible for them to do so. They way you guys do it, people are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Culture of Death.
"OTOH, the religious beliefs and traditions of Southern slave owners has a direct link to the contemporary Protestant Fundamentalists."
Those bigots; they're all alike. :-)
Culture of Death.
Bullshit.
Loudon,
I think you're utilizing an assumption that death is death is death. Which assumption any Christian would dispute.
It is my considered opinion, being a person of faith though not of that tradition of which we write, that any person who is thinking of the afterlife as equal in priority or importance to this physical life is the most dangerous person one can possibly be near or associated with.
I make no assumption. I make an assertion that people who can crow with pointed fingers "culture of death" and allow their government to turn a blind eye to genocide are worse than hypocrites. I'll put "morally repugnant" out there as a list starter, and let the rest go.
You and I are of a certain kind, Loudon. We are not afraid to show our contempt. Please take this in that light.
I was hasty in my choice of epithet. Norris's evaluation is not merely BS. It's insidious propaganda. As a white heterosexual male he has a vested interest in keeping people and breeding like bunnies poor, and uneducated, so that his people remain in charge.
That's all.
"I make no assumption. I make an assertion..."
Ungrounded stipulation does not become an intellectual virtue simply as a result of shifting it from covert to overt.
It's insidious propaganda. As a white heterosexual male he has a vested interest in keeping people and breeding like bunnies poor, and uneducated, so that his people remain in charge
Lose the extraneous and. Gotta love no preview on bnet :)
You're being very terse tonight, Francis. I'd like to see a substantive response, if you are willing.
I've stated an opinion, and at least implicitly used it to support the assertion. Telling me that I don't understand one or more tenets of Christianity misses the fact that I am challenging and criticizing those tenets, if not overtly then implicitly.
Franklin
Your faith in our ability to stop genocide is charming.
Rich,
Your arriving at that observation is understandable, but I must correct you: I can't have faith in an ability that no one seems interested in attempting to demonstrate.
I have little faith in our current leadership, and many misgivings about most of those bidding to replace it.
Edwin Black's book War Against the Weak implies that it was the American eugenics campaign which initially inspired Germany's own.
"As a white heterosexual male he has a vested interest in keeping people and breeding like bunnies poor, and uneducated, so that his people remain in charge."
Lord, help us. This is one of the most bass-ackwards sentences I think I've ever read. Is it not the 'progressives,' the inventors of the whole multiculturalism/diversity and tolerance sham, that have created the welfare state, which among other things, keeps the poor populace (black and white) stuck on the liberal plantation? Is it not these same 'progressives' who are at the vanguard of this eugenicist or quasi-eugenicist trend?
Is it not the 'progressives,' the inventors of the whole multiculturalism/diversity and tolerance sham, that have created the welfare state, which among other things, keeps the poor populace (black and white) stuck on the liberal plantation? Is it not these same 'progressives' who are at the vanguard of this eugenicist or quasi-eugenicist trend?
And how back-asswards is that? How is voluntarily reducing the population of everyone who cannot or will not care for their children "Keeping them on the liberal plantation?" Why not just own up to the fact that without being able to keep the poor poor, the uneducated uneducated, and the over-bred overbreeding that you and yours would not enjoy the life of luxury you do?
YOu say "Culture of Death." I say you wish to perpetuate the Culture of Suffering that keeps you on the top of the pyramid.
Prove me wrong.
'How is voluntarily reducing the population of everyone who cannot or will not care for their children "Keeping them on the liberal plantation?"'
Because the plantation owners know that the number of people under their control has to be limited in order to maintain that control, and in order to continue to fund the benefits to those already stuck in the system (even tax-'n'-spenders know that the supply of funds isn't limitless.) The idea is to keep the poor dependent on the welfare state, so that they continue to vote the right way in order to get their benefits, thus keeping the liberal power structure firmly entrenched.
"Why not just own up to the fact that without being able to keep the poor poor, the uneducated uneducated, and the over-bred overbreeding that you and yours would not enjoy the life of luxury you do?"
Simple -- because it's not true. Who is it who has pushed for 'enterprise zones,' in poor areas? Who is it who has tried to get plans passed so that the poor who live in gov't housing can 'rent to own?,' thus enabling them to move up the ladder and get out of government housing? Who is it who has attempted to implement programs to provide education and job training to welfare recipients so that they can actually get OFF welfare? Who is it who's attempted to create 'workfare' programs so that able-bodied welfare recipients can earn their benefits, and eventually work their way OFF welfare?
Hint: it ain't the liberals. They fight initiatives of this sort at every turn.
TV,
All I wrote was "Culture of Death", but it evidently struck a nerve with you. I find this surprising, given that on another thread you took exception to my claim that there was anything wrong with death at all. Indeed, you spent considerable time taking a contrary position to the idea that death was "wrong". To you death was good, natural, "in us all" you wrote.
So why the sensitivity if in your "perspective" death is good? Why not glory in the phrase "Culture of Death". Own what you love already.
Your Culture of Death is loaded with your mythology, Norris.
Our ideas of death are vastly different. I take exception to what *you* mean by Culture of Death - not by what I mean by it.
Of course, trying to explain nuance to a black-or-white mind is pointless.
Haveanicedaynstuff.
'Every example you give has nothing to do with "helping poor people" and everything to do with getting poor people working to enrich owners.'
If you're that deluded there's no point discussing this with you.
"You moneyed white folks would freak the hell out if someone proposed something like that."
a) how do you know I'm 'moneyed'?
b) how do you know I'm white?
c) actually I think college tuition breaks are a good idea; I don't believe in free college tuition because it works against a sense of ownership -- the individual should contribute something, even if it's a small %age. Then again, it might be a good idea to work on getting these folks successfully out of high school first. Inner city schools are failing miserably, and PLEASE don't recite the liberal mantra "it's because of LACK OF MONEY!!!!!! If we just SPENT MORE!!!!"
Capitalism rules the semantics, and I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned this yet.
On one side: people who need a minimum level of income to subsist.
On the other side: employers who want to minimize their payroll expenses in the name of profit.
Yeah, that's simplistic, but it's also the starting point for every disconnect in the discussion around haves and have-nots. Numbers don't lie. If my working year is 2,000 hours (50 weeks times 40 hours), and my minimum subsistence level is $15,000 gross, then if I'm making less than $7.50 per hour I need to work more hours. Don't bother me with local COL adjustments, and address the point: we want our poor to work, but we make it nearly impossible for them to make enough money. Do the friggin' math.
At some point, you'll see why TV has facts behind his suggestions. It is ridiculously easy to see why having and raising a child is impossible for some people to do on their own, and the next question must be: if society is not going to step in and help, then you must rethink the whole "right to have children", abortion and "culture of death" logic.
Rob, while I always hesitate to speak for others, I don't think TV meant his remarks to be personal to you. His general point remains, as does my post supporting above. It's not what we are spending, it's where.
"German society became conditioned to see its own progress toward a state of greater social health depended on ridding itself of classes of people whose failure to meet the overclass's standards rendered them not only less than human, but a danger to the majority ...."
Hmm, anyone see a pattern ...
a) how do you know I'm 'moneyed'?
b) how do you know I'm white?
If you're not, you do the best impersonation of a moneyed white man I've ever witnessed.
Think about showbiz. Seriously.
Numbers don't lie. If my working year is 2,000 hours (50 weeks times 40 hours), and my minimum subsistence level is $15,000 gross, then if I'm making less than $7.50 per hour I need to work more hours. Don't bother me with local COL adjustments, and address the point: we want our poor to work, but we make it nearly impossible for them to make enough money. Do the friggin' math.
At some point, you'll see why TV has facts behind his suggestions. It is ridiculously easy to see why having and raising a child is impossible for some people to do on their own, and the next question must be: if society is not going to step in and help, then you must rethink the whole "right to have children", abortion and "culture of death" logic.
You're nicer than I am to these folks, Franklin, but - as usual - spot on analysis.
Don't expect them to get the point. There's something to that worldview blindness thing I talked about above. I personally think it's impossible for people with such disparate worldviews to get each other, which is why progress has been so muddy. Neither side is allowed to accomplish jack without the other side throwing their wrench-du-jour in the works.
I really do wish we could have a serious dialogue about cultural separation and divorce ourselves from each other.
I have heard the problem described this way, and I think it's fairly accurate: poverty is like a pit with a safety net over it (the welfare system). Conservatives worry so much about providing ladders to get folks out of the pit that they forget about the holes in the net. Liberals are so concerned about upkeep of the net that they forget about providing the ladders.
The answer? Work on the net and the ladders simultaneously. The problem? The welfare state establishment doesn't care about the ladders; they WANT people to stay on the net. Those people are their voting base, and that's how they entrench their power, by the creation and maintenance of this dependent class.
let's step aside from eugenics and abortion, for just a moment. Or at least, let's step away from "palying God" with HUMAN tissue.
On the secular Left, it's extremely common to hear people condemning genetic modification of fruits, grains and vegetables. I've lost count of how many times I've heard leftists rail against "Frankenfood." The idea of big corporations tinkering with the genetic makeup of corn or tomatoes outrages most leftitsts.
So, one would think people on the Left would show similar outrage (or at least a few well-placed qualms) about big business messing about with HUMAN genetics. Right? Uh, no.
It's only natural to ask why. And the most obvious reason seems to be this: too many people on the Left START from the position that the Sexual Revolution in general and abortion in particular are sacred, and NOTHING that could possibly lead to reconsideration of either can be tolerated.
So, people who SHOULD be extremely uncomfortable with human genetic engineering are embracing it, partly because their perceived enemies are agianst it, and partly because forthrightly condemning eugenics just might lead some people to question whether abortion and the Sexual Revolution are wholly good things.
"He developed eugenics light. He merely suggested that society pay and otherwise encourage the elite to marry and procreate early and often. Here's a quick list of the things he developed:
statistical correlation
statistical regression to the mean
psychometrics
differential psychology..."
Sounds similar to frequent posting on this site.
"If you're not, you do the best impersonation of a moneyed white man I've ever witnessed."
Truth is, I'm only one of the two. I'll let you figure out which one.
"Those people are their voting base, and that's how they entrench their power, by the creation and maintenance of this dependent class."
Rob, while that is a good point, the very people who depend on that "net" will tell you that the reason they remain the voting base is more likely because those purported ladders are often given a swift kick backwards when being scaled. See? That's why that net is so important -- to catch them when they fall off the ladders.
While you blame the creation of an underclass on social services, historically the underclasses were created well before social nets came into play.
So what created underclasses in past?
"you've definitely allied yourself with the white and moneyed.."
Nah -- I've allied myself with the educated and realistic.
"While you blame the creation of an underclass on social services, historically the underclasses were created well before social nets came into play.
So what created underclasses in past?"
I'm not blaming the creation of the underclass on social services. I'm saying that the current dependent class (which is not necessarily coterminous with the 'underclass') is in large part a creation of the welfare state. I'm definitely not saying we don't need a safety net -- we do. The problem is that we've in many ways allowed that net to become a hammock.
TV,
You write, "I take exception to what *you* mean by Culture of Death - not by what I mean by it."
By Culture of Death, I only mean what you advocate. And since, in your own words you advocate death as a good, we mean the same thing. We simply disagree about its desirablity.
It is interesting that you often use the meme "The only opinion that matters in abortion is the woman that makes that decision." Yet you advocate a system wherein the state takes that decision away from the very same woman...
"To receive the 'conception key' rigorous "parent training," including interning with existing parents should be compulsory."
So, you have no problem with opposing any state influence on a woman's decision to abort, but want all of soceity to live under a draconian rule wherein no one can have children without governmental permission.
You advocate the limitless opportunity to end (prevent) life, but oppose the an intrinsic right to create it.
That's what you advocate. In YOUR words. THAT is a culture of death.
As far as your characterzations of what I advocate, they are all lies. It is one thing to say that I am wrong in what I advocate because it will result in unintended suffering, but it is a lie to say that I advocate suffering (or oppression, etc.).
As far as your calling my thinking "black and white", that's a sign that you have nothing worth saying in response. Ad hominem and all that. It's the classic sign of the abscence of a logical argument.
It is ridiculously easy to see why having and raising a child is impossible for some people to do on their own, and the next question must be: if society is not going to step in and help, then you must rethink the whole "right to have children", abortion and "culture of death" logic.
This analysis regarding whether we abort kids because they're expensive or pay welfare mothers to experiment on their kids seems to oversimplify the economics and miss the real problems.
Ultimately, it comes down to which principles are to be most valued. The Christian voices of reason in this conversation argue that no value can be higher than the intrinsic dignity of the human person, which entails both defending life and supporting an economic system that will enable those who work to receive a living wage and those who can't work to be cared for. How we get there is a matter of debate. Technology, women in the workforce, and massive immigration have all done their part to depress real wages. How best to deal with that depression is a complicated question on which reasonable minds can disagree. The proper allocation of resources is also a matter of debate. But I think mainstream America shares the fundamental desire to protect and defend the dignity of the human person (as long as they can still have porn and contraception, which cuts against the principle, but what are you going to do).
The pagans and atheists seem to argue that we should eat the poor, or, even better, pay them to eat each other. I'm not sure what the underlying principle here is. But it seems to be a concern with population control, scarcity of resources, and control over the reproduction of the most marginalized. In any event, any common understanding of the universal and fundamental value of intrinsic human dignity is not present. It seems only some people are important. And still don't understand who gets to decide. Maybe we vote. But given that minorities are over-represented in lower economic classes, I guess TV is arguing we should pay blacks and hispanics not to reproduce. A goal he shares with Margaret Sanger and the Planned Parenthood crowd.
The argument that we should eat the poor is so far outside the mainstream it's really not worth commenting on. Thankfully, it's just not going to happen. Give America another 50 years of contraception, abortion, and porn on demand, and folks will be a little more likely to give you a hearing.
My point is that there is plenty to debate about how resources should be allocated and what policies best serve human dignity, without forsaking humanity for some bizarre agenda the attempts to preclude people TV doesn't like (which I guess are poor people and stupid people) from having families. Children may not be important to TV given his own peculiar preferences. But they're important to most people for good reason.
'Loudon is not only "a fool," he's projecting his own racism onto an egalitarian idea.'
Where, pray tell, does LIAF demonstrate that he is a racist? (this oughta be good)
~tv, your juvenile name-calling ("stallion") and emotional hysterics have no place here, and will be deleted. Knock it off.
Make that "have been deleted." I was chagrined to go back and find that you used profanity to characterize someone else's post. You've been hanging around this site far too long to believe that kind of thing is acceptable. I took down the last 15 of your posts on this thread, and now I've got to go comb through the others and see if anybody else engaged in namecalling. Somehow, most everybody else here can manage to debate and discuss without sliding into this kind of thing. I suggest you take some time off. You're doing neither yourself nor the discussion on these comboxes any good.
Loudon, there is always plenty to debate about so long as you refrain from putting words in my mouth. Do I need to point out which ones, or are you self-honest enough to see them for yourself?
The Christian voices of reason in this conversation argue that no value can be higher than the intrinsic dignity of the human person, which entails both defending life and supporting an economic system that will enable those who work to receive a living wage and those who can't work to be cared for.
Where, praytell, have we seen in this country's history any Christian support for an economic system that [etc.]? Certainly, we've seen charities and churches come and go that have done excellent work locally, but as a society that it reputedly Christian, I don't see it. Indeed, I see a defacto value of seeing workers as commodities. Unless you can show me that the vast majority of company management is not Christian in proportion to the general population, then I think you have some explaining to do, eh?
Technology, women in the workforce, and massive immigration have all done their part to depress real wages.
Written like a true capitalist. Technology allows management to employ fewer people. A Christian tradition that supported women as second-class citizens (and worse) empowered employers to pay them slave wages even when they were the only workforce available, as during WWII. And if they don't speaka da lingo, you can lie to and cheat immigrants to your heart's and investors' desire. Open your mouth, Loudon, because I plan to put "blaming the victims" in there.
Oh, and welfare mothers don't experiment on their kids. They have no background in science. At worst, they speculate around whether their kids will survive on the street for another day.
And another thing, ~tv:
You moneyed white folks would freak the hell out if someone proposed something like that.
This racialized rhetoric is unwelcome here. If someone wrote "you poor black folks would freak the hell out if someone proposed something like that," it would be deleted.
I'm tired of having to keep warning you about stuff like this. Basic civility stuff. You make it hard to have a rational discussion by frequently loading up your posts with such needless, rude rhetoric. You're banned.
Regarding Christianity and economics, admittedly some Protestants have a tendency to support a prosperity Gospel that is insufficiently caring of the poor. But that trait is really more of an empiricist (read: secular) add on to Christianity. And even where it's present, there still exists a common understanding of the importance of charity and the dignity of persons made in the image of God. So if you argue policy with a devout Christian, even of the partisan GOP variety, you won't get much argument that someone has to care for those who can't provide for themselves. The argument is over who should do it.
It's when Christianity gives way to utilitarianism and progressivism that the "unwanted" should become alarmed. My point is not that Christians are perfectly Christian. But they do have a shared set of values regarding the inherent value of each individual that makes the discussion of how a society should care for its economically marginalized possible.
Regarding depressed wages I don't blame women or immigrants. I do blame robots. They're tricksters. And I'm not a devout capitalist. But it is true that the labor pool has expanded, which will, all things being equal, result in employers paying less for the same work. As I indicated, reasonable minds can differ on how you pay a living wage in the face of that reality.
Finally I don't expect that welfare mothers will experiment on their kids. But I do wonder if we would pay women to abort their children to make more room for our toys, why we wouldn't pay them to get some scientific mileage out of their babes. Once we divorce policy from conscience the possibilities are endless.
TV is banned huh? Wow. I missed it, but I guess he called me stallion again.
I've been told that a mark of one's success is the unhinged passion of one's adversary.
It reminds me of a quote I ran across once. I have no idea who Lord Chesterfield was, but he wrote, "If you can once engage people’s pride, love, pity, ambition (or whatever is their prevailing passion) on your side, you need not fear what their reason can do against you."
Not sure what the inverse of that would be.
I'm glad to argue policy with anyone. That, for me, is the definition of political discourse.
However, I look at results, not exhortations of good morals or good intentions.
The US has a 230-year history of a privileged class getting theirs, and lording it over everyone else. The advent of the middle class diluted that for a while, but the middle class is currently disappearing, if not in numbers, then in economic clout. We will return to the bad old days of moneyed aristocrats pulling the strings of policy, and having grandiose discussions about policy. In the meantime, I look back on 30 years of having neighbors who can't pay their rent without Section 8 money, who work hard to keep their kids in school, who obey the law and want their kids to do the same. The welfare mother is just another part of the horseshit stereotypes that the policy makers and debaters like to promote to the rest of us. There are abusers of the system at every level. Those at the top are aided and abetted in their abuse by those of us who can unseat them being convinced of the abusers at the bottom who almost don't exist.
During that 230 plus years, the people at the top were and are almost without exception Christians. I have no problem respecting my Christian neighbors. I have every problem being sold a bill of goods around Christian morals that I do not see, and cannot see in hindsight, at any level of leadership in this country, with rare exceptions that have no impact on lessening my perspective.
"It was You, Rod Dreher who racialized the rhetoric when you attempted to characterize birth control as eugenics. That is a term that paints the opposing viewpoint as people who favor racial genocide.
Am I mistaken?"
I'm not Rod, but yes, you are, for the simple reason that eugenics need not have a racial component; in fact, Rod didn't even mention race in his original post. It was brought up by the poster "Daniel."
The only discussion of eugenics that is devoid of racial or ethnic pejoratives is when it is held strictly within the realm of science. As soon as the discussion takes on the use of eugenics, it immediately becomes at least political.
I will not comment on what a blog owner does to maintain local civility, other than to suggest that such actions not be discussed in the blog (that being a hard and fast rule for all moderators of Beliefnet's discussion boards, and I being a former moderator). I will point out that one cannot focus a call for civility solely on the racial aspects of a debate if it is also a defining aspect.
I will join Rod in a general call for an increase in the average level of civility, and add my own mea culpa for occasionally failing to live up to it.
>I'll continue to post here to counter the lies you and your white, moneyed, hyermasculine patriarchists spread about progressives.
Rod's moneyed? hypermasculine? patriarchist? He's white, I'll give you that.
That was Rod *and* his "white, moneyed, hypermasculine patriarchists."
Reading comprehension is your friend.
"I will join Rod in a general call for an increase in the average level of civility, and add my own mea culpa for occasionally failing to live up to it."
Well put. Me too.
One would think TV will only be happy when the world is run by ILSOC's (Impecunious Lesbian Socitalists of Color).
I will point out that one cannot focus a call for civility solely on the racial aspects of a debate if it is also a defining aspect.
It's not just racial with ~tv, Franklin. It's his repeatedly demonstrated unwillingness to conduct himself civilly in a discussion with a diverse group of people. I simply grew fed up with his constant willingness to accuse people who disagreed with him of being bad people (racists, despisers of the poor, haters of homosexuals, etc.). The race thing I brought up was just an example of his style. And you might have seen his earlier post, which I deleted tonight, in which he declared that he was going to keep coming back to this site, though he has been banned, to keep posting things calling us "white, moneyed, hypermasculine patriarchists" out. That's a threat and a comment that both epitomize why his continued presence on these boards is an impediment to civil dialogue. If ~tv doesn't want to treat me and this community with respect, even as he disagrees with others here, he can start his own blog.
Rod, you are getting a full dose of why Beliefnet finds it difficult to keep good moderators (that being an inadvertent self-patting on the back; I was one of the best). You might also reconsider public mention of your actions in deleting and banning. The obvious courtesy of explaining missing posts is good; the ongoing meta-discussions that ensue can be very disruptive in their own right.
Since I seek to avoid contributing to disruption, as it were, I will simply encourage you to continue as you have, and try not to worry about any perceived external need or impulse to explain yourself. Your attitudes -- and your desire to maintain a high level of civility and respect -- can be gleaned by anyone paying any sort of attention to your blog as a whole. Certainly discuss unacceptable postings, but keep it to email with those making such posts. The rest of us will survive not having our curiosity satisfied; those rare times when it's the system causing posts to disappear will become explained in due course.
I know it stings to be rebuked in your own space. Silence is an excellent response, along with exercising your editorial controls as you deem necessary. I, for one, do not expect you to justify yourself, not on any thing. [looks around meaningfully] I don't see any reason why anyone else should have such an expectation. :-)
But the moral questions remain. IF we ever get to the point of figuring out which forms of physical and mental impairment are purely genetic in their origins (which isn't likely to happen any time soon), would that give us the right/duty to decide who gets to "breed"?
People don't "breed"; animals do.
Which is precisely why I put the word in quotes. Are we now so accustomed to using quotes only for emphasis that we can't recognize their proper use? Should people whose grammatic sense is so far gone be allowed to reproduce?
Marian,
People are animals, or rather humans are animals. We are subject to all of the controls and constraints of nature, as a species, that exist for every other species.
We have just one thing that marks us apart from those other species: we are capable of planned, conscious (though not always successful) denial of some of those controls and constraints.
Eugenics is the scientific expression of the interface between nature and human control over it as it pertains to human breeding. There are similar sciences in other aspects of human attempts to control nature, agronomy (as I recall) being the one for formerly wild plants becoming regular crops upon which we are dependent for our survival. You know those plants, they are in every meal you eat: wheat, corn, soy, barley, etc.
The verb to breed is not a dirty word. It is semantically appropriate for the sexual reproduction of plant and animal life. That humans exert arbitrary control over the process introduces some dicey elements, it's true, but that doesn't change the facts of nature.
Perhaps a distintion can be found this way.
As rational beings reflect on life and death is ways impossible for, say, Fluffy to dog. Such reflection leads to comprehension of the fact that for us, people, reproduction is, or at least should be, more than mere breeding. Ideas of love, immortality, sacramentalism, and others come to mind.
So while people do breed, so to speak, it is their nature to do so much more in the process. Meanwhile. beasts (human and others) simply rut.
That should start out as...
"As rational beings, WE relfect..." etc.
I think I understand what you are aiming at, Norris, but I also think you have it backwards.
Rational thought leads to the decision to not have a child when facts indicate that the child will suffer; it is the irrational intervention of emotion that motivates a couple or single woman to have a child despite the rational analysis to not do so.
All of that becomes possible only because of the human distinction I described above: our ability to exercise arbitrary control over aspects of nature of which no lower animal is capable. And please don't get me wrong: this is an observation, not a value judgment.
The moral dilemma, and the place where the value judgments come into play, revolve around a simple change in capabilities: 500 years ago, certain conditions always lead to death, and in those cases where an extended period of pain was involved, it was considerend moral to end the person's life rather than let the person continue to suffer. Today, those conditions can be alleviated but not cured using various and increasing levels of medical intervention, and they still always lead to death. The difference is that the intervention postpones the inevitable, and removes the onus to end the painful suffering by ending the person's life before the condition claims it.
A further variation is that non-fatal suffering ensues. We can, with that, branch out into endemic poverty and the like; certainly, some eugenics debates focus on that.
The problem brought into relief by the politics of eugenics is also simple: is it moral to impose on certain people the care of those who are still going to die, but whose death has been postponed? At what point (copulation, conception, in utero or post-partum) is it moral to make the decision? And finally, who gets to make that decision for the entire society and culture, and do we empower the decider to enforce the decisions on all of those who disagree with it?
Franklin,
Not sure what you think I have backwards.
My comment immediately prior to your's was not aimed at the issues of eugenics, or abortion, or the like. I was only commenting on why the infinitive "to breed" is insulting (at best) to those who consider the individual imbued with certain aspects of being which places one in a category transcendant to that of his physical properties.
Rod has a new blog entry that covers this issue far more succinctly than I do.
Your post above has some subtlties I would like to see expanded. Perhaps I can bring these up later today as time allows.
Best
Norris, I will move to the new thread; please join me there, as I look forward to what you may have in mind to expand upon.
A brief attempt to clarify: procreation came first (except for those who insist on a strictly literal reading of Genesis... I don't really want to go there). All of the "considerations" you listed as being the consequence of rational reflection are adjustments to or impositions on the behavior set we call sexuality. We may end up agreeing to disagree on the chicken-egg thing I'm implying here, but that's the further thought I had above.
Humans ARE animals... and animals breed.
Just because we are REALLY REALLY smart animals who have invented the social tool we call "morals" \, doesnt mean we are exempt from the idea that you can breed out problems, errors, hereditary diseases... ect.
We do it with horses, dogs, and many other animals...
Its always unfortunate when "morals" get in the way of science...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.