Derbyshire Refuses to Grapple With the Actual Issues About Eugenics
John Derbyshire's style of arguing is often to breezily skip past concrete issues rather than actually grappling with them intellectually. He does it again in the ongoing discussion at The Corner over eugenics, where he dismisses worries that eugenics thinking could result in the eradication of those who were once denigrated by eugenicists as "the unfit." He does this by shifting the ground from what is actually being argued for and done--eugenic infanticide--to the potential killing of three-year-olds. "As to the notion...that the killing-off of unsatisfactory 3-year-olds could be sold to the American public if cleverly packaged... Well, I think better of the American public than that."
So do I. But people aren't worrying about killing three-year-olds. They are warning against eugenic infanticide (and abortion). Indeed, right now, most Down babies are not allowed to be born. Some of the world's foremost bioethicists argue on behalf of infanticide, as have articles in prestigious medical journals and mainstream media outlets. The Netherlands currently engages in eugenic infanticide and will soon legalize the practice.
I would have more respect for Derbyshire if he would grapple with the realities of people's concerns rather than breeze past them by shifting the premise being proposed and then dismissing his own straw man. Anyone can do that.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 6:04 PM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
Ah, but Derbyshire isn't even remotely pro-life. Not even close. You probably saw the stupid and angering things he was saying about Terri Schiavo. He probably, though he might cast it more nicely, think eugenic infanticide and abortion are just fine. In fact, he apparently subscribes to a sort of crude version of personhood theory, though of course as a snobby Brit who wants to appear to do everything with great ease and a light touch, he wouldn't like to admit to having a _theory_ about anything.
I don't care what he believes, with regard to this post. Just that he argue the *actual* issues rather than avoid them by creating phantom discussions. Either that, or don't say anything at all.
I see your point. And I think you're right. But knowing, or conjecturing, where he's coming from helps in part to explain why he jumps over to three-year-olds. It's only at that point that it would, or might, bother _him_, so that's all he's concerned to talk about. And then he gets to pooh-pooh. Although considering the way things are going, I suppose we might at least get euthanasia for three-year-olds. The Dutch have it for older children.
And it's interesting to note how fine the line has become between euthanasia and eugenics: Kill them off because they have such a dreadful life _and_ to get rid of the weaklings in the race who are a drag on society.
Lydia: Actually euthanasia and eugenics are attached at the hip, as several good books recently demonstrated. Read espedcially, WAR AGAINST THE WEAK by Edwin Black, in which the lede of one chapter was the best I have ever read: "Murder was always an option."
I just finished reading a true-crime book titled SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE
... I hate your website, Wesley.
As I was saying, just finished SLEEP IN HEAVENLY PEACE by M. William Phelps (New York: Pinnacle Books, 2006), about a woman named Dianne Odell who gave birth to a total of twelve babies, four of whom she murdered minutes after birth. All her children were completely healthy when born, and the four that she killed were strangled or smothered. According to the prosecution, she murdered her children because they were "bastards" and "not wanted."
So the eugenic movement would say that although these kids were born healthy and would have grown up to live productive lives (as all of her other children did), Odell shouldn't be punished for strangling her two daughters and two sons? Am I reading this right?
Because the only difference between these kids and the ones who lived was that Odell had a man in her life each time she gave birth in a hospital and let the baby live. Otherwise, no complications, no problems.
So, are these folks suggesting that this is acceptable? That this woman who is obviously not right in the head is okay for murdering her newborn children?
This is sick.
You are not alone, Tabs. Sometimes I do too.
I suppose, Tabs, that if you tried to have a conversation with a real-life eugenicist about this he'd hem and haw and add a couple of things that are supposed to make it all okay, but that don't. For example, he'd say that if these were "superior" children, she shouldn't have killed them. They should have been given to the state to put in foster care and raise to improve the human species. Also, I suppose he might try to say that the determination of fitness, etc., has to be done by an orderly process, not just by some woman deciding to strangle her kids at birth.
So, a la Sparta, you take them to the Inspector, he decides they're unfit, and _then_ you strangle them. Or leave them on the mountainside, or whatever.
How comforting.
Derb is so famously homophobic and anti-gay marriage, it is strange that he feels the marketplace should dictate conception practices.
Wesley, do you think you could challenge him to reconcile his positions against gay marriage but for allowing genetic engineering and whatever else the market offers, including same-sex conception? How can he think that couples that are approved to conceive together should be prevented from marrying? What sort of message is that to send about marriage?
He seems to be applying conservative principles where they shouldn't be applied. We do not have to allow genetic engineering. If some other country pursues it, we can impose sanctions and prohibit our citizens from attempting it there. He is an elitist crumudgeon who thinks most people are stupid, and he doesn't want us dummies to have children.
John: I try to stay within bioethical and biotechnological issues, about which I have informed opinions. But there is no reason why you couldn't do that. I think The Corner has a place to e-mail their regular contributors.
OK, I'll send him an email about that. (I posted it here )
Now then, at the bottom of this old post, how about giving a hint as to your thoughts, as a strictly bioethical issue, leaving marriage and gay rights aside, about same-sex conception?
Do we have an obligation to develop it, or is it something that we can prohibit people from devoloping?
I think all attempts at conception except combining a woman's unadulterated egg and a man's unadulterated sperm should be prohibited, which means all genetic engineering, including the genetic engineering needed for same-sex conception, would be banned.
Same sex conception can't be done biologically. I oppose all human cloning for any purpose, which would include permitting cloning so that two same sex partners can both be biologically related to a child. I oppose genetic engineering, while supporting gene therapy to permit defects to be treated.
If you are asking whether I think that a man donating sperm so that a lesbian can conceive through artificial insemination should be outlawed, the answer is no.
John Howard:
Yeah, I'm curious about Wesley's bioethical opinion as well. I'm totally in your camp as far as conception goes, but I've been accused of undue paranoia when I explain why I'm against same-sex conception, especially since I have a reputation amongst my peers for being a Flame Dame (less offensive for this site than what my friends really call me). I'm wondering if I really am unduely paranoid or if there's some bioethical theory backing me up.
Thanks Wesley. I don't mean gamete donation, I mean somehow making it possible to conceive together, so that both partners are genetic parents, and the child has no genetic parent of the other sex.
The mouse Kaguya is an example, and other scientists are working on other ways. Dr. Richard Scott in New Jersey was quoted in GayCityNews.com as saying he expects to see a child born from stem cell derived engineered gametes in "three to five years." They took that article down from their site when I started calling attenion to it, but you can still see remnants of it if you search for it by title (search in 2005 for "two genetic dads" and it's halfway down the search results, with the tagline "Stem cell research could soon enable both partners in gay, lesbian couples to pitch in"). The text of the article is gdeleted, but I copied the text of the article to my blog from Google's cached copy.
Remarkably, lots of people just put aside any of their normal concerns and believe it would be "neat" and "cool". They are the transhumanists, the "postgenderists", and I think they are using vulnerable gay couples as a way to sneak genetic engineering into reality. Most gay couples do not want to try to have children this way, since it is true that love makes a family and the biological connection is not essential, certainly not worth risking birth defects or wasting money.
Yeah, Tabs, I'm accused of undue paranoia all the time too. But this stuff is real, I can't understand why more people aren't talking about it. I take solace in Ghandi's quote "first they ignore at you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" We're getting into step two now, possibly three)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home