Eugenics Give and Take at THE CORNER
So, the discussion about eugenics, which we got into here yesterday, has continued at The Corner today, and I got into the mix. For those interested, and to avoid a lot of scrolling, here is how it generally went:
Derbyshire: "Re Eugenics" and "More Eugenics."
Followed by Stuttaford:"Eugenics."
Next at the plate, Goldberg: "Eugenics, they Cried."
Back to Derbyshire: "Eugenics."
Smith can't spell eugenics: "Eugencs"
Stuttaford takes exception to Smith: "Eugenics."
Goldberg back in the fray: "Eugenics, They Cried."
And, finally, Smith takes exception to Stuttaford: "Love and Eugenics."
There, now that's solved, it's on to fixing the Middle East.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:02 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
"As to your final complaint, that "apologists" for eugenics never "never discuss increasing our capacity to love", I can only say, what a relief."
"To Wesley's remark about "increasing our capacity to love": Frankly, I can't think of a worse idea."
The palpable hubris of these "Conorites" is sickening. I am becoming more and more convinced that those of us who are prolife and anti-eugenics cannot afford to put all our eggs in the basket of one political party.
Further, I believe that a biblical examination of the meaning of " to love your neighbor as yourself" reveals that God and Jesus don't merely mean this as sentimentality. It means to follow the Law as laid out in the 10 Commandments.
This includes not attempting to make man a god--given the brutality that is sure to follow. What better example of that then eugenics?
It is certainly NOT love,or justice, in the biblical sense to cull people out of the herd because of men's perceptions about worthiness.
And, in my opinion, we could always use as many parents as possible who show greater love for their children, as they are, than they do for their careers or for societal notions about what children SHOULD be.
I reflected on Strattaford's comment about love a bit, and concluded he might have been referring to lust, which sometimes is called "love." So, he was tongue in cheek. That's the most charitable interpretation to that comment I can come up with.
Derbyshire made the second quote that I cited. Read his post and the little poem he quotes that is by Philip Larkin.
Then go read the whole poem.
And if your reflection about Strattaford is correct, I wonder about him even more than I did.
Further, the idea that our Country MUST engage in this to "compete" with other countries as Derbyshire seems to suggest here, is utter idolatry--or in secular terms--utter utilitarianism.
You know, it's funny you mention fixing the Middle Eastm, because as long as the US pushes for genetic engineering and refuses to respect equality and natural conception by a mother and a father, fixing the middle east is not going to happen, because what we are doing is so maddening and foolish.
But on the other hand, I think that we could end the current jihad against the West by agreeing to end our eugenic engineering program and affirming the unique status of marriage as having a right to conceive people. I really don't see the jihad ever ending as long as we are working on ways to make our IQ 20 points higher than theirs and scoffing at the notion of loving more.
One thing that really bugs me about Derb's logic is this assertion: "The logical endpoint of your argument seems to be that mate selection should be banned—that we should all be assigned mates at random by the authorities"
Huh? The whole point of not practicing eugenics is so that we are free to choose our mate as we like! Eugenics tries to intervene in our mate selection, in the past just by influencing mate selection with both social pressure and miscegenation laws, now it is just trying to obviate mate selection entirely, by suggesting we no longer actually mate with our mates at all, and instead use donor gametes or genegineered gametes.
Eugenicists can't stand that people are conceived by a man and a woman simply because they love each other, eugencists are the ones that have been trying to ban or influence mate selection, not anti-eugenicists.
Only a eugenicist chooses their mate based on their genes more than on how much the want to share their life with that person. That can't be made illegal, but neither can choosing someone for their money or convenience. All we can do is help people to realize that what matters is loving the person they choose.
Well, as I said, Derbyshire doesn't argue. He generally skips past the real arguments in favor of strawmen.
One acquaintance said of Derbyshire, "He speaks the King's English but with the Prince's wisdom."
I don't know if this is a quote from something I'm unfamiliar with, but it seems apt. The guy is a lightweight, considered as an intellectual, but somehow this never prevents him from sneering at everybody else.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home