Abortion, Eugenics, and Human Rights

In this post I make the argument that the practice of eugenics is common and generally not morally problematic.  I make this argument in order to motivate another point about the rhetorical dishonesty of anti-abortion activists.  Though I will make the argument that anti-abortion activists are deceptive in their use of the rhetoric of eugenics, I will not make an independent argument for or against the claim that abortion is wrong.  For the purposes of full disclosure, I will state for the record that I do not think that abortion is wrong.  However, my personal view has little bearing on this broader point which is about the conflation of two distinct cases for moral personhood.

Abortion is an ethically murky issue.  If we have a moral obligation to refrain from harming (or killing) other persons, then it is fair to say that other persons have a "right" to our restraint, a de facto "right to life."   For this reason, the debate about abortion hinges on the question of whether human fetuses are persons to whom this obligation, and the corollary right, extends.  Generally speaking, Christians (and many other religious people) believe that fetuses are persons because they believe that the criterion for personhood consists of having a soul and that fetuses become soul-bearing entities at the moment of conception.  But you do not have to believe in a soul to worry that the distinction between a mostly-developed fetus and a recently-born infant is morally arbitrary.  However the criterion for personhood is cashed out, it will have serious implications for the broader moral theory and the political rights and laws that extend from it.

Because the concept of personhood is so closely tied to moral and political rights, some members of the pro-life constituency have allied themselves with activists for certain politically disenfranchised groups, including the mentally and physically disabled.   Both pro-life and disability rights activists share the common belief that some groups of persons have moral rights which they may not be able to defend on their own, and they find common cause in their perception of themselves as defenders of these rights.  For this reason, it is not surprising that many pro-life activists have adopted a rhetoric that appeals to the social-justice values of other activists, rather than religious rhetoric about the sacredness of human life.  For example, some pro-life activists have begun using the politically-loaded term “eugenics” to describe certain common pre-natal tests that give pregnant women information about the health and development of their fetuses.

Pro-life activists argue that the practice of testing fetuses for Downs Syndrome, Tay-Sachs, and other genetic disorders or diseases amounts to eugenics because pregnant women are likely to abort fetuses that are not normal or perfectly healthy.  Of course, on a purely definitional level, this is true.  Any practice that seeks to promote good or improved offspring is eugenic, including the practice of non-random mate selection, in which nearly every reproductively active human participates.  If a pregnant woman could undergo some sort of treatment that could alter the chromosomal mutation of her in utero fetus rather than aborting it, the practice would be equally eugenic; it just wouldn’t involve abortion.

Were there a procedure available to suppress or alter genetic disorders so that a fetus with such a disorder could be born as a normal, healthy baby, most mothers would undergo such a procedure.   For example, if a pregnant mother-to-be learned that she was carrying a fetus with Downs Syndrome, and the doctor gave her the option of a procedure which would guarantee that her fetus was born a “normal” baby or the option of aborting the fetus and trying again, it is likely that the mother would undergo the procedure to make her baby normal.  No such procedure exists, of course, but this hypothetical possibility is relevant because it illuminates the crucial distinction between pro-life activists, and disability rights activists.  Pro-life activists have no reason to oppose a procedure that improves the fitness, health, or life expectancy of an in-utero fetus, and they have a good reason to support such a procedure if it is an alternative to abortion.  They can (and probably should) support eugenics of this type.  Some disability rights activists, on the other hand, do have a reason to oppose a procedure like this (and, in the case of some disabilities, they have), because eugenics of this type poses the threat of extinction for the population they mean to protect.

If no children were born with disabilities, older people with disabilities would, as a matter of course, become a smaller and more politically vulnerable minority, and eventually people with certain disabilities might die out entirely.  Many people without disabilities do not find this a worrisome or problematic possibility, but those who believe that the existence of persons with disabilities adds valuable diversity to society at large do worry about it, just as most of us worry that the extinction of a minority race or ethnicity of people -even through entirely voluntary, non-genocidal, reproductive choices made by individuals- would be bad.  In fact, the endangerment of a minority group of people is the outcome that gives the practice of eugenics a negative moral connotation.

It is disingenuous for pro-life activists to use the word “eugenics” with full awareness of this negative moral connotation to make an argument against abortion.   Virtually everyone practices some form of eugenics when they participate in selective mating with the intended purpose of producing healthy offspring with the traits they value.  Pro-life activists do not care about most of these eugenic practices, and there is nothing in their position that commits them to valuing the continued existence of some vulnerable minority group within society.  The only eugenic practices they want to restrict are those which terminate the life of a fetus, regardless of what kind of life that fetus might grow up to live.

“Who counts as a person?” and “what obligations do we have to other persons?” are two of the fundamental questions of moral theory.  Insofar as any of us care about preserving a minority group’s rights we must be concerned with these questions because people in virtually every minority group have been denied equal rights in society when their status as equal persons under the law was denied.  But our interest in protecting the rights of minority groups composed of those we do count as persons does not commit us to the claim that fetuses are persons who should be afforded the same rights.  Pro-life activists cannot motivate their case by drawing an analogy between the unborn and other historically politically vulnerable minority groups without first making an independent argument that the cases are relevantly similar.  In other words, they need to make the case that fetuses are persons.  Without that, their rhetoric of human rights is empty, and their talk of eugenics is a rhetorical red herring.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Abortion, Eugenics, and Human Rights”

  1. katy Says:

    interesting ideas. i never realized that choosing a partner is kind of like practicing eugenics.

    are you going to do a post on the morality of abortion?? plz say yes!

    • Liza Says:

      I’m glad you found my post interesting. I will do a post on abortion if I get an idea that is interesting, but if you would like to read an important philosophical paper on the topic, I would recommend Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Defense of Abortion:

      http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

      If you read it and want me to refer you to some other philosophical essays, I will be happy to recommend some other things as well.

  2. unifiedfieldtheoryfound Says:

    Salvationists state that people are not animals, and physically base that statement on the fact that there are no living links between animals and people. The reason there are no living links between animals and people is that all those links were exterminated by people.
    These programs of extermination have become deliberate and organized. Adolph Hitler had the volumes of Helena Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine”, and “Isis Unveiled”, in the book case that was right next to his bed. This system of evolution was explained in more simple terms in Max Heindel’s “Rosicrucian Cosmoconception”, in which species, races, and nationalities are listed in order of their designated superiority.
    Jews were considered to be the remains of the “third evolution of the fourth race”, thus, inferior to the “fourth evolution of the fourth race”. This scheme was derived from the “Secret Doctrine”, which supposedly derived it from ancient writings from Tibet. The scheme repeated itself holographically, repeated systems within systems, with the greater scheme representing the descent of life from the spiritual (1), to the astral (2), to the ethereal (3), to the physical (4).
    But, on the way down, life in the spiritual had the consciousness of minerals, life in the astral had the consciousness of plants, life in the ethreal had the consciousness of animals, and then, life in the physical had human consciousness. The evolution of life back up, in the ethereal (5) will have the consciousness of angels, in the astral (6) archangels, and back up in the spiritual (7) principalities.
    In this system there are higher evolutionary life waves so that angels are the group spirits of groups (like families, teams, etc.), archangels are the group spirits of organizations, and, principalities are the group spirits of societies. The Greek word for group spirit, also derived from the root “dem”, from which we get our word “democracy”, is “demon”.
    Coincidently, this system was actually based on the Hebrew Kaballah: the spiritual, which the Jews called Atziluth; the astral, called Briah; the ethreal, called Yetzirah; and, the physical called Assiah. All freemasonic symbolism is based on the Jewish tradition, yet, before the mid Twentieth Century Jews were not allowed to join the lodge. Later Jews were allowed to have their own freemasonic lodges, but were deprived of the supreme grand secret which, thanks to modern medicine, can be printed on a bumper sticker: “Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD”.
    Adolph Hitler closed all freemasonic lodges? He only allowed his own lodge to exist secretly. Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Tito, were Thelemite freemasons; and today, Mugabe is a Thelemite freemason. The falcon, Ra Hoor Khuit (Horus) is on the Zimbabwean flag. This idol was found in ancient ruins in Zimbabwe, and it was back in those ancient times brought down from ancient Egypt; but, Mugabwe adopted the current, ubiquitous Thelemism for his Machiavellian goals. And, Thelemism is based on that ancient Egyptian scheme that was brought down to Zimbabwe in ancient times.
    It is conspicuous that all the major “satanic” cults promise immediate nonexistence after death, to avoid the return of all the evil karma caused by such cruelty. It has always been quite obvious that “In the one substance, energy, motion can only be in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind”, so that even these satanists knew that their evil karma was on the way back to them; but, if they became nonexistent, they wouldn’t exist to feel it.
    Even the Ninjas believe that Benzeiten (Ben Satan?), the Japanese Kali (Satan in drag), will absorb them into nonexistence. Kali is the personification of Nothingness. And, Kali promised her Thugee nonexistence after death. Adolph Hitler also belonged to the Order of Satrurn (Satan), and Aleister Crowley’s Thelemite O.T.O, the Agentum Astris (The Great White Brotherhood, also known as the Illuminati today),as well the the Thule Society.
    In the Thelemite bible, Liber Al Vel Legis (Liber Evil Legis) in the first chapter, Nuit (the personification of the infinite nothingness of outer space) promises to absorb her worshipers back into nothingness after death. But, a selfish disregard of others begins in chapter one. In chapter two it starts to get elitist and nasty. Chapter two is Hadit’s chapter, and he represents the infinitesimal point nothingness. Chapter three is Ra Hoor Khuit’s chapter, and it is atrocious, commanding murder and torture of all those considered inferior.
    The Illuminati’s Guide Stones in Georgia order that the population of the human race be reduced to only fifty million people. The other six billion five hundred million of us are to be exterminated. The concentration camps are built; and, efforts are being made to eliminate our Constitution. With a Muslim in power there is an attempt to put America under an Islamic government, which will enable the Illuminati to exterminate everyone who knows their supreme grand secret, “Vagal stimulation is as effective as LSD”.
    In the past this knowledge of our own bodies was kept secret particularly to identify descendants of Cro Magnon Man. All Cro Magnon males have Double Y Chromosomes, and easily stumble upon this secret. Many malicious lies have scandalized Double Y’s. Any male caught knowing anything about this secret was genetically tested for Double Y “syndrome”, and if the test was positive, was, at the very least, sterilized. In the socialized medicine summit of 1995, it was promised that all Double Y’s would be “locked up” (imprisoned for life). Now, that the whole human DNA has been read, female Cro Magnons can now be identified.
    Before modern genetics, Cro Magnons, called the Anakim in the Bible, were suspected of being Cro Magnons by their instinctual knowledge of the supreme grand secret. Surely some Homo Sapiens were mistakenly captured during this perpetual inquisition since the beginning of “civilization”; but now, six billion five hundred million people are to be exterminated. And, the “inquisition” will continue to keep the population from exceeding five hundred million. It is no wonder that there are no species, or subspecies, between the human race and the animals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: