Even if all human life is sacred (including at the zygote stage), you could still try to push things in a better direction by selecting for better quality people before the point of conception.
well it depends right - some people say conception to mean a fertilized egg prior to implantation - which i understand Nomen to mean, otherwise i've no idea what his comment is saying. there's no "before" fertilisation/conception for a person - at that point it's a separate egg and sperm.
ahhhh i see. i thought he meant selecting people at the zygote stage which was somehow pre-conception, hence why i thought he was using the term differently. my mistake, apologies Nomen :)
i still think it's nightmarish to choose only the most promising genomes to be allowed to procreate. that's still eugenics, it's just not eugenics that requires murder
Genuine question to all y’all would-be eugenicists out there: we know we can improve health, IQ, human capacity and general happiness with some pretty easy fixes that don’t kill anybody. Clean water. Pollution control. Adequate nutrition. Education. Basic healthcare. Vaccines. Why not do that and leave mengele rotting in his grave where he belongs?
Does the life of a clinical psychopath have intrinsic value? Did God create him? Did God create his (likely entirely genetic) neurological defect which causes his propensity to enjoy torturing people and animals? Did God imbue him with incurable malice? What of the pedophile? It appears that too is of predominantly genetic origin. Does he too have intrinsic value? Yes, I will say it: such creatures should be exterminated from the earth. They have no intrinsic value. They have negative value, in fact. If we can prevent them from being born, so much the better.
What do you think of IVF? Normally, the clinic doesn't implant all of the embryos. Only the most promising ones get selected (Isn't that a form of eugenics?). If the pregnancy is successful, the unused embryos will remain in refrigerator heaven. Perhaps they will get implanted for a second pregnancy. Or perhaps never.
I've discussed this point with conservative Christians, and many take a nuanced position. If the goal is to have a family, that greater issue should take precedence over the lesser one of embryo selection.
I was surprised to learn that the Catholic Church has never ruled on whether or not life begins at conception. It opposes abortion for the same reason it opposes contraception: it is a form of interference in the natural transmission of life.
The Catholic Church very clearly teaches (we don't do "rulings" like the supreme court) that life begins at conception, and has taught this for as long as we've understood the science. Even before we understood the science of how conception works, we taught that abortion was a sin at any point in pregnancy (though not as serious a sin in the early days as it was after the "quickening", which in the days before fetal heart monitors and ultrasounds was the soonest you could identify life in there). more on this at the link below, if it interests you - https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/abortion-conception-and-ensoulment
In answer to your first question - the Catholic Church (and I, as a Catholic) is against IVF when IVF means some embryos don't get implanted. I agree it's a form of eugenics. I also agree that the goal of having a family is a wonderful one that should be supported as much as possible - for example, by treatment for underlying fertility issues and excellent medical care for pregnancy. But having your own biological child is not essential to having a family - adoption is an option and a good one if you can't manage it biologically without the sci-fi-esque horror of (admittedly tiny) children sitting in refrigerators until they're thrown in the trash.
The word you’re looking for is “magisterium.” It’s not simply the teachings of the Church. It’s a body of texts that form canon law and are considered beyond dispute. Much of the Church’s magisterium comes from ecumenical councils, whose workings are like those of a supreme court. Precedents are examined, experts are heard, and deliberations are carried out to reach a consensus.
I once attended a weekly talk led by a Catholic layman, and one week he told us that God creates a human soul at the moment of conception. This was, he emphasized, Church doctrine. When he was challenged on that point, he agreed to consult the local parish priest. The next week he apologized, saying that the Church was unsure of the time of ensoulment.
As for in vitro fertilization, I have known many couples who have resorted to it, including several Catholic couples. I am convinced that the world is a better place with their children than without them.
Is adoption an alternative? I don’t think so. Most people wish to have children of their own. It’s a profound biological desire, and none of us would be here if our ancestors had lacked that desire. This is the way the world works. Without it, life would have never progressed beyond its simplest forms.
There is a second problem, no less intractable. The fathers of adoptees are often men with low IQ, high time preference, and high propensity for aggression. This has been shown by a number of studies, such as the following one of American adoptive families:
“Adoptees were more likely than genetic offspring to have ever received public assistance, been divorced or been arrested. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to have ever required professional treatment for mental health, alcohol and drug issues.”
“This supports other research showing that, compared to genetic children, American adoptees have a higher overall risk of contact with mental health professionals, specifically for eating disorders, learning disabilities, personality disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder … They also have lower achievement and more problems in school, abuse drugs and alcohol more, and fight with or lie to parents more than genetic children.”
What would Elizabeth's world look like if it were to come to fruition? Would it be healthier, smarter more compassionate? Or would it be more disease-ridden, stupid and cruel? I presume Elizabeth accepts the reality of heredity yet for theological reasons trying to improve humanity is bad because it violates Christian doctrine about "loving" everyone. Elizabeth's world would be Christian, but it would also be dirty, polluted, and overcrowded. Ignorance and ideology would prevail over scientific reality. Dysgenic fertility would be overlooked so long as the loving light of the Lord Almighty shone down on the faces of the 80 IQ gang bangers that roam the streets. Disease would run rampant. Those suffering a terminal illness would be forced to die in writhing agony. Rape victims would be forced to carry their rapists baby. This would in outcome be one of the cruellest most dysfunctional societies to ever exist and would probably lead to the end of human civilisation. But hey, I guess we pleased Yahweh?
We should be thankful that Elizabeth's sick worldview is slowly disappearing from this world. We are returning to a more healthy pre-Christian view of life that values health, not sickness. Christianity held progress back in Europe for hundreds of years before the Enlightenment. We should be thankful this millstone is being taken off our collective civilisational back and thrown onto the ash heap of history.
My world view isn’t dying out buddy, who do you think has the higher fertility rates? Rich would-be eugenicists living in developing countries or the billions of Catholics, Hindus and evangelical Protestants who agree with me?
The movement is towards secularism. The more educated and connected, the more likely you are to be secular. The children of the religious will be educated by secular teachers in secular institutions. In order to attain prestige and status they will give up the backward religious ideas that their parents made them parrot. It has really already happened. Ignorance will perish. Science will triumph.
eh. y'all have been saying this since about the 17th century and we're still here.
embedded in this comment is also the old fallacy that science and religion are at odds - an objective study of the history of the catholic church (i recommend God's philosopher's or the works of Stanley Jaki, for example) will demonstrate this very clearly. the Church is not against science - it's against deifying the pursuit of knowledge and technological innovation to the point that ethics (especially the ethics of the sacredness of personhood) are wiped out.
Does the life of a clinical psychopath have intrinsic value? Did God create him? Did God create his (likely entirely genetic) neurological defect which causes his propensity to enjoy torturing people and animals? Did God imbue him with incurable malice? What of the pedophile? It appears that too is of predominantly genetic origin. Does he too have intrinsic value? Yes, I will say it: such creatures should be exterminated from the earth. They have no intrinsic value. They have negative value, in fact. If we can prevent them from being born, so much the better.
I'm sorry, but actually the Greek gods are the true ones, and they make a person in an assembly line in the clouds. I just feel it in my heart. Pesky scientists and thinkers deny Zeus? Just wait for that righteous lightning on your ass. Hera told me in a dream embryo screening is OK. So... respect my faith.
😂 I won’t. This is one where my religion is just correct and yours isn’t. Kind of like how the Quakers, not the southern Baptists, we’re right about slavery.
Even if all human life is sacred (including at the zygote stage), you could still try to push things in a better direction by selecting for better quality people before the point of conception.
Did you read the bit about when it becomes a person? Fertilisation. Not implantation.
Conception is a synonym of fertilization.
well it depends right - some people say conception to mean a fertilized egg prior to implantation - which i understand Nomen to mean, otherwise i've no idea what his comment is saying. there's no "before" fertilisation/conception for a person - at that point it's a separate egg and sperm.
It doesn't "depend." The two words are synonymous. Just admit you were mistaken and move on. Is that difficult for you?
Nomen is talking about encouraging smarter people to marry earlier and have more children.
ahhhh i see. i thought he meant selecting people at the zygote stage which was somehow pre-conception, hence why i thought he was using the term differently. my mistake, apologies Nomen :)
i still think it's nightmarish to choose only the most promising genomes to be allowed to procreate. that's still eugenics, it's just not eugenics that requires murder
Genuine question to all y’all would-be eugenicists out there: we know we can improve health, IQ, human capacity and general happiness with some pretty easy fixes that don’t kill anybody. Clean water. Pollution control. Adequate nutrition. Education. Basic healthcare. Vaccines. Why not do that and leave mengele rotting in his grave where he belongs?
Does the life of a clinical psychopath have intrinsic value? Did God create him? Did God create his (likely entirely genetic) neurological defect which causes his propensity to enjoy torturing people and animals? Did God imbue him with incurable malice? What of the pedophile? It appears that too is of predominantly genetic origin. Does he too have intrinsic value? Yes, I will say it: such creatures should be exterminated from the earth. They have no intrinsic value. They have negative value, in fact. If we can prevent them from being born, so much the better.
Yes, let's do dysgenics-by-female-mate-choice instead of eugenics. Improving human condition would be horrible!
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/do-women-really-select-for-intelligence
What do you think of IVF? Normally, the clinic doesn't implant all of the embryos. Only the most promising ones get selected (Isn't that a form of eugenics?). If the pregnancy is successful, the unused embryos will remain in refrigerator heaven. Perhaps they will get implanted for a second pregnancy. Or perhaps never.
I've discussed this point with conservative Christians, and many take a nuanced position. If the goal is to have a family, that greater issue should take precedence over the lesser one of embryo selection.
I was surprised to learn that the Catholic Church has never ruled on whether or not life begins at conception. It opposes abortion for the same reason it opposes contraception: it is a form of interference in the natural transmission of life.
The Catholic Church very clearly teaches (we don't do "rulings" like the supreme court) that life begins at conception, and has taught this for as long as we've understood the science. Even before we understood the science of how conception works, we taught that abortion was a sin at any point in pregnancy (though not as serious a sin in the early days as it was after the "quickening", which in the days before fetal heart monitors and ultrasounds was the soonest you could identify life in there). more on this at the link below, if it interests you - https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/abortion-conception-and-ensoulment
In answer to your first question - the Catholic Church (and I, as a Catholic) is against IVF when IVF means some embryos don't get implanted. I agree it's a form of eugenics. I also agree that the goal of having a family is a wonderful one that should be supported as much as possible - for example, by treatment for underlying fertility issues and excellent medical care for pregnancy. But having your own biological child is not essential to having a family - adoption is an option and a good one if you can't manage it biologically without the sci-fi-esque horror of (admittedly tiny) children sitting in refrigerators until they're thrown in the trash.
The word you’re looking for is “magisterium.” It’s not simply the teachings of the Church. It’s a body of texts that form canon law and are considered beyond dispute. Much of the Church’s magisterium comes from ecumenical councils, whose workings are like those of a supreme court. Precedents are examined, experts are heard, and deliberations are carried out to reach a consensus.
I once attended a weekly talk led by a Catholic layman, and one week he told us that God creates a human soul at the moment of conception. This was, he emphasized, Church doctrine. When he was challenged on that point, he agreed to consult the local parish priest. The next week he apologized, saying that the Church was unsure of the time of ensoulment.
As for in vitro fertilization, I have known many couples who have resorted to it, including several Catholic couples. I am convinced that the world is a better place with their children than without them.
Is adoption an alternative? I don’t think so. Most people wish to have children of their own. It’s a profound biological desire, and none of us would be here if our ancestors had lacked that desire. This is the way the world works. Without it, life would have never progressed beyond its simplest forms.
There is a second problem, no less intractable. The fathers of adoptees are often men with low IQ, high time preference, and high propensity for aggression. This has been shown by a number of studies, such as the following one of American adoptive families:
“Adoptees were more likely than genetic offspring to have ever received public assistance, been divorced or been arrested. They also completed fewer years of schooling and were more likely to have ever required professional treatment for mental health, alcohol and drug issues.”
“This supports other research showing that, compared to genetic children, American adoptees have a higher overall risk of contact with mental health professionals, specifically for eating disorders, learning disabilities, personality disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder … They also have lower achievement and more problems in school, abuse drugs and alcohol more, and fight with or lie to parents more than genetic children.”
Gibson, K. (2009). Differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children. Evolution and Human Behavior 30: 184-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.01.001
What would Elizabeth's world look like if it were to come to fruition? Would it be healthier, smarter more compassionate? Or would it be more disease-ridden, stupid and cruel? I presume Elizabeth accepts the reality of heredity yet for theological reasons trying to improve humanity is bad because it violates Christian doctrine about "loving" everyone. Elizabeth's world would be Christian, but it would also be dirty, polluted, and overcrowded. Ignorance and ideology would prevail over scientific reality. Dysgenic fertility would be overlooked so long as the loving light of the Lord Almighty shone down on the faces of the 80 IQ gang bangers that roam the streets. Disease would run rampant. Those suffering a terminal illness would be forced to die in writhing agony. Rape victims would be forced to carry their rapists baby. This would in outcome be one of the cruellest most dysfunctional societies to ever exist and would probably lead to the end of human civilisation. But hey, I guess we pleased Yahweh?
We should be thankful that Elizabeth's sick worldview is slowly disappearing from this world. We are returning to a more healthy pre-Christian view of life that values health, not sickness. Christianity held progress back in Europe for hundreds of years before the Enlightenment. We should be thankful this millstone is being taken off our collective civilisational back and thrown onto the ash heap of history.
My world view isn’t dying out buddy, who do you think has the higher fertility rates? Rich would-be eugenicists living in developing countries or the billions of Catholics, Hindus and evangelical Protestants who agree with me?
The movement is towards secularism. The more educated and connected, the more likely you are to be secular. The children of the religious will be educated by secular teachers in secular institutions. In order to attain prestige and status they will give up the backward religious ideas that their parents made them parrot. It has really already happened. Ignorance will perish. Science will triumph.
eh. y'all have been saying this since about the 17th century and we're still here.
embedded in this comment is also the old fallacy that science and religion are at odds - an objective study of the history of the catholic church (i recommend God's philosopher's or the works of Stanley Jaki, for example) will demonstrate this very clearly. the Church is not against science - it's against deifying the pursuit of knowledge and technological innovation to the point that ethics (especially the ethics of the sacredness of personhood) are wiped out.
Does the life of a clinical psychopath have intrinsic value? Did God create him? Did God create his (likely entirely genetic) neurological defect which causes his propensity to enjoy torturing people and animals? Did God imbue him with incurable malice? What of the pedophile? It appears that too is of predominantly genetic origin. Does he too have intrinsic value? Yes, I will say it: such creatures should be exterminated from the earth. They have no intrinsic value. They have negative value, in fact. If we can prevent them from being born, so much the better.
I'm sorry, but actually the Greek gods are the true ones, and they make a person in an assembly line in the clouds. I just feel it in my heart. Pesky scientists and thinkers deny Zeus? Just wait for that righteous lightning on your ass. Hera told me in a dream embryo screening is OK. So... respect my faith.
😂 I won’t. This is one where my religion is just correct and yours isn’t. Kind of like how the Quakers, not the southern Baptists, we’re right about slavery.