DOC PREVIEW
Stanford BIO 118 - Study Notes

This preview shows page 1-2-3 out of 10 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 10 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Mainstream Eugenics: A Moral Imperative? Any discussion of eugenics must begin with a definition of the term itself. While the most basic meaning, etymologically speaking, is “well-born,” (Hampton) Francis Galton, cousin to Charles Darwin, first defined the term eugenics as primarily: the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. (quoted in Harvard Law Review) Clearly, the contentions that some moralists have with eugenics stem from the latter half of Galton’s definition. Galton, in a rather egregious manner, has falsely associated the entire concept of eugenics with a particular ideology, in this case the idea that there are “inferior” races that should be actively prevented from producing progeny. The idea that certain peoples should be encouraged to breed, while others should be discouraged from doing so, gives rise to the terms positive and negative eugenics, respectively (Hampton). The search for examples of either need not consume us unduly. Any practice that advocates race supremacy, white, black, or otherwise necessarily advocates positive eugenics to propagate that race—white couples having white kids, black couples having black ones; The laws imposing sterilization of those deemed mentally feeble (first enacted in the US by Indiana in 1907) are principal examples of negative eugenics. The problems with these terms, positive and negative, are readily apparent. The use of them, especially in the latter case, recalls the repugnant acts committed in their name. Unfortunately, in the minds of some, eugenics has become synonymous with these acts, when in fact eugenics, strictly speaking, is a purely scientific expression (or should be).Nonetheless, considering that eugenics does involve the direct manipulation of life, the ethics involved are of primary concern. In this paper, I will present the moral arguments raised by opponents of eugenics and present refutations to them. I will then argue that the best course of action regarding the future of eugenics, in the form of genetic selection and genetic enhancement, should be to incorporate some of the basic tenets of what Nicholas Agar calls liberal eugenics (Fox), but that this laissez-faire liberality should be tempered by a limited amount of government regulation. Before discussing the arguments against eugenics, it seems appropriate to discuss exactly what eugenic practices are being maligned. At its most basic, any person who chooses a mate based on how he or she wants their future kid to “turn out” is practicing eugenics. This practice has been occurring for generations, most especially among royals, with mixed results, and few would argue that it is unethical. Certainly, the decision of whom we choose to marry and why stands outside the purview of anyone but those whom it directly affects, with few exceptions (obviously, the state will step in occasionally, as in the case of polygamy or child marriage). Overall, however, the right to marital privacy forbids interference by the state in “activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education,” and that right would seem to extend to new procreative technologies, like in vitro fertilization (Harvard Law Review). Likewise, any parent who imposes piano lessons on his kids for the purpose of trying to improve musical ability or cognitive function, while not practicing eugenics specifically (as it is a practice that occurs after the offspring is born), is hoping to attain results similar to those produced by eugenics. One might argue that it is unfair that some children receive this special education while others don’t, perhapsbecause some parents have more discretionary income than others, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that it should be prohibited on moral grounds. Such practices occur all the time and are generally accepted. These previous arguments, regarding procreative liberty and the argument by analogy, form the basis of what Nicholas Agar calls liberal eugenics. Liberal eugenics further holds that the use of eugenics should be (1) voluntary as in free from coercion, (2) individualistic, on a child-by-child basis by individual families, and (3) without government intervention (Fox). The proposed mechanism for liberal eugenics, is of course, genetic selection and enhancement. In spite of the seeming logic of the preceding suppositions however, some moralists argue that when one starts applying these arguments to genetic manipulation, they do not hold up. What is being attacked then is the practice of stock improvement as it applies toward direct genetic interference via gene selection and gene enhancement. Gene selection as we currently understand it, arose as a natural result of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, “the process by which an embryo is microscopically examined for signs of genetic disorders” (Baird). Should a disorder be discovered, the afflicted embryo can be terminated or if discovered at a pre-implantation stage, as with IVF, an egg without the disease bearing genes may be chosen (Steere). Antenatal screening thus feeds directly into genetic selection. Perhaps the most obvious way in which this occurs is the use of antenatal screening to determine the sex of the child. Presumably, parents could choose to terminate embryos whose sex was not preferable to them. Such practices already occur in some states, China being the one that most readily comes to mind. It should be noted however that in China, there are strict laws that govern population control. Though some argue that allowing parents here to choose their child’s sex couldlead to an imbalance in the male-to-female ratio, by and large studies have shown that in countries where procreation choices are largely left up to the family unit, as in the United States, there does not seem to be any drastically preferred choice of boys over girls, or vice-versa (Fox). Gene enhancement involves the alteration of genes to produce a desired effect (Baird). The arguments for and against gene selection and gene enhancement are slightly different as


View Full Document

Stanford BIO 118 - Study Notes

Documents in this Course
Surrogacy

Surrogacy

14 pages

Load more
Download Study Notes
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Study Notes and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Study Notes 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?