Scientists recently announced that they are perfecting a maternal blood test that will permit technologists to map the entire genome of the developing fetus. Unlike amniocentesis, which requires the insertion of a needle into the womb to obtain amniotic fluid, the test would come earlier in the pregnancy and put the fetus at no risk—unless that is, it reveals unwanted genetic conditions or propensities. In such cases, the fetus’s very life would suddenly be at material and immediate risk.
In a culture in which all people are valued equally regardless of their health or capacities, fetal genetic testing would be a splendid way to reveal the need for prenatal treatments or to allow parents time to prepare for a child with special needs. That’s precisely how Todd and Sarah Palin reacted when the learned their youngest child Trig has Down syndrome. Long before he was born, they absorbed the emotional shock and then joyfully welcomed their son with open arms.
But such unconditional love cuts against the current cultural zeitgeist of our times. Consider: About 90 percent of fetuses testing for genetic conditions such as Down and dwarfism are terminated to the moral support, if not outright cheering, of much of society. It may seem harsh to say, but it is true nonetheless: We are in the midst of a great eugenic cleansing in which diagnosed imperfection often favors abortion.
There may even be overt pressure on parents to terminate from friends, family, and the medical community. The anti “defectives” message is vividly clear. When news came out in 2008 about the birth of Trig, Dr. André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, groused that it could dissuade women from terminating, telling the Globe and Mail, “The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.” After studies showed that genetic counselors most often push women toward abortion when their fetuses test positive for Down, the late Ted Kennedy (D, MA) and Sam Brownback (R, KS) jointly authored a bill requiring “neutrality” in genetic counseling. Meanwhile, an Oregon jury recently awarded a couple $2.9 million after learning that the parents would have aborted their Down daughter but for botched prenatal testing.
Eugenic abortion is only part of the problem. Embryos created through IVF are often genetically tested before implantation, with the genetically unwanted thrown out as mere medical waste or turned over to biotechnologists for rending and research. True, some of these tests seek to prevent terrible diseases such as Huntington’s. But some embryos have been destroyed because they have a genetic propensity to adult onset cancer. We have also seen IVF clinics advertising to cull embryos for purely cosmetic reasons, such as hair color. Sex selection embryo sorting and abortion are now a reality. The list goes on and on.
A cultural expectation is forming in which people believe they not only have a fundamental right to have a baby, but the concomitant right to have the baby they want—and by any technological means necessary. Worse, with genetic tests growing ever more sophisticated the potential that the fertility industrial complex will one day offer special order Gattaca-type babies is very real. (Gattaca depicts a future in which genetic engineering of embryos is universal and people considered genetically inferior are relegated to the fringes of society.)
Missing in the eugenics quest for perfection are the many significant would-have-been contributors to society we might prevent from being born. Indeed, we can easily trace who could have been lost had our contemporary technological prowess been developed a few hundred years earlier. Beethoven might never have born considering his destined deafness. If Lincoln was bi-polar or had the genetic condition known as Marfan’s syndrome, as some have speculated, he might well have been “selected out” in the hope that Tom and Nancy Lincoln’s next baby would have a less troubled nature. For that matter, the embryonic Winston Churchill might have been terminated when his genetic screeners warned his parents that he would have a predisposition for alcoholism. Similarly, Mother Teresa might have never been born had her parents known she would be diminutive and plain. Ditto Toulouse-Lautrec. And what if homosexuality turns out to have a determinable genetic component? There might never have been an Oscar Wilde.
Think about the everyday people whose absences would make our lives so much less full: The wise-cracking waitress with the club foot who makes Saturday morning breakfasts such a joy; the teacher whose students laugh at her speech impairment behind her back only to discover later that she changed their lives; the developmentally disabled man whose loving and selfless nature makes him the community favorite; the devoted father, like the late journalist and Bush Press Secretary (and my good friend) Tony Snow, who gave so much to his family and society before dying far too young from genetically-implicated colon cancer.
What a bitter irony. We claim to extol diversity and tolerance more than at any other time in human history—as we unleash a merciless reproductive pogrom to eradicate imperfection from the human condition.
That’s a crying shame. If I were to pick one human attribute to extol above all others, it wouldn’t be high intelligence, good looks, or athletic prowess—the usual targets for human improvement. Rather, I believe the most crucial human attribute is our capacity to love.
Nearly 2000 years ago, St. Paul wrote, “And now abide faith, hope, and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” Who among us exhibit a greater unconditional love capacity than our brothers and sisters with Down syndrome? To the extent that they and other “defectives” are unwelcome among us can be measured our own deficiencies as a society.
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.
RESOURCES
The Telegraph, Unborn babies could be tested for 3,500 genetic faults
Pocono Record, Ore. couple gets $2.9M for 'wrongful birth' of Down syndrome daughter
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Prenatal Diagnosis, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, and Cancer: Was Hamlet Wrong?
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
A couple that wishes to marry and have children, but who receives bad news in premarital genetic counseling, would not be wrong to call off the marriage and search for other partners (although it would, of course, be heartbreaking). This could be considered a form of "eugenics," I suppose, but I don't think anyone would criticize such a couple for not having the (possibly wonderful) genetically damaged children they might have had.
It seems to me that some of the reasoning here could be used to argue against unobjectionable medical interventions that prevented either genetic disorders from occurring in a specific child, or even prevented a potential child from being conceived. So much of this has to do with methods rather than goals.
As the parent of a spina bifida child, I can assure you that folic acid is not a definitively reliable preventative, but I do understand that one has to be directly involved to fully know what goes on in these situations. I fail to understand your reasoning, however, that preventing these conditions corresponds with 'eugenics'; if we had been able to prevent spina bifida developing, we would simply have had a non-disabled daughter, the same person, obviously with different challenges. Eugenics would entail deciding to murder her before birth, which I can testify would have meant an incalculable loss.
The word "eugenics" gets used very loosely in discussions like this, which I find unfortunate. Here's a dictionary definition which I think is helpful:
**********
1 : a science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities in a series of generations of a race or breed especially by social control of human mating and reproduction -- compare EUTHENICS, GENETICS
2 : the process or means of race improvement (as by restricting mating to superior types suited to each other)
**********
Testing for Down syndrome and aborting in cases where it is found really doesn't qualify as eugenics. Since Down syndrome generally isn't passed from generation to generation. You can't breed Down syndrome out of the human race by eliminating, over a certain time period, all the people with Down syndrome before they have a chance to reproduce. Down syndrome children are born to parents who don't have Down syndrome.
I think almost invariably, parents who have genetic testing and choose to abort a child with some kind of genetic disorder do it either with themselves in mind (they don't want to deal with the problems of having a child with a genetic disorder) or possibly with the unborn child in mind (they feel it is more merciful for a seriously disabled child never to be born). I think rarely or never do they do it because they are trying to better the human race genetically.
I agree that preventing birth defects is not really eugenics. It doesn't have to do with heritable characteristics the child will pass on.
However, eugenics is not necessarily evil and does not require killing. For example, if people are tested and discover they have the genes for Huntington's chorea, choosing not to have children could very well be considered eugenics, since the motive might go beyond not wanting to have a child with a genetic disorder, but trying to eliminate Huntington's chorea from the gene pool.
I disagree with Wesley J. Smith's use of the term "eugenic cleansing," since for the most part, what is under discussion is not controlled breeding of the human race with future generations in mind (although that could be part of it), but rather giving parents the option to abort "defective" unborn children, whether the problems are heritable or not. Generally abortion is looking at the current generation (the parents) and the next (the unborn), with little or no thought given to successive generations or the improvement of the race as a whole.
I hope your daughter is okay now. I didn't mean to imply that folic acid was 100% effective in preventing spina bifida. I was speculating about finding some nutritional preventative for Down syndrome (which almost certainly there isn't) and what would happen if it were 100% effective. Surely no one would object to a program to prevent all further cases of Down syndrome by making sure mothers used the preventative. But you are correct that there is a big difference between aborting a child with a genetic problem and preventing the problem from afflicting the child in the first place.
I see what you're saying, but debating over what exactly counts as eugenics doesn't really seem to address the main thrust of the article. I agree that most of what the author is decrying is abortion, but I don't think that's all.
I think what he's also condemning is this practice of judging the worth of human lives based on their characteristics, rather than valuing them simply for being human. People are valuable not because they are smart, or fast, or good-looking, or healthy, but rather are valuable simply because they are human. The implications of this culling practice are dark.
I take your point about the definition of 'eugenics' and accept that you are correct. I suppose the term has become broadened in my mind because of the evil deeds of the likes of Mengele, and those who carry out, and intend to extend, a latter day holocaust upon those they consider unworthy.
The evolutionist, which describes most of the eugenicists and abortionists, here admits by her deeds that there is an objective standard for the human genome. The very term eu (good) + genics (traits) confirms it. If they acted according to evolutionary theory, they would let nature take its course, since at least one of these mutations would no doubt (in their world view, no doubts are permitted about evolution) end up being beneficial to the survival of humanity. Instead, they know health, wholeness and beauty when they see it, and they covet it for their own families, oblivious to their hypocrisy.
The creationist or ID-er, which describes most of the pro-lifers, instead pleads for nature to take its course, because he believes in the transcendent virtue of valuing humanity because it bears the image of God, its Creator, even in a fallen world. They recognize that we, and our society, are enriched by having the poor and weak among us, since the glory of God can be displayed in such lives and the love and mercy of God may grow in ours.
True ugliness in a beautiful skin and true beauty in a container of clay, the tares and the wheat, the goats and the sheep, the left hand and the right hand, the thief and the penitent, the first become last and the last become first, the hypocrites and the pure of heart.
So will it ever be until the Son of Man appears, with eyes like a blazing fire, to reveal it all and to reward every man and woman according to their deeds. Then all these categories will neck down to just two, the damned and the saved:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What prison is more inhuman than a laboratory test tube in a cryogenic freezer? Who is more hungry and thirsty than a newborn baby left to dehydrate and starve after a failed abortion? Who needs clothing more than an infant just delivered from her mother's womb? Who needs medical care more than a premature baby?
May God have mercy on our nation and our world, and shelter us from the fearful wrath to come!
You say, "I see what you're saying, but debating over what exactly counts as eugenics doesn't really seem to address the main thrust of the article."
I am not disagreeing with the whole article. But I do note that the title is "Love is the Antidote to Prenatal Eugenic Cleansing," so quite naturally one expects the article to be about "eugenic cleansing" or eugenics. But very little of it is. Pro-life advocates seem very much "obsessed" (for want of a better and more charitable word) with Margaret Sanger and her involvement with eugenics. In retrospect, a great deal of what was said and much of what was done in the eugenics movement in the early 20th century in the United States is perfectly appalling. But I think the attempt to tie the current state of abortion in the United States to the old eugenics movement is largely illegitimate. It is as if there were so few arguments to persuade people against abortion today that pro-life advocates had to resort to "guilt by association" arguments, tying organizations like Planned Parenthood to the old eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and so on.
Michael Sandel has a lot to say about the kinds of issues discussed in this thread, and his book The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering is well worth reading. I just found on the web a talk that he gave, and although I have not had time to listen to it yet, I will give the link, because I am sure it is worthwhile:
http://fora.tv/2008/07/17/The_Case_Against_Perfection_Michael_Sandel
Also, his book was, I believe, and expansion of an article in The Atlantic, and that article is still available.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/2927/
What you say about your daughter is much what my sister and brother-in-law would say about my niece, who, because of seizures, is seriously developmentally disabled. She has had the best medical care and the best educational opportunities available, but she will never be able to read or write or live on her own. You might be interested in hearing "testimony" my sister gave to her church about her experience raising a developmentally disabled child. You need to go to the following URL:
http://www.mtzionumc.org/sermon-archives-2011
I think they put too much on the pages, so it takes a minute or two for the appropriate icons to load that allow you to play the audio files, but my sister's talk is "11-20-2011 Laity Sunday: Roberta Grimme."
It is not guilt by association, it is guilt. Evil. A defiled conscience.
Evil that is not repented of twists the conscience and compels the people involved, and the organization or family or nation, to commit more evil. Planned Parenthood and those involved have never repented of the sins of Sanger, and so they add their own layers of sin to try to cover over the old. Read about the process here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-the-revenge-of-conscience-38
Pro-lifers have a clear conscience and abortion supporters do not. The repeated references to Sanger are an appropriate attempt to rouse the consciences of abortion supporters to the full scope of evil that they embrace. Denying this connection is one more symptom of a guilty conscience and, well, denial.
In my view, the eugenics movement has changed its language, but little else. Essentially, its verbiage has become more neutral and anasthetic; it no longer mentions the groups that were routinely singled out in the past. Nevertheless, the Darwinian view of life, that is, the "natural right" of the strong to posses the weak, if anything, has intensified.
The quickest way to see thru this charade is to be one of the weak and powerless.
Relatively few abortions are about the health of the fetus at all (although with genetic screening it is likely that this kind of abortion will increase), and although there are no statistics one can draw on, it seems to me that regarding abortions chosen even because of health problems with the fetus, few of the choices are made with anything other than the child itself being a consideration. How many parents choose to abort because they are told their unborn child has a genetic anomaly that could be passed down to their grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on? The choice of abortion is almost never a matter of eugenics in its real meaning.
I'd like to point out also that there is another side that never gets mentioned when people talk about things like "the culture of death." Never has there been a better time for the disabled and people with genetic problems. In 1929, the life expectancy of a child born with Down syndrome was 9 years. Today it is 60. We do more now than every before to help parents with Down syndrome children and other disabilities. We do more about autism. We do more about kidney disease.
Much of what Wesley J. Smith seems concerned about in the future is no doubt real cause for concern. But there is a kind of "schizophrenia" in medical science. While more and more is being done in terms of prenatal screening that could potentially result in abortion, more and more is also being done to heal children with prenatal problems, including surgery in the womb. People with genetic conditions and disabilities get better care and are guaranteed more legal rights than ever before.
Not to get too political here, but those on the right who claim to be concerned about the sick, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor don't always seem to be willing to spend the money necessary to take care of them (and particularly if they are illegal immigrants, who are real people who suffer like you and me). And those on the left often go so far as to try to eliminate all differences between the disabled and the non-disabled, such as proposing massive changes to subway and bus systems here in New York that are so expensive that it would be cheaper to assign every disabled person a car and chauffeur.
What one person wanted to describe as neo-eugenics is not eugenics. Much of what Smith talks about is not eugenics by any stretch of the imagination, so how could it be neo-eugenics?
All I am saying is let's be clear about what eugenics is and is not.
>All I am saying is let's be clear about what eugenics is and is not.
I agree completely that it's important to be accurate in our language. Eugenics is a word that seems to be being used to obstruct the issue, not to clarify it.
There is a lot to be discussed here and it's important to define the issues carefully and to consult all the evidence we can.
You would think that more such evidence would be welcome here. But you would be wrong. It's too bad the moderators are so quick to exclude arguments and documentation that perhaps they haven't encountered before.
a book called: Mom Do I Have Special Knees? In this book we celebrate the love we
have for our son, Nick, who has Downs Syndrome. (If you would like to see our site,
momdoihavespecialknees).
Again, thank you Mr. Smith, for writing so well, and having such clear thoughts
on how God values the capacity to love.
God Bless,
Megan Dean
And how immoral and stupid will historians of the future decide we were to have again taken up eugenics so soon after the Nazi social experiment in it proved to be an unmitigated disaster of spectacular proportions?
We offend both God and rational humanity. We will be condemned by both.