With
rising health costs and the dramatic loss in public interest in the sciences it
has become a concern whether or not our children are living up to their
potential. The scary thing I propose is; what if they are? What if our crime
rate is due to genetically inferior beings being born to genetically inferior
parents? Are you a product of your make-up? Research has an answer to that and
the newest details say yes. Yes it is. The solution to this and many other
problems should and could be humanitarian Eugenics. By humanitarian Eugenics I
mean that we should view this problem not by exterminating undesirables from
the gene pool but instead weeding them out through successive generations of
selective breeding programs.
Another way toward this goal would
be the abortion of unwanted and genetically inferior fetuses inspected via
genome sequencing in utero (Mattei 505). What if, to say, you and your
significant other found out that you were having a baby? Mazel tov! After
either celebrating or crying over your ruined life you find out that the baby,
through non-invasive prenatal testing (Meehan, 87), your unborn bundle of joy,
will come out with fully formed Down’s syndrome? Would you want to keep it
knowing its quality of life would be hindered and even more important, your
quality of life? Would you want to know this before going through with your
pregnancy? Unless you are a religious zealot you’d probably opt for an
abortion, thus saving your time and money and that of our American healthcare
system.
The problem that comes up most often
when the subject of eugenics is that we all supposedly have a right to reproduce
and every unborn child deserves a chance. What if you knew your child would not
have a fair advantage due to being severely retarded or perhaps is a carrier of
a terminal virus? Would you really want that child to live that life?
My problem with our current society
is that we still hold to the motto that every man (and woman) is created equal.
If people would just open their eyes, they would realize that this is
definitely not true. Take me for example. I’m short and heavy set. I have a
predisposition to drugs and alcohol and I encompass a myriad of emotional and
mental disorders. Thankfully, I have found the right treatments for my ailments
but am I really equal to a taller, more athletic, genius level IQ man or woman
with no mental disorders? No. In fact, my reproducing could be harmful for the
population at large, seeing as I would be passing my ill-gotten genes onto a
poor unknowing little person, dooming them to a life time of mental and
physical anguish. Plus, a taller, sexier person is more fun to look at.
Should I be able to reproduce and
burden society with my offspring? The answer is no. That would, in a perfect
world, be a crime. However, there have been advancements in the fields of
genetic engineering and cell surgery to produce the best our genomes have to
offer (Fox 1). However, this is still years away from being a viable option for
near do well prospective parents.
In a chat with a like-minded
colleague (Erin Chamblee), we have devised a plan that would cut down on
unwanted pregnancies and that of offspring with ill-gotten genetic traits. I
propose that we institute a licensing program instituted by the government Board
of Health. Just the way you’d get a license to drive, you should be tested and
pass a survey of qualities and IQ tests in order to reproduce.
Far be it from me to ask that all of
humanity submit to these sorts of tests, but this is in a perfect world; imagine
no disease, cancer, mental illness, or violence. Who knows what the world would
have been like if Osama Bin Laden’s mother had to have herself, and her mate,
tested prior to producing him? It would have never come to term because we
would of, first, denied them the right to make him and second, as a fetus,
genetically screen him for aggressive and homicidal traits Based on said
homicidal traits, he would be aborted.
I know that many people would love
to become parents, but I should draw a distinction between want and need.
People may want to reproduce but it’s almost never taken into consideration
whether or not this would be good for humanity at large.
I bring upon the idea brought on by
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in response to those who oppose
abortion, who introduced me to the idea of the Beethoven fallacy (Dawkins, 298).
The Beethoven fallacy states that if you abort your baby, you could of just
aborted the next Beethoven or Einstein. My problem with this is that for one,
what if it became the next Hitler? Another thing would be to reiterate the fact
that if your genealogy has no spectacular academics or family with any certain
positive trait, then you will most likely produce an average to below average
child.
The idea that everyone is entitled
to offspring is outdated in my opinion. Another nail in the pro-life coffin is
the fact that we already have so many people on this Earth that there is
already a shortage of food and medicinal care for everyone. Sooner or later a
quarter of humanity will die out in a Darwinian fashion. We must think
Darwinian if we are to progress in this life.
The majority of humanity may very
well oppose the concept of eugenics, but I think the Nazis using it gave it in
the way that they did gave it a bad rap. I am not talking about genocide, but
instead implementing a licensing program with existing human beings. Those who
qualify for reproduction will be able to breed legally and those unfit will
not.
It is supposed that reproduction is
a basic human right and obviously those who subscribe to pretty much any
religion in existence will oppose the idea. But to them I ask, why let unfit
and abusive beings reproduce and bring a child who may be overly aggressive by
design into a violent and / or oppressively poor household (I say poor, both in
the financial sense as well as emotionally and intellectually). A child may be doomed to repeat mistakes that
his or her parents have previously done and would do so in the sense of nature
and nurture.
The idea that a fetus must not be
aborted does not actually appear anywhere in the standard King James Bible, in
which most Christian religions take their teachings from. The hypocrisy of the
situation is that it does however teach the concept of ‘an eye for an eye’,
stating that those who commit certain crimes should not be subject to God’s
punishment and mercy (he’s pretty big on that in the New Testament), but
instead we as humans dole out his wrath.
Why must we draw the distinction
here? We get rid of those who are undesirable and unfit for civilized society
yet we do not give this same distinction toward those who have yet to be
produced via the tried and true method of sperm and egg unitization. We have
the capability not to do this and it will only gain acceptance as the newer
generations accept the sciences as a rock solid fact of life.
Religion and fundamentalism are on
the decline as society begins to think for themselves, but there is still a
strong right in this country and it is very vocal despite its declining
numbers. Hopeful successes have already come to fruition with a newly elected
mostly liberal congress and forward thinking president.
Again, as I said, I am not stating
that we euthanize those less desirable than the top percent, but it would be a
good start to sterilize those with a family history of vagrancy and poor living
skills. It has been said that your genetics do not determine the person you
are. Happily this myth is being debunked little by little every day as science progresses.
You
are your genes. Do you really want to pass them on?
Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, Oxford Press, 2006
Fox, Dave, The Illiberality of ‘Liberal Eugenics’, Journal Compilation 2007, 1-25
Meehan, Mary, Eugenics Triumphant
in Prenatal Testing, Human Life Review,
Fall 2012, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p87-104
Mattei, Jean
Francois, Humanity and Human DNA, European
Journal of Medical Genetics, 2012, 503-509
Holland, Brian, Way
Down The Line, Ixnay on the Hombre, 1996
