« In Which I Praise David Brooks | Main | New ARG Polls »
July 31, 2007
More on "Eugenics"
Ross Douthat questions whether I'm right to term Down's Syndrome "medically disastrous." Brian replies:
Between the amount of money spent on supervisory care for a baby with Down's Syndrome, the amount of money spent on associated medical ailments for a baby with Down's Syndrome, the extreme mental retardation and physical disabilities of a baby with Down's syndrome, and the very early deaths of a very large percentage children with Down's syndrome, I'd say that Down's Syndrome is extraordinarily medically disastrous unless you're very heavily invested in the idea that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics.
In any case, Ross believes it's perfectly correct to term parents aborting fetuses with significant genetic abnormalities -- many of which would be fatal -- "eugenics." He writes that the ends are the same: "the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process." Suggesting that a couple who terminates their pregnancy because their son exhibits the marker for Tay-Sachs disease -- which will render their child blind, deaf, and unable to swallow, and then kill him around the age of 5 -- is seeking the "the genetic improvement of the human species" seems, again, a real stretch.
In any case, were Ross a biologist, or were he writing a scientific blog about genetics, I wouldn't quibble with his invocation of the word "eugenics." But he isn't. He's a political commentator writing for an august, mainstream magazine. Within that context, using the term "eugenics" is misleading as to what's actually being discussed. Even the definition Ross uses -- "the genetic improvement of the human species through the scientific management of the reproductive process" -- suggests a sort of societal engineering project aimed at enhancement, rather than families individually deciding to abort fetuses whose genetic mutations will cause great hardship, pain, and, in many cases, early death.
July 31, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It seems relevant that we're talking about--I believe--individual decisions, not a government (or otherwise) program. Not fucking your sibling and getting her pregnant? Also eugenics on his account, I think.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 31, 2007 12:55:16 PM
"that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics. "
Nobody aborts babies. the word is fetus.
Posted by: yep | Jul 31, 2007 1:02:43 PM
Ross missing a key fact:
"Eugenics" has always referred to grand top-down schemes in which the government or "society", had the power to decide who gets to reproduce and who gets to be born -- for the benefit of the collective.
No eugenics scheme, real or imagined, has ever allowed the parents to make their own decision, motivated by their own interests, regarding whether or not they want to have children.
When individual people make their own individual reproductive choices for their own individual reasons, regardless of the final effect, it is NOT EUGENICS!!!
Posted by: r4d20 | Jul 31, 2007 1:06:18 PM
It can not be "genetic improvement" anyway if there would be no reproduction because of an early death.
Posted by: RJ | Jul 31, 2007 1:29:18 PM
Would Ross call it eugenics if a person who knows she is at great risk of conceiving a fetus with Tay-Sachs or Downs declined to attempt a pregnancy at all? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: nolo | Jul 31, 2007 1:29:50 PM
It seems straightforwardly false that a mother will abort a fetus with Tay-Sachs or Downs syndrome out of a desire to improve the genetic profile of the human species. Preventing unnecessary and pointless pain and suffering is a much more likely and--completely defensible--reason for doing it.
So even under his tendentious definition of eugenics, it still isn't eugenics.
Posted by: Patrick | Jul 31, 2007 1:34:06 PM
First of all, it's Down Syndrome, not Down's Syndrome.
Secondly, I'm appalled by Brian's ignorance about Down Syndrome, and the not-very-enlightened attitudes his post exhibits. Yes, Down Syndrome is a serious disability, but to call it "medically disastrous" and harp on how "costly" it is is a very loaded and problematic value judgment.
The fact is, most people with Down Syndrome have IQs in the mild to moderately retarded range -- very few are in the severe or profound range. People with Down Syndrome are at higher risk for a range of physical problems, but proper physical therapy, medical care, and education at an early age has dramatically improved their health, life span, and cognitive functioning.
In a former life I was a social worker with people with developmental disabilities so I know something about this condition and about disability in general. My clients with Down Syndrome were actually among the healthiest and highest-functioning of the developmentally disabled population I worked with. Many of them held jobs and some were even able to live independently.
Really, Brian should take some care to learn a little about this subject before posting about it -- otherwise he's just spreading ignorance and adding to he already heavy social stigma that disabled people and their families have to bear in this society. Reading Michael Berube's wonderful book and essays about his son, who has Down Syndrome, would be a good start.
Finally, for the record I support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy for any reason including disability such as Down Syndrome, and I don't think that doing so amounts to eugenics. But I fear that too many people who choose to abort Down Syndrome fetuses act out of fear and ignorance about the condition.
No doubt about it, raising a developmentally disabled kid is rough, and believe me, I saw that very clearly with the families I worked with. But Down Syndrome is not a tragedy, nor is it a death sentence, and raising a Down Syndrome kid can have very great rewards. And personally I found it a joy to work with them. I left social work only because I saw how screwed up the system was and thought I could do more by working on things at a policy level, rather than with individuals.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 31, 2007 1:39:33 PM
Nolo raises an excellent point: I have heard of couples who choose to adopt or to use donor sperm because they know they carry the same recessive, and I've heard of Huntingtin's carriers who choose not to have children (Huntingtin's is that rare thing, a dominant-lethal, and is not lost from the gene pool because it causes lethality long after the onset of fertility). Technically, these people are making 'eugenic' decisions.
On the other side of the argument, Downs and other spontaneous defects often aren't inheritable genetic conditions, and so aborting affected fetuses technically isn't 'eugenics'. Curiously, aborting a Tay-Sachs homozygous fetus also isn't 'eugenics', as this victim of inherited disease cannot reach adulthood and thus will not transmit the condition to the next generation (aborting a Tay-Sachs heterozygous fetus, which is not an event I've heard of, would be 'eugenics').
The point is that in the context of a political/ideological debate, 'eugenics' doesn't mean exerting decisions about your own reproduction on the basis of knowledge that your offspring will suffer from serious disabilities. It means a massive, usually state-led, movement to discriminate children, teenagers, and adults, and to sterilize and murder those of whom it disapproves. Genetics - and even the technical meaning of 'eugenics' - has little or nothing to do with it.
Allegations of 'eugenics' are just another Godwin's law violation, and deserved to be treated as such.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Jul 31, 2007 1:50:00 PM
Brian said,
I'd say that Down's Syndrome is extraordinarily medically disastrous unless you're very heavily invested in the idea that aborting a baby with Down's Syndrome constitutes a type of eugenics.
Most parents who choose to have babies with Down Syndrome don't have a single thought about eugenics. They make their decisions on other grounds, and often don't view it as a medical disaster (though it certainly is in some cases--there's a lot a variability). Kathy explained much of the reality of this.
Suggesting that a couple who terminates their pregnancy because their son exhibits the marker for Tay-Sachs disease -- which will render their child blind, deaf, and unable to swallow, and then kill him around the age of 5 -- is seeking the "the genetic improvement of the human species" seems, again, a real stretch.
I agree, but this again raises the question of function vs. intent. Those who want to speak of functional racism seem to be in a position that would warrant also speaking of functional eugenics, at least in some cases (Down Syndrome not being a prime case, though one might try to make it fit less directly).
Within that context, using the term "eugenics" is misleading as to what's actually being discussed.
Which is also an objection to speaking of racism as a functional matter.
I noticed that Megan used the term "eugenetics," perhaps to try to reach some middle ground.
R4D20, not all eugenics was about top-down programs, but to distinguish those the term "personal functional eugenics" could be used.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 1:50:12 PM
yep
Having had a personal experience with this, I can assure you that everyone in the room used the term "baby" - my wife and doctors included . It personalized the process and made it much more difficult, but I think it added the necessary weight to the decision process.
Posted by: DM | Jul 31, 2007 1:55:40 PM
I said it in the earlier thread (as have others) and I'll say it again: the critical distinction is between central planning of human reproduction (by someone) and individual choice. I thought this was a basic, important distinction for conservatives like Ross! Planning bad, personal choice good!
No one's trying to 'improve the species' in the situations we're talking about. They're trying to avoid having personally to raise a genetically damaged child.
As SCMT points out, if this is eugenics then so is literally *any* reproduction-related choice. Mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person? Clearly you're seeking "the genetic improvement of the human species". Decline to have kids because some bad hereditary disease runs in your family? Same thing. Abort a pregnancy that's the product of incest? Ditto. Heck, malformed fetuses often abort on their own. God's a eugenicist!
By this logic, for a woman to prove to Ross she's not a eugenicist she would have to carry to full term any unwanted fetus -- unwanted for any reason -- and give the baby up for adoption. It reads like an attempt to construct a back-door argument for forced pregnancy.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 31, 2007 1:57:18 PM
Look, whether or not a pregnant couple (ok, pregnant woman and her partner, if she has one) wishes to abort a fetus which has down syndrome is a difficult and heartbreaking issue. My good friend's younger brother has down syndrome. He's a wonderful young man. Full of life and energy. He's competed in the special olympics in swimming. He's great. On the other hand, his life and the life of his parents has been very difficult. Medication after medication, struggling to get him adequate education from a public school system, constant worries about medical issues that are associated with down syndrome, and, of course, having to watch lots of pro-wrestling with him (ok kidding, but seriously the kid was and is nuts about it).
I know there is NO WAY they would have it any other way, but I wouldn't tell others what to do if they were faced with such a decision. It has been a rewarding struggle for the whole family, but a very tough one.
As for Ross, again, it's silly to argue this is not eugenics. Of course it's not. If all parents were REQUIRED to abort fetuses that tested positive for down syndrome, then it would be akin to eugenics. But engaging this argument is fruitless. If you want to engage this argument you should do so by "mock and attack." Saying "I'm not a eugenicist" just moves the debate to "Is Ezra a Nazi?" Of course it's absurd, but you're not debating the merits of safe and legal abortions anymore, so problem solved!
Posted by: IMU | Jul 31, 2007 1:57:21 PM
I just read over Ezra's post from yesterday and realized that he was the first person to use the "medically disastrous" epithet. So sorry Ez, but what I said to Brian above applies to you, too.
And to elucidate further -- I think it's the height of asininity to tar a woman who aborts a fetus with Down syndrome with the eugenics brush. Just put yourself in the situation of a woman whose fetus has just been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The reason you might consider abortion in this case is because you harbor grave doubts about your ability to care for a Down Syndrome kid. Being the parent of a disabled kid can be a huge challenge. Compared to a non-disabled kid, that child will require more one-on-one care, more medical attention, and certainly more money, and that's just for starters. You also have to learn to navigate the special ed system and the social service system for kids with disabilities. All that can be extremely stressful and time-consuming.
So you'd have an abortion if you thought that would all be too much to deal with, emotionally and financially. But Jesus H. Christ, you're going to have an abortion because you think: "Ah! It is incumbent upon me to purify the master race of mental defectives!" I mean, okay, if you're a Nazi you'd think that. But everyone else who would consider abortion in this situation would do so purely for personal reasons, not ideology. Douthat is quite the asshat if he imagines otherwise.
Posted by: Kathy G. | Jul 31, 2007 2:03:17 PM
Here's the point: Douthat is objectively pro-incest. I'm uncomfortable with that, and even strongly support government efforts to prevent such. But I'm a Democrat. That said, as an American, I absolutely believe in Douthat's right to argue to advance his sibling-fucking agenda. I just oppose that agenda myself.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 31, 2007 2:29:19 PM
The Douthat idea is a weird way to describe eugenics. The whole idea to reproduce the "best" humans who have the "best" genes. So why does this have any bearing on kids with Tay Sachs or other disorders where those children will not be able to reproduce. Abortion or no abortion those genes aren't translated across generation. It would be eugenics if the parental gene carriers were not allowed to reproduce, forced to undergo screening, etc.
While Down's patients can live long enough to reach sexual maturity the concept still holds as it's vanishingly rare for Down's patients to have children of there own. Again with or without the abortion the same thing occurs as the "faulty" genes aren't transcribed. Totally different from the Nazi eliminating adults/children etc who could reproduce and pass there genes along.
Posted by: pioneer10 | Jul 31, 2007 2:44:44 PM
you can't *improve* a society's gene pool by preventing the births of individuals who will never contribute to the gene pool in any case.
Posted by: Cody | Jul 31, 2007 2:52:20 PM
The reason you might consider abortion in this case is because you harbor grave doubts about your ability to care for a Down Syndrome kid. Being the parent of a disabled kid can be a huge challenge.
Bingo... I'm not at all philosophically in favor of aborting a Down-Syndrome fetus, but it's becoming increasingly likely that I might in fact do so, were I faced with that painful decision. Nothing to do with eugenics (and I though DS was congenital, not genetic), but I have to be realistic about my own mental, emotional, and financial resources, factoring in likely support from family and friends, not to mention the fact that my own expected lifespan could be a problem given that DS kids live much longer than they used to. Really, the questions of capability are the same as they are for healthy pregnancies, but the term is much longer and the challenges much greater.
Posted by: latts | Jul 31, 2007 2:53:22 PM
The Douthat idea is a weird way to describe eugenics.
I don't know if it's been said yet, but here's what's going on. Douthat used an asinine wingnut talking point to bolster a shitty argument about "progressives" being evil. Then he got called out on it. Now he's looking for crumbs in every nook and cranny possible to support his ridiculous statement instead of just saying "boy, it was really stupid to equate modern progressives with eugenicists".
I think the discussion has been interesting, and I've learned a thing or two about both Down's Syndrome and eugenics, but this whole thing started because Douthat was an asshat, and is too embarrassed to admit it.
Posted by: Seitz | Jul 31, 2007 2:54:35 PM
Sorry, when we do invoke Godwin in this discussion? Isn't Eugenics just dog whistle for Nazi?
This is why "arguing" with "mainstream conservatives" is usually as pointless as arguing with any republican. And I think if Godwin isn't enough the phrase, "aborting babies" should have been the next clue this was wasted effort.
Posted by: ice weasel | Jul 31, 2007 2:54:37 PM
Sorry, one more thing.
"I'm not at all philosophically in favor of aborting a Down-Syndrome fetus,"
or variations of it.
I don't get it? Can we get over the fuzzy, "I know a great kid with Down Syndrome" crap and move into the reality we're discussing? Who would choose to have a child afflicted with Down, Tay-Sachs or something of that order? No matter how nice the kid you know with it may be, truth is, it's not a life anyone I know would *choose* for their child. So if they get a choice, finding out about it early in pregnancy, why not abort fetuses with such problems and try again? Or not?
Forced pregnancy, no matter how you dress it up, is a nasty proposition.
Posted by: ice weasel | Jul 31, 2007 3:05:08 PM
"Mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person? Clearly you're seeking 'the genetic improvement of the human species'."
Actually, not really. In order for the choice to mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person to improve the genetics of the species as a whole, your choice of attractive person A over ugly person B would need to have a meaningful impact on the likelihood of person B getting to mate at all, and it doesn't. Most people who want to reproduce end up doing so. What you're actually doing is attempting to improve the genetic profile of your _own_ descendants, which is very different.
Similarly, given that most Downs syndrome people don't reproduce, a governmental program to abort Downs syndrome fetuses won't effect the genetics of the population as a whole, although it may result in removing a certain small amount of burden on the overall economy. On the other hand, an individual's choice to abort a Downs syndrome fetus _does_ have an impact on the viability of his or her own genetic line since (in cold genetic terms) a Downs syndrome child is less likely to reproduce, probably takes the place of a child who would reproduce (since most families have a fixed number of children), and uses resources that could have otherwise been invested in the wellbeing of children who would reproduce.
Eugenics must, by definition, prevent reproduction by people whose reproduction would be likely to spread undesireable genetic traits due to the likelihood of the offspring also reproducing.
Posted by: Galen | Jul 31, 2007 3:07:55 PM
ice_weasel, I just meant that I didn't think Down fetuses should be aborted, for 'eugenic' reasons, economic ones, or anything else. Generally no one would prefer that their child be born disabled, impaired, relegated to lower social status (by way of race, gender, religion, economics, etc.), or have his/her options limited in any way: we want their possibilities to be endless. But we all have different levels of personal tolerance, and what we consider to be unavoidable problems are still subjective judgments. Some people (and until I approached my mid-thirties, I was one) would consider DS to be a manageable disability, in that it wouldn't be difficult enough for them to prefer termination. The same goes for any other obstacle that our offspring might face, really... every reproductive calculation is highly individual.
Posted by: latts | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:09 PM
Here's the point: Douthat is objectively pro-incest.
The most important reasons not to allow incest between adults have nothing to do with birth defects and genetics. They relate to the need for family relationships in which sex isn't a complication. Using birth control doesn't render adult incest much less problematic. Which isn't to disagree with the point you're trying to make. What do you think of racism construed functionally, without regard to intention, though?
you can't *improve* a society's gene pool by preventing the births of individuals who will never contribute to the gene pool in any case.
There are other conditions, such as cleft palate, where the genes are passed on. There are abortions and other reproductive selections made on the basis of such conditions.
Isn't Eugenics just dog whistle for Nazi?
No, or it certainly shouldn't be.
No matter how nice the kid you know with it may be, truth is, it's not a life anyone I know would *choose* for their child.
Probably not. Neither is being 5'4" as an adult male. I'm not sure that's a good way to draw the line.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:13 PM
ice weasel, the argument at hand is that if people educated themselves they weren't learn that parents of Down Syndrome kids tend to be no less "satisfied" with their parenting experience as others--but that, thanks to attitudes like yours, people assume that to be impossible. People who would ignorantly class Down Syndrom and Tay-Sachs in the same "order."
And that these facts are entirely consistent with a willing to fight to the uttermost against forced pregnancy.
Posted by: Ykcir | Jul 31, 2007 3:26:48 PM
i think tarring all down syndrome kids with the same brush as tay sachs is an overreach (after all, life expec. of DS is now 40-50 from what i recall). that being said, i suspect most couples wouldn't carry a DS fetus to term (that seems to be what the numbers suggest).
p.s. TS is an autosomal recessive. that means you need to have two copies of the gene, which is why marriage between carriers (1 in 25 ashk. jews) is discouraged in the hasidic community. carriers who are secular jews and want a family can always use reproductive technology and abortion to weed out the 1/4 of fertilizations which are problematic.
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 3:39:35 PM
Kathy G.: "First of all, it's Down Syndrome, not Down's Syndrome."
Either is correct - American scientists tend to say Down, others use Down's. The same goes for most other syndromes named after people.
Galen: "Similarly, given that most Downs syndrome people don't reproduce, a governmental program to abort Downs syndrome fetuses won't affect the genetics of the population as a whole..."
Even if they did reproduce - the chromosomal defect that causes most Down's cases is not inherited; it's the result of a defective egg or sperm cell. In the one documented case of an adult with Down's having a child, the child had normal chromosomes.
Anyway... unless I'm missing something, the essence of Douthat's argument is that progressives are in favor of access to abortion, and abortion can be used for eugenic purposes, therefore progressives are in favor of eugenics. This is ridiculous for reasons that have nothing to do with the motives behind particular abortions. It's like saying that if you oppose banning guns, you're in favor of bank robbery, hunting bunny rabbits, and suicide.
Posted by: Hob | Jul 31, 2007 3:48:18 PM
One thing to remember is that living with a disability is not life as you know it.
If a person with a disability does one thing out of the hundreds of things that make up your normal life, that is hailed as an accomplishment and proof that disabled people can live and enjoy a normal life.
It isn't. Eating one meal a year, or a series of meals made of stuff you wouldn't even recognize as food, isn't life as you know it. Being bathed when a helper can find the time is not the same as stepping in the shower when you want to freshen up.
It may be better, it may be worse, but it isn't life as you know it.
Posted by: serial catowner | Jul 31, 2007 3:50:14 PM
Hob-
Downs is Trisomy 21. It is often mosaic, but if it is in the germ cells it could in theory be inherited. But I'm willing to believe that few people afflicted with Downs have children.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Jul 31, 2007 3:56:39 PM
Downs is Trisomy 21. It is often mosaic, but if it is in the germ cells it could in theory be inherited. But I'm willing to believe that few people afflicted with Downs have children.
when i looked this up it suggested that
a) few of them reproduce (almost all females)
b) there is a heightened incidence of abnormalities in the children, so there is a difference in probabilities
finally, remember there are non-TS 21 DS around too.
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 4:04:30 PM
unless I'm missing something, the essence of Douthat's argument is that progressives are in favor of access to abortion, and abortion can be used for eugenic purposes, therefore progressives are in favor of eugenics
You are missing that he speaking only of abortions carried out to achieve genetic improvement. That doesn't save his position, but it's essential to understanding it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 4:04:49 PM
Down's syndrome is about the dumbest possible example of eugenics because there is no "gene" for Down's. It results from improper chromosome segregation during meiosis, and results in sterility.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Jul 31, 2007 4:09:39 PM
Down's syndrome is about the dumbest possible example of eugenics because there is no "gene" for Down's. It results from improper chromosome segregation during meiosis, and results in sterility.
1) i think we need to be careful about being too nerdy about definitions of 'genes' in eukaryotic organisms. chromosomal abberations are genetic variations after all, just like SNPs, copy numbers, regulatory problems, etc.
2) as i noted above, you are mostly right about chromosome segregation and sterility, but not 100%. DS females can reproduce, and there is at least once case of a DS male reproducing. i don't think this affects the thrust of your argument, but just to protect you against future "gotchas!"
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 4:17:36 PM
unless I'm missing something, the essence of Douthat's argument is that progressives are in favor of access to abortion, and abortion can be used for eugenic purposes, therefore progressives are in favor of eugenics.
I think the real essence of his argument was that liberals shouldn't hide from that term by calling themselves progressives, because a long time ago, some other people who also called themselves progressives who are virtually in no way related to present day progressives, were kind of into eugenics. I'm pretty sure it all started here.
Still, I don't think conservatives should consider it a great victory that the modern Democratic Party's leading candidate wants to associate herself with a political tradition that, insofar as it's philosophically distinct from liberalism (and obviously there are many historical complexities involved here), is from the conservative perspective more dangerously utopian as well. I take Matt's point that "Progressive" is basically just a useful umbrella term for a left-of-center coalition. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that it's a coincidence that the revival of progressivism as a political label has coincided with a more strident secularism/atheism, a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.), and a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left.
It then took on new life here.
Progressivism, after all, has a very mixed history in American politics, which takes in not only efforts to reform labor laws, bust trusts, and create national parks but also some serious doses of racism, social Darwinism, eugenics, and a very strange mix of authoritarianism and out of control populism (a point well made by Marty Peretz recently as well).
It was all pretty dumb from the start. When you're citing Peretz as an ally, you should just admit you're full of shit.
Posted by: Seitz | Jul 31, 2007 4:35:39 PM
"Mate with an attractive/smart/healthy person? Clearly you're seeking 'the genetic improvement of the human species'."
Actually, not really.
Galen,
I believe you failed to detect my sarcasm. I don't believe mating with an attractive/smart/healthy person is an act of eugenics any more that aborting a fetus with a genetic or developmental defect is.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 31, 2007 4:35:41 PM
If Douthat really cared about the argument, he'd be attacking those libertarian nutjobs who want to commodify everything, who do actually want something like a "Gattaca-ized" society with designer babies and all that. You know, like Francis Fukuyama did, forseeing how the consumerist wing of glibertarians would inevitably, if "free to choose," create a bourgeois class of perfect barbie babies (fugs and short ppl and fatties etc would remain in the poor and working classes which couldn't afford to pay for the designer gene technology). But no, Douthat don't do that because attacking the potential of eugenics-via-market doesn't serve his true purpose of slagging Progressives.
Like my old pal Seitz said above, Douthat is just an asshat.
Posted by: HTML Mencken | Jul 31, 2007 5:46:36 PM
Mencken, Douthat does exactly what you say he doesn't here.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 6:00:39 PM
DM
I appreciate your point. but facts are facts and until it is born it is medically a fetus.
It is certainly a serious issue and should be treated as such, but to label a fetus a baby is not accurate and is a loaded term for reasons which you yourself thoughtfully put to words.
Posted by: yep | Jul 31, 2007 7:24:21 PM
You are missing that he speaking only of abortions carried out to achieve genetic improvement. That doesn't save his position, but it's essential to understanding it.
"Genetic improvement" wasn't a goal of eugenics in any meaningful sense because eugenicists neither understood how genes functioned nor the significance of DNA. As stated elsewhere, they drew their models for "improving the breed" from the barnyard and the kennel.
As a methodological matter, any decision to abort based on modern genetic science is by definition not eugenics because genetics has invalidated the methodological assumptions which defined that pseudoscience. You might as well argue that alchemy is identical to chemistry or astrology to astronomy.
Moreover, it remains unclear that aborting due to a genetically based defect would equate with "genetic improvement" since decreasing the incidence of defective births has no substantive impact on the occurence of the defective gene in the population as whole.
Reducing the incidence of birth defects wasn't a particular concern of eugenics in the first place. The eugenicists aimed at the complete elimination of entire bloodlines they deemed "inferior", a goal that individual instances of selective abortion can't begin to approach.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Jul 31, 2007 7:28:45 PM
, any decision to abort based on modern genetic science is by definition not eugenics because genetics has invalidated the methodological assumptions which defined that pseudoscience.
the greatest evolutionary geneticist of the 20th century, r.a. fisher, was a eugenicist. also, as i'm sure you know, the concept of the gene predates the knowledge that DNA was the substrate by 2 generations, and some of the earliest geneticists (e.g., charles davenport) were firm eugenicists.
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 8:31:00 PM
As a methodological matter, any decision to abort based on modern genetic science is by definition not eugenics because genetics has invalidated the methodological assumptions which defined that pseudoscience.
Only in part. There was never any doubt that breeding works, that it does actually improve breeds. Your taking the incorrect assumptions of older versions of eugenics (which still exists as a cause by that name) as essential, whereas Douthat thinks the basic idea of improving the breed is what's essential.
Reducing the incidence of birth defects wasn't a particular concern of eugenics in the first place.
It was and remains a primary concern of some eugenicists. The Nazis and those of similar thought were hardly representative of eugenics; it was a far broader movement based on applying the principles of science to producing a better race.
Moreover, it remains unclear that aborting due to a genetically based defect would equate with "genetic improvement" since decreasing the incidence of defective births has no substantive impact on the occurence of the defective gene in the population as whole.
I don't follow this. If those who would be born expressing a defect are more likely to pass on both the underlying genetic cause (expressed or not) and the expressed defect itself to their descendants, then if fewer are born expressing the defect, the incidence of both the cause and the defect will decline.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 31, 2007 10:22:49 PM
I don't follow this. If those who would be born expressing a defect are more likely to pass on both the underlying genetic cause (expressed or not) and the expressed defect itself to their descendants, then if fewer are born expressing the defect, the incidence of both the cause and the defect will decline.
he might be talking about de novo mutations?
Posted by: razib | Jul 31, 2007 10:46:13 PM
yep
fair enough. in an abstract discussion such as this, you're right. but for those making these decisions, such technicalities just don't exist.
Posted by: DM | Jul 31, 2007 11:18:31 PM
and yep, the tone of your response is appreciated.
Posted by: DM | Jul 31, 2007 11:19:10 PM
Surely allowing people to choose their own sexual partners is a worse form of eugenics than legalized abortion, since the latter tends to happen most of the time without thought to the specific genetics of the fetus but the former has some genetic component 99% of the time.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Aug 1, 2007 8:34:05 AM
I don't follow this. If those who would be born expressing a defect are more likely to pass on both the underlying genetic cause (expressed or not) and the expressed defect itself to their descendants, then if fewer are born expressing the defect, the incidence of both the cause and the defect will decline.
I suppose it turns on how likely "likely" is. To whit, while it may true that "those who express the defect" are more "likely" to pass it on to their offspring in an abstract model, exactly how likely is it, as a practical matter, that such individuals will reproduce?
Now if we look backward in human history prior to the advent of modern medicine, the answer is not very likely at all. Most human cultures culled the obviously deformed at birth via infanticide. Any who survived this whose defect to didn't lead to mortality prior to puberty would have had great difficulty finding a mate.
So my question to you is whether you possess any hard data indicating that reproduction by individuals expressing a defect produces any statistically significant impact on the occurance of the defective gene in the population a whole?
If you're limiting your assertion to defects that aren't visible, I'll grant the point. However, since eugenics for the greater part of its history lacked the tools and methodology to discern such hidden defects, they could hardly have been a primary concern of its practitioners.
Let me stress once more that lessening the occurance of a defect or its underlying cause was not, strictly speaking, the goal of eugenics. Eliminating entire "defective" bloodlines presumed to produce such defects was. Aborting an individual fetus expressing a defect does nothing to substantially forward this goal. From the eugenicist's perspective, sterilization of the entire family group would have been the mandated course.
the greatest evolutionary geneticist of the 20th century, r.a. fisher, was a eugenicist. also, as i'm sure you know, the concept of the gene predates the knowledge that DNA was the substrate by 2 generations, and some of the earliest geneticists (e.g., charles davenport) were firm eugenicists.
Your citation of R.A. Fischer is apropos since his career is illustrative of eugenics disengagement from the science of genetics. As I'm sure you know, Fischer joined the exodus of scientists from the Eugenics Society in 1934 when it became apparent that the society could not be placed on sound scientific footing.
Certainly the "concept of the gene", as you have carefully phrased it, was known but a concept isn't the thing itself. Which is why Fischer's reputation in the first half of his career rested on statistical analysis of observable traits in populations rather than direct lab research. Likewise, what came to be known as DNA was first isolated at the begining of the 20th century but not comprehended as such until 40 years later.
Let me stress here that I am not a scientist, much less a geneticist. I'm just an interested layperson. If my lack of expertise has led me into error, I'd be obliged if it were explained to me.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 1, 2007 11:29:08 AM
Neither is being 5'4" as an adult male.
Really? Because I'm that height and have no problems living. Sure, I would be considered short by most people's standards, but not abnormally so if you saw me?!?! Thats pretty low man.
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 1, 2007 11:57:06 AM
Amanda, you might be able to make an argument along the lines you suggest, but it would require a good deal of reworking. Abortion in general isn't at issue here, only abortion as a means of genetic selection, while selecting a mate doesn't exclude anyone from having a mate.
WBR, someone with cleft palate is significantly more likely to pass on the genetic cause and the defect to descendants. They are also highly likely to reach reproductive age and marry, especially given modern reparative techniques. I've read about this in regard to cleft palate in the past, as both my father and sister were born with severe cleft palate, but I don't have handy any hard data for you. I just did a quick google search that revealed a study estimating heritability (a technical term I don't know the particulars of) of cleft lip and/or palate in one population at .97, which is of course very high (whatever it means).
The effect is far more acute with a condition like Huntington's, which an affected parent has roughly a .5 chance of passing on to each child, who will typically not be affected until her 30s.
Eugenicists were every bit as concerned about nonvisible defects as any others. They understood that if someone died at 40 of some unknown cause, there was a higher chance that his descendants would also have shorter lives.
Let me stress once more that lessening the occurance of a defect or its underlying cause was not, strictly speaking, the goal of eugenics.
But it was. Eliminating entire bloodlines, the only means available at the time, was a means to exactly this end.
Aborting an individual fetus expressing a defect does nothing to substantially forward this goal.
Neither does the sterilization of a particular individual, yet that was a primary technique espoused. The effects only become significant on the larger level when many people do the same thing, but each case has some effect.
Adrock, please read the context of what you quoted from me, and consider the reason I said it, which actually assumes that there is nothing really wrong with being 5'4" as an adult male. That was the point, that we probably wuldn't want to abort fetuses on the basis of the likelihood of such a trait, yet parents on the whole wouldn't choose it for their sons.
Thats pretty low man.
Cute.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 1, 2007 12:33:58 PM
Sanpete, I have no argument with your point about the likelyhood that someone expressing a genetic defect is more likely reproduce it in an offspring, so reiterating that point in percentages doesn't really address my objection. It's a question of material outcomes. Can you demonstrate that such births occur with a frequency great enough to produce a statistically significant variation in the incidence of the defective gene in the population as a whole?
To put it another way, what is the percentage of defective genes inherited in this fashion compared to those passed on by nonexpressive carriers? Without knowing this we can't know whether suppression of such births would significantly decrease the incidence of the defective gene. This question is integral to judging whether, in fact, such suppression could be reasonably described as forwarding the agenda of eugenics. If you are arguing that a single case of such suppression is sufficient, then I'd say you are well into metaphysical territory.
Eugenicists were every bit as concerned about nonvisible defects as any others. They understood that if someone died at 40 of some unknown cause, there was a higher chance that his descendants would also have shorter lives.
Except that this wasn't and isn't necessarily so. There is a genetic factor in longevity to be sure. But there are myriad other factors involved having little to do with heredity. Generations of a family that have grown up in harsh subsistance with substandard nutrition, sanitation, medical care, etc. would exhibit the pattern described. Eugenicists had no means to separate said factors from inherited proclivity and generally ignored the former in favor of the latter.
I would add that these same caveats applied to the "nonvisible defects" that actually concerned eugenicists the most, such as intellectual capacity and "social fitness". Further, it is precisely this proclivity for assuming heredity as causative regardless of all other factors that distinguishes eugenics from modern science of genetics.
But it was. Eliminating entire bloodlines, the only means available at the time, was a means to exactly this end.
No, the expressed goal of eugenics was racial hygene or "improving the breed". Suppressing the incidence of defects was incidental to this goal as was the reproductive fate of any particular individual.
Neither does the sterilization of a particular individual, yet that was a primary technique espoused. The effects only become significant on the larger level when many people do the same thing, but each case has some effect.
I specified the sterilization of the entire family group, not a particular individual.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 1, 2007 1:53:54 PM
WBR, the answers to your questions are implied in what I've already said. Huntington's, for example, since it shows up in roughly half of offspring from a single affected parent, is obviously a dominant trait and won't be transmitted very much without being expressed. I can't answer your questions specifically in relation to a condition like cleft palate, but it follows from what I've said that there will be a significant difference due to reproductive selective on a large scale. I've already addressed the point about individuals vs. groups. Every large-scale social phenomenon is made up of individual acts.
They understood that if someone died at 40 of some unknown cause, there was a higher chance that his descendants would also have shorter lives.
Except that this wasn't and isn't necessarily so.
If you mean that we're only talking probabilities, and that the particular man's descendants may actually have above average longevity, that's obviously true and irrelevant to what I said. That he died at 40 of unknown cause makes it more likely that his descendants will have less longevity, as a purely actuarial matter. And that is a sound basis for a eugenic tactic of not having the children of such men reproduce.
But there are myriad other factors involved having little to do with heredity.
As there are to the amount of milk a cow gives or the shape of a dog's head. But on the whole selecting for or against a trait is a sound eugenic policy even if the reasons for the trait are completely unknown. That includes the tendency to longevity, an invisible trait.
Eliminating defects has never been incidental to improving a breed. It's part of the goal. I can't tell why you seem to think otherwise.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 1, 2007 2:50:21 PM
Every large-scale social phenomenon is made up of individual acts.
And the significance of this statement is?
That he died at 40 of unknown cause makes it more likely that his descendants will have less longevity, as a purely actuarial matter.
Really? That the cause of death is unknown may simply be a function of the limits of contemporary medical knowlege or the capacity of the practitioner in question. If you are in fact refering to an actuarial authority, I suspect the criteria isn't fully described.
BTW, the original contention was not whether abortion was ever a eugenic tactic but whether a particular choice of abortion forwarded eugenics as an agenda. Two distinct propositions.
But on the whole selecting for or against a trait is a sound eugenic policy even if the reasons for the trait are completely unknown. That includes the tendency to longevity, an invisible trait.
If this is your standard, anything less than complete indifference to pre-natal health and heredity would qualify as eugenics.
Eliminating defects has never been incidental to improving a breed. It's part of the goal. I can't tell why you seem to think otherwise.
Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual arguments historically made by the eugenicist movement?
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 1, 2007 4:30:21 PM
And the significance of this statement is?
I think the point is clear enough in context.
That the cause of death is unknown may simply be a function of the limits of contemporary medical knowlege or the capacity of the practitioner in question. If you are in fact refering to an actuarial authority, I suspect the criteria isn't fully described.
Again irrelevant to whether what I said is true, which it plainly is.
BTW, the original contention was not whether abortion was ever a eugenic tactic but whether a particular choice of abortion forwarded eugenics as an agenda. Two distinct propositions.
I clearly explained which I was addressing.
If this is your standard, anything less than complete indifference to pre-natal health and heredity would qualify as eugenics.
Thank you for making a much broader version of my point about functional construals.
Eliminating defects has never been incidental to improving a breed. It's part of the goal. I can't tell why you seem to think otherwise.
Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual arguments historically made by the eugenicist movement?
Clearly not for that reason, since eliminating defects was always part of the goal. An ideal with obvious defects isn't an ideal.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 1, 2007 5:41:59 PM
OH Goodness. YOu all are misinformed. I can't believe I read most of this crap. But since my google alert on DS led me here.. I am now here. A Few of you .. I agree with.. many of you .. WOW. I am dazed.
Life Expectancy of a PERSON with Down Syndrome is 65-70 and getting more "typical" since the big problem was holes in the heart. As medicine progresses this becomes easier to fix.
The implimentation of Early intervention has led to most people with DS being able to do most normal things. YESS they can drive if they can pass the test.
Lonliness is actually the number one complaint of adults with DS. Perhaps cause 90% of like peers have been aborted.??!!And maybe they feel that they are " not wanted around" . You guys sound like a bunch of E.Scrooges.. " die now.. decrease the surplus population." ARE YOU all HUMAN???
The adoption wait list for a child in the US alone, with a Dx of DS is two years at the shortest. There are literally hundreds of families who have a child with DS or have experiance with people, maybe a sibling who actually WANT to give these kids homes.
Taking a bath with a helper is still taking a bath. Life as you know it is THE life you know.
Most people with DS are garden varity - not genetic- non mosaic - But something that happens to ANYONE in the early cell division. Most males with DS are considered sterile. But is that cause they just dont have the chance to have sex? or are they really sterile is still a matter of debate in medical circles.
I beleve it is euginics. Its getting rid of a "problem " baby you may or may not have intended to concieve. Text book Nazi definition, no. But its an elimination of a peoples becuase of some inhuman reason. What are you going to do when its possible to genetically test for homosexuality in utero? where will it stop? I personally dont "want" a gay child, but I sure the hell would not kill the child. Will all of you stand by then when we start aborting regularly on Gender selection? or Homosexuality.. or what about a tendency to be obese. Really.. all those heavy people eating more, requiring more medical care, decreased life expectancy, needing helpers to get in and out of bath tubs or beds, etc etc. What kind of life are we letting those morbidly obese people life. ( I am being sarcastic here.. )
DYK that many believe the secret to curing alzheimers may lie in people with DS? Poke around at Stanford university's work. See what benifits have been found for people who DON't have DS becasue of research for those HELPING people with DS.
Since someone brought party line politics into the scene.. I will never vote demacrat untill they actually stand for what they say they stand for. Diversity, progress, etc. Where is the diversity when kids with dS are aborted just cause they are genetically different? What do Jews, Gypsy's and People with DS all have in common? Someone is always trying to get rid of them. DO you know its hard to find an African American with DS.. KNOW WHY cause they are HEAVILY pressured with the " you can't do it" " its too hard" by the clinic. Yep.. do a google on it if you don't believe me.
So you all can waste your time arguing on if its a dictionary definition or not, JUST Heartless.. Where is all the politically correct talk now? I am disqusted. I am going to take my daughter, who has Down Syndrome, out for an evening walk now. She is one of the few sane people I know. You guys just don't know the impact or reality of what your doing. Forced pregnancy.. BOLOGNA. Its nine months for crying out loud and people are begging to adopt. What's better? Living a life not beating yourself up for aborting? or living a life knowing you gave MORE than one person ( the child and the adoptive family) the gift of life.
Geez.. I gotta say.. I am disqusted. America is going down the tubes. Give us your tired your hungry,, etc as long as they are not going to burden us. Geez. GREEDY. Take a chill people. Go out and spend some time with HUMANS - find your hearts and your courage. Make it a better place, not a more dark and dreary, and hateful place. And according to you all, I am the one that is supposedly to be "pitied". Don't pity me. My Kid with DS taught me more than 18 years of schooling. How to be human.
If I were you all, I would be more afraid of the nut driving the car behind you tomorrow during your commute. Than having a child with a differablity.
Good luck and God Bless,
Steph
Posted by: Steph | Aug 3, 2007 9:00:45 PM
Steph, no one here is advocating aborting fetuses with Downs Syndrome. Thanks for helping to educate. Hope you and your child had a nice walk.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 4, 2007 9:57:50 AM
