More Civilized Society example essay topic

Because of the new wave of genetic technology there has been a strengthening in the eugenics movement. Although the ideals still generally remain the same, they have morphed into a new movement that seems more convincing for many people who live in this new century. Terms such as positive and negative eugenics are used to try to differentiate between old and new ideas, but it seems that the bottom line still remains the same and that raises many ethical questions. Things like prenatal screening and genetic engineering are strengthening and making eugenics a strong force in the new millenium. So we must ask ourselves, what is it that makes someone superior Is it strength, intelligence, work ethic, good looks What makes one life more worth living When many people hear the word eugenics they often think back to the holocaust as the main example, but sadly enough, eugenics is something that has been more widely practised and becoming more and more embedded in our society. Even going as far back as Ancient Greece, it was decided when a child was only a week old if they could be a good warrior.

If the inspector felt that the infant was not worthy, then he was left at the side of a mountain to be fed to the wild animals. More recently, during the 1960's and 1970's, thousands of poor black women were coercively sterilized by means of governmentally funded programs. Women were threatened with termination of welfare or denial of medical services if they did not consent to the procedures. So it was no surprise that when the birth control pill was introduced to black women in the 1960's that it was seen as a form of racial cleansing. Many claim that so many black women were sterilized without consent and for no medical reason that it was called the Mississippi appendectomy Teaching hospitals in the northern American states also performed unnecessary hysterectomies on poor black women as practise for their medical residents. This practise was believed to have started on the basis that there were many black women on government support and this would save the country a lot of money.

The use of prenatal testing is argued to be a form of eugenics in itself. If a mother is aware that her child will have downs syndrome when it is born then they have the option of aborting that child so it will not have to live a painful, short life. You could say that this is not being unfair and it is the ethical thing to do, but what if you are only relying on a probability If a mother finds out that her child has a twenty-five per cent chance of her child having downs syndrome, then is it ethical for her to abort the fetus on that chance Many would still say yes. How far can you go Is there a cut-off line The fact is that the line will not just be drawn at downs syndrome, it could be any physical abnormality. And it could be less than twenty-five per cent, it could be ten, or merely five. Bob Edwards, the scientist who created Britains first test-tube baby states that, soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.

He believes that with current and growing technology, that people should use prenatal screening and fertility treatment as a tool for social engineering. And maybe they should, but the problem with this is that the choice will soon be eliminated. It will be considered a sin to literally let nature take its course and even the refusal of prenatal screening can be seen as unethical. It might be easier to decide when talking about genetic diseases, but when you have the technology of genetic engineering, what is stopping you from changing merely natural features of a child.

Many people find moles and freckles to be quite the blemish to appearance and seeing that appearance is held very highly in our society, it is not hard to believe that if parents had the choice to change unwanted physical attributes, they would. It is also not hard to imagine that if they would go that far, then why wouldnt they choose sexual preference or even gender or musical talent or athletic ability. And according to the organization Future Generations 2, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking evolution into our own hands. Their main argument is that human intelligence is hereditary and that a high intelligence quotient is the main factor in deciding who is superior than others. They also state that intelligence is what progresses a society, but people with higher IQs have less children, therefore, society is gradually deteriorating. They also claim that people from inferior or so-called less-intelligent countries continue to immigrate to countries like Canada and America, the so-called superior countries because we are more civilized and civilization is based soley on intelligence.

This organization has many ungrounded claims and theories that sometimes if compared, comtraidct themselves and many of their arguments have little or no evidence to support them. There is still not much proof that states that human intelligence is inherited and above that, they are basing intelligence on IQ testing. Many people would argue that IQ testing is not accurate because it is not universal, and that many tests are biased. It is also proven according to IQ testing that a persons intelligence level can actually increase and that proves in itself that the tests are illegitimate. To base whether or not someone should be sterilized according to IQ tests is definately quite dangerous.

Also, claiming that intelligence is the only thing that progresses society is quite a statement. First you have to ask, what type of intelligence Is it conventional thinking, work ethic, linear or lateral thinking It is difficult to say that a civilization can be built just by relying on a room full of thinkers. It takes a variety of skills and strengths as well as weaknesses to build a strong society, because it is not only progress from good ideas, but progress from bad ideas so as to learn from fault. Future Generations also claim that people with lower IQs (or in translation: in poor countries) are having more children than rich countries (or people with higher IQs).

This statement is unjustified for several reasons. First, it is incorrect to say that people who have more money are more intelligent because it is obvious that this is untrue. Also, it is not because they are stupider that they are having more children, it is because of the needs of that society. Having one more child in Ethiopia could mean the survival of its whole family because of the increase in income. Also, to say that those countries are less civilized is also false and in many cases, it is because of our so-called civilized countries that theirs are in shambles. So who should be sterilized That is the question that comes to mind when thinking about the major players in the eugenics movement.

Future Generations, as I stated before, soley bases this on intelligence, but to them only the white, rich and unblemished are intelligent. Marian Van Court, the founder of this organization, attempted to justify the sterilization of Swedish women from the 1930's to the 1970's. They claimed that for many reasons, this practise was justified and not only in the interests of the human gene pool but in the interests of the women. Not only does she state that Sweden is a more civilized society due to this practise she uses their success and reputation as a progressive society to support her argument. Court states that it was in the interest of the women because if they were raped in their mental hospitals, they would have their babies taken away. Court also goes on to say that pregnancy and child birth in itself is a burden that should be lifted from women and that they would benefit from not being so fat.

One of the mental illnesses she speaks about is Schizophrenia. To sterilize someone on the grounds that they have an illness such as Schizophrenia or Sz is unjustifiable. Not only is Sz treatable, it is still only a theory that it is a genetic illness and even so, the chances of the child getting the disease from the mother is very slim. Also, if it is the problem of rape, then why should a woman have her right to bear children taken away from her based on the fact that someone is going to rape and impregnate her.

That is a problem in itself that deserves its own solution without compromising the rights of the victim. That just makes sense. Another leader in the eugenics movement is Conscious Evolution 3. They are raising the idea of positive and negative eugenics.

Positive eugenics is the idea that people with the most desirable traits will form their own society and breed within their own group. This is a way that they feel they can filter out the gene pool and not cause harm to those with undesirable traits. The term negative eugenics is applied to sterilization of people who have undesirable traits. This in a way sounds more humane than other beliefs, but it still follows the main ideals and the fact is, in our world, the amount of perfect people is so small that in effect, their gene pool would become polluted with their own genetic disorders and inbreeding. Whether or not you would be sterilizing the inferior people, is it still not detrimental to separate into two societies, one that would be basically waiting to die out The fact is that eugenics is always negative. When you are putting a value on human life, you always have someone on the other end that would be considered a waste.

According to these organizations, they are a waste of welfare, social programs, housing, food, space, police and they over populate and consume what could be used for the more deserving. The main question is, who is more worthy It is not who is more beneficial to society, it is who does not fit the status quo. It sounds rediculous to say that this is based on looks or athletics or even eye colour, but is it really going that far It is based on skin colour, so why is it so hard to believe that people will not be sterilized for simply having only four toes or even brown hair. Many of the followers in the movement get attracted to the simplicity of the answers to such difficult questions.

Instead of questioning the faults of society which are deeply complex and difficult to weave through, they look towards a scapegoat that stands in the way of their Utopia and although the prospect of eliminating genetic illnesses is quite a tempting one, the truth is that not only will the line between desirable and undesirable traits extend further and further and further as time passes, the choice to let nature take its course will be eliminated and it will soon be unethical to even refuse prenatal screening. Although many of the organizations cringe when you compare their ideals to Hitler, the truth is that the parallels are still there the only difference is that todays technology gives even more promise to the movement. Although things like prenatal screening and genetic engineering and even birth control are not seen as tools of eugenics, they very well could be. This question has been brought up before, but deserves reiteration: what would happen if Hitler got his hands on todays genetic technology The thought alone can scare anyone into seeing that this practise can have unimaginable, detrimental effects. In closing, the question of undesirable traits should still be addressed.

My mother told me a story about a man who each day carried water from the river back to his house. He carried two pots, one in good shape but the other had a crack in its middle so by the time that he got back to the house, the cracked pot was only half full. The cracked pot felt sad that he made the man do more work and he couldnt make him as happy as the full pot, so on the way back from the river one day, the man pointed out a row of beautiful flowers to the cracked pot to cheer him up. The pot thought that the flowers were beautiful but he was still sad. The slave told the pot that he planted those flowers and every time he came back from the river, the water that leaked from the pot nourished the flowers and allowed them to grow where they wouldnt have been able to before.

The man was able to pick the flowers to bring more beauty and happiness to his house.