Considering the fact that the book was written in 1913, I will excuse how narrow-minded the point of view of this excerpt was. Firstly, it is difficult (no, impossible) to define who is "feeble minded" versus who is "normal." Not only that, there were so many claims stating that feeble minded beings had increased risk of procreating more feeble minded beings and were also at increased risk of prostituting and becoming criminals.
Reading this also reminds me of a movie I watched a few years back called "Idiocracy." It was a similar concept of how the more educated people didn't reproduce as frequently and therefore, 500 years into the future, America will be filled with "idiots."
Overall, I have a difficult time reading about Eugenics as a medical student. A side of me would like to praise such developments because it can (potentially) help prevent deadly illnesses. However, it is also a huge power that can be abused. The article on "Designer Babies" talks about how changing eye color and hair color is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Yet, if we allow such choices/ behaviors now, when the technology further develops so that we can change greater things about the phenotypes displayed in our offsprings, people would swarm into a new age of "okay-ing" changes in the genes. What I'm trying to say is, as harmless as eye-color or hair-color may be, if we OK this, then we will have no choice but to OK more severe alterations that may come up in the future. For that reason, I have a difficult time accepting such ideas.
I agree with Young, Reading this article of "Social Hygiene" was so absurd, how could you focus on wanting to change the development of the creation of new a new life just to have a better world? You can donate a heart to save someone’s life, doesn’t mean to restrict those who are criminals and idiots because of their “Social Hygiene" the task in your social life does not imply to the functions of the body!!! I disagree with the task of social hygiene having an effect on the creation of a new life. That's like saying the foundation of donating a heart will only use hearts that are successful in life and excluding criminals and idiot people because their hearts won’t qualified to work. As stated at the end of this article, “It is such problems as these that we are to-day called upon to illuminate, as far as we may—it may not yet be far—by the dry light of science” therefore these assumptions are false to our knowledge!
First off, the introduction from The Task of Social Hygiene was confusing for me, and did seem narrow-minded as Young mentioned. It was confusing because I felt there was extra information that wasn't really needed, and distracted me from what was really being discussed. The "Designer Babies" article, however, made me a little mad because Hughes was relating the right to choose how your baby would look to abortion as well as parents not having the kid's best interests at heart, and then saying Catholics (a specific religion) is consistent with it. Hughes did a horrible job of "covering his butt" or trying to appeal to people in his statements and intentions. Not everyone is for abortion and not everyone is against abortion, so comparing it to something that is already controversial might have not been the best idea, on top of people being too shallow to be with someone they love by stating "I love you, but you're just too short , or too ugly." Not everyone is shallow and can actually love a person for their personality and not just looks, so why would the looks of their baby matter to them? I believe I am overall just furious without words to describe on this article. Also, when Darnovsky says a "pregnancy is apples", and "characteristics of a child is bowling balls".... I don't get it! What kind of an analogy is that? He didn't even explain it. I guess you can say that both articles are narrow-minded in a way.
Wow. So my response to these readings would probably be the same as the ones above. First let me start off by saying interestingly that Eugenics comes from the greek root "eu-" meaning good or pleasant, and "genics" pertains to genes, so Eugenics in a sense is a philosophy of "good genes". Overall, this was by far one of the most ridiculous and preposterous pieces of literature I have ever read. Idiocy and feeble-mindedness are apparently hereditary. "Good breeding", "normal", "defective", "degenerative" - how in the world do they define and measure these terms?? Believing that the mentally "defective" are predestined by genetics to prostitution and crime and are "on the whole unfit for society" is one of the many ludicrous claims the author makes (Havelock 5). So only "fit" and "normal" people are allowed to breed? How does one measure the "finest emotional and moral aptitudes" of such people who are the only ones allowed to do so (Havelock 6)? And sterilization, seriously?!! I know I am side stepping the fact that this was written in 1913, but this also greatly reminded me of Hitler's "master race" idea. We know how that catastrophe ended. So then, should we just purge society of evil by sending all of the physically and mentally "defective" and "unfit" people to Mars? While we're at it let's also send all the senior citizens who can no longer serve any "benefit" to society, all of the obese people who are apparently lazy and weak, everyone with cancer, everyone with a birthmark, etc. etc. and all other ridiculous actions to "benefit society" according to a bunch of self-righteous self-justified hypocrites. Okay I'm done ranting =)
I agree with the above posts that both of these articles were extremely bigoted. In the Eugenics article, I was dumfounded by the authors words that “feeble-minded” people were all idiots, prostitutes, and criminals (to name a few) that were not fit to breed or else they would pass these traits onto their offspring and these “feeble-minded” people were more likely to have more kids than intelligent people. I thought the whole article was extremely prejudiced and narrow-minded, especially when the author claimed, “feeble-minded is an absolute dead-weight on the race. It is an evil that is unmitigated” (Havelock 5). How can one even go about measuring who fits under the Havelock’s definition of “feeble-minded?” Besides the fact that Havelock loses credibility for being so prejudiced, he also loses credibility for not defining his subject: “feeble-minded” is immeasurable. The “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” article was also a little hard to read. Under my beliefs and values, I find it extremely inappropriate for parents to think that it’s morally acceptable to alter the genes of their baby in order to make him/her “perfect” in the parent’s eyes. Honestly, I find it nauseating that a parent would attempt to alter the genes of their child. No, “PGD [doesn’t] ha[ve] the ability to double the IQs of children,” but I still find it extremely inappropriate to alter any genes of your child and don’t believe that people should be allowed that choice (Keim 2).
My response to both of the assigned readings was very similar to the posts above. I was shocked after reading the "Eugenics" article. There were many times when I was reading the article that I was surprised by his labeling as well as judgements to people who have a mental weakness or are "feeble-minded". The quote that Lindsay said, “feeble-minded is an absolute dead-weight on the race. It is an evil that is unmitigated” (Havelock 5) really stuck with me because it seemed like a very rude judgement to make because like he says that there are so many people who are feeble-minded. I found it interesting that he also made the connection between feeble-mindedness leading to criminals and prostitution multiple times in the reading. Also the connection that he claimed that "criminals tend to belong to large families"which leads back to his idea of feeble-mindedness leading to criminals. I found the “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” article hard to understand and the context was difficult to read. I found this article mind boggling I am shocked at this concept and I didn't even know that it existed. I disagree with James Hughes that "If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, then genetic modification is perfectly fine" (1). I think that someone choosing the way someone else is going to look is very wrong and yes there are things you can do to yourself cosmetically now but that should be the individuals choice,
I do not agree with James Hughes view that screening embryos for certain traits should be allowed. However, I do think he made a very interesting point in regards to people always seeking to create so-called “designer babies.” It is basic human nature to choose partners that embody traits we want to pass down to our offspring, including both physical features and personality characteristics. People are constantly changing their physical appearance with plastic surgury to feel more desirable. Our society is filled with pills to increase sex drive and improve moods to be more socially acceptable. I can see Hughes’ argument on how this parallels very closely to embryo selection. With that being said though, I have a very hard time even hearing about embryo selection being acceptable. Is the life of an embryo just discarded if it doesn’t meet the parent’s criteria? I feel the whole idea of choosing traits for your offspring to have is playing with fire. I just do not think there is a feasible way that this science could be used responsibly and not get out of control.
I think these articles cause us to question how much choice we should have in medicine. When most people don't have access to primary care it seems foolish for those who are calling the shots and deciding which technologies are funded and explored to continue advancing selective care for the few instead of the welfare of the majority. I don't see a practical utility in choosing your offspring's traits, though I'm sure some proponents of this technology are clever enough to find some value within the science to justify further research. Issues like these make me wonder how accurately the values and morals of the general public are actually represented in our medicine. It seems our culture often drives technology and accepted practices within medicine, sometimes more than science. When our emotions direct the way we employ science I think we stray from the original intent of using empirical research to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our needs in medicine.
Considering the fact that the book was written in 1913, I will excuse how narrow-minded the point of view of this excerpt was. Firstly, it is difficult (no, impossible) to define who is "feeble minded" versus who is "normal." Not only that, there were so many claims stating that feeble minded beings had increased risk of procreating more feeble minded beings and were also at increased risk of prostituting and becoming criminals.
ReplyDeleteReading this also reminds me of a movie I watched a few years back called "Idiocracy." It was a similar concept of how the more educated people didn't reproduce as frequently and therefore, 500 years into the future, America will be filled with "idiots."
Overall, I have a difficult time reading about Eugenics as a medical student. A side of me would like to praise such developments because it can (potentially) help prevent deadly illnesses. However, it is also a huge power that can be abused. The article on "Designer Babies" talks about how changing eye color and hair color is no big deal in the grand scheme of things. Yet, if we allow such choices/ behaviors now, when the technology further develops so that we can change greater things about the phenotypes displayed in our offsprings, people would swarm into a new age of "okay-ing" changes in the genes. What I'm trying to say is, as harmless as eye-color or hair-color may be, if we OK this, then we will have no choice but to OK more severe alterations that may come up in the future. For that reason, I have a difficult time accepting such ideas.
I agree with Young, Reading this article of "Social Hygiene" was so absurd, how could you focus on wanting to change the development of the creation of new a new life just to have a better world? You can donate a heart to save someone’s life, doesn’t mean to restrict those who are criminals and idiots because of their “Social Hygiene" the task in your social life does not imply to the functions of the body!!!
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the task of social hygiene having an effect on the creation of a new life. That's like saying the foundation of donating a heart will only use hearts that are successful in life and excluding criminals and idiot people because their hearts won’t qualified to work.
As stated at the end of this article, “It is such problems as these that we are to-day called upon to illuminate, as far as we may—it may not yet be far—by the dry light of science” therefore these assumptions are false to our knowledge!
First off, the introduction from The Task of Social Hygiene was confusing for me, and did seem narrow-minded as Young mentioned. It was confusing because I felt there was extra information that wasn't really needed, and distracted me from what was really being discussed. The "Designer Babies" article, however, made me a little mad because Hughes was relating the right to choose how your baby would look to abortion as well as parents not having the kid's best interests at heart, and then saying Catholics (a specific religion) is consistent with it. Hughes did a horrible job of "covering his butt" or trying to appeal to people in his statements and intentions. Not everyone is for abortion and not everyone is against abortion, so comparing it to something that is already controversial might have not been the best idea, on top of people being too shallow to be with someone they love by stating "I love you, but you're just too short , or too ugly." Not everyone is shallow and can actually love a person for their personality and not just looks, so why would the looks of their baby matter to them? I believe I am overall just furious without words to describe on this article. Also, when Darnovsky says a "pregnancy is apples", and "characteristics of a child is bowling balls".... I don't get it! What kind of an analogy is that? He didn't even explain it. I guess you can say that both articles are narrow-minded in a way.
ReplyDeleteWow. So my response to these readings would probably be the same as the ones above. First let me start off by saying interestingly that Eugenics comes from the greek root "eu-" meaning good or pleasant, and "genics" pertains to genes, so Eugenics in a sense is a philosophy of "good genes". Overall, this was by far one of the most ridiculous and preposterous pieces of literature I have ever read. Idiocy and feeble-mindedness are apparently hereditary. "Good breeding", "normal", "defective", "degenerative" - how in the world do they define and measure these terms?? Believing that the mentally "defective" are predestined by genetics to prostitution and crime and are "on the whole unfit for society" is one of the many ludicrous claims the author makes (Havelock 5). So only "fit" and "normal" people are allowed to breed? How does one measure the "finest emotional and moral aptitudes" of such people who are the only ones allowed to do so (Havelock 6)? And sterilization, seriously?!! I know I am side stepping the fact that this was written in 1913, but this also greatly reminded me of Hitler's "master race" idea. We know how that catastrophe ended. So then, should we just purge society of evil by sending all of the physically and mentally "defective" and "unfit" people to Mars? While we're at it let's also send all the senior citizens who can no longer serve any "benefit" to society, all of the obese people who are apparently lazy and weak, everyone with cancer, everyone with a birthmark, etc. etc. and all other ridiculous actions to "benefit society" according to a bunch of self-righteous self-justified hypocrites. Okay I'm done ranting =)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above posts that both of these articles were extremely bigoted. In the Eugenics article, I was dumfounded by the authors words that “feeble-minded” people were all idiots, prostitutes, and criminals (to name a few) that were not fit to breed or else they would pass these traits onto their offspring and these “feeble-minded” people were more likely to have more kids than intelligent people. I thought the whole article was extremely prejudiced and narrow-minded, especially when the author claimed, “feeble-minded is an absolute dead-weight on the race. It is an evil that is unmitigated” (Havelock 5). How can one even go about measuring who fits under the Havelock’s definition of “feeble-minded?” Besides the fact that Havelock loses credibility for being so prejudiced, he also loses credibility for not defining his subject: “feeble-minded” is immeasurable. The “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” article was also a little hard to read. Under my beliefs and values, I find it extremely inappropriate for parents to think that it’s morally acceptable to alter the genes of their baby in order to make him/her “perfect” in the parent’s eyes. Honestly, I find it nauseating that a parent would attempt to alter the genes of their child. No, “PGD [doesn’t] ha[ve] the ability to double the IQs of children,” but I still find it extremely inappropriate to alter any genes of your child and don’t believe that people should be allowed that choice (Keim 2).
ReplyDeleteMy response to both of the assigned readings was very similar to the posts above. I was shocked after reading the "Eugenics" article. There were many times when I was reading the article that I was surprised by his labeling as well as judgements to people who have a mental weakness or are "feeble-minded". The quote that Lindsay said, “feeble-minded is an absolute dead-weight on the race. It is an evil that is unmitigated” (Havelock 5) really stuck with me because it seemed like a very rude judgement to make because like he says that there are so many people who are feeble-minded. I found it interesting that he also made the connection between feeble-mindedness leading to criminals and prostitution multiple times in the reading. Also the connection that he claimed that "criminals tend to belong to large families"which leads back to his idea of feeble-mindedness leading to criminals.
ReplyDeleteI found the “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” article hard to understand and the context was difficult to read. I found this article mind boggling I am shocked at this concept and I didn't even know that it existed. I disagree with James Hughes that "If nobody gets hurt and everybody has access, then genetic modification is perfectly fine" (1). I think that someone choosing the way someone else is going to look is very wrong and yes there are things you can do to yourself cosmetically now but that should be the individuals choice,
I do not agree with James Hughes view that screening embryos for certain traits should be allowed. However, I do think he made a very interesting point in regards to people always seeking to create so-called “designer babies.” It is basic human nature to choose partners that embody traits we want to pass down to our offspring, including both physical features and personality characteristics. People are constantly changing their physical appearance with plastic surgury to feel more desirable. Our society is filled with pills to increase sex drive and improve moods to be more socially acceptable. I can see Hughes’ argument on how this parallels very closely to embryo selection. With that being said though, I have a very hard time even hearing about embryo selection being acceptable. Is the life of an embryo just discarded if it doesn’t meet the parent’s criteria? I feel the whole idea of choosing traits for your offspring to have is playing with fire. I just do not think there is a feasible way that this science could be used responsibly and not get out of control.
ReplyDeleteI think these articles cause us to question how much choice we should have in medicine. When most people don't have access to primary care it seems foolish for those who are calling the shots and deciding which technologies are funded and explored to continue advancing selective care for the few instead of the welfare of the majority. I don't see a practical utility in choosing your offspring's traits, though I'm sure some proponents of this technology are clever enough to find some value within the science to justify further research. Issues like these make me wonder how accurately the values and morals of the general public are actually represented in our medicine. It seems our culture often drives technology and accepted practices within medicine, sometimes more than science. When our emotions direct the way we employ science I think we stray from the original intent of using empirical research to gain a better understanding of ourselves and our needs in medicine.
ReplyDelete