Download “Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are

“Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future
of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are
paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning
class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
- Margaret Sanger, eugenicist, founder of Planned Parenthood, on Judeo-Christian sexual ethics
13. Eugenics/Genetic Engineering – The eugenics movement – the movement born of the idea
that human beings should be selectively bred, and prevented from breeding, in order to assist and
accelerate human evolution - began in the late 1800s and prospered both privately and publicly
until the world saw the concept brutally applied by Nazi Germany. Now the specter of eugenics
has risen again, under the guise of genetic engineering. There have been astonishing advances in
genetics and medical technology in the last 50 years, and it is entirely possible that it will
eventually be possible to genetically engineer human beings for specific genetic traits (IQ,
disease resistance, size, hair and eye color, gender, etc.). This will almost certainly be a
technology applied at the embryonic stage, allowing parents the ability to select the traits they
want and then pay someone to genetically engineer that designer baby. In addition, we are
already at the point where we can diagnose some genetic defects in utero, which not infrequently
leads to abortion. Apply Catholic moral thought to some of the moral questions on this topic.
1. What do you think of Margaret Sanger’s eugenics quote? What are some of the ethical
issues involved in “aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future
of the race and the world…”? In what ways is her statement revealing?
2. Should human beings be selectively bred to speed human evolution and create superior
quality human beings?
3. Should the government regulate or restrict the availability and legality of embryonic
genetic engineering? Since they helped fund the research should they force providers of
these services to make them available to everyone, regardless of income?
4. There is a failure rate for every technology and medical procedure. What about the
“failed” embryos? Should they be destroyed? Whose decision should that be (the
parents, the team of geneticists performing the procedure, the government)?
5. Is it immoral to manipulate human beings to achieve some standard, instead of allowing
nature to take its course? Is it immoral to have the ability, but not “improve” them?
6. How will the decision about what traits are more (or less) desirable affect the perceived
value of individual human persons? Will those lacking many of the desirable traits be of
less value or capacity, and therefore have reduced or restricted rights?
7. Is there an ethical problem with offering these technologies for a price? Should they be
subsidized and insured so that they are available for everyone?
8. Given the genetic advantages possible, would it be ethical to require that all embryos
undergo a “genetic tuneup” to give them all the most desirable traits?
9. What would the moral implications be of designating certain traits as undesirable?
Would it eventually marginalize or encourage discrimination against specific groups of
people?
10. Do you think it would change people’s view of Planned Parenthood to know Margaret
Sanger’s views and ideologies, and her motives behind founding PP? Why or why not?
11. Which Catholic moral principles are most important in refuting a eugenic mentality?