Actually, the laws were on the books after that, but not used "often" (if wikipedia can be believed, of course)
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for posting this. Coincidentally, this month is the 80th anniversary of the Buck v. Bell decision by the Supreme Court that approved involuntary sterilization.
Andy Imparato and Anne Sommers of the American Association of People with Disabilities wrote an op-ed on this anniversary and how some of the current themes of the eugenics movement live on today.
quote:In its preamble, the recently unveiled U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities recognizes"the inherent dignity and worth and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
We wonder what Oliver Wendell Holmes would have said about that.
This month marked the 80th anniversary of the disgraceful Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell, which upheld Virginia's involuntary sterilization laws. In his majority opinion, Holmes declared: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles is enough."
posted
Out of curiosity with the science that was available at the time, combined with what could be reasonably deduced from it, was Holmes decision really that disgraceful?
I guess I wonder could it reasonably be demonstrated then that genes/parentage had nothing to do with a person's propensity to commit crime or be an imbecile?
Obviously to us eugenics is rightfully called barbarous.
quote:I guess I wonder could it reasonably be demonstrated then that genes/parentage had nothing to do with a person's propensity to commit crime or be an imbecile?
That can't be demonstated now. Both of those things are have at least moderate genetic components.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity with the science that was available at the time, combined with what could be reasonably deduced from it, was Holmes decision really that disgraceful?
quote:Out of curiosity with the science that was available at the time, combined with what could be reasonably deduced from it, was Holmes decision really that disgraceful?
Yes.
Yes because it was an example of government infringing on the basic rights of citizens towards liberty or, the persuit of happiness?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the chemical castration link at the bottom, and the ACLU article that it links to here, we still do force sterilization.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, because it involved the government-ordered mutilation of unwilling victims, justified by the government's deciding who was worthy of being born.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes, because it involved the government-ordered mutilation of unwilling victims, justified by the government's deciding who was worthy of being born.
Purely as a what if scenario,
If the boundaries how just how much genes effect inteligence and criminal behavior, are there any government measures you could see yourself supporting Dag? Gene switches being turned on and off? Special programs guiding people who are at greater risk? I know its a very broad question and its a scenario that does not exist currently, but I just thought I'd plumb your brain.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
None I can think of, at least on a mandatory basis. I might be willing to consider voluntary genetic screening and making special assistance available, but I have trouble envisioning safeguards that would make it acceptable to me.
The overall problem I see is this: who decides, and what criteria do they use, which genes are "problematic"? Let's assume we can determine the effect on behavior with perfect accuracy. There are few genes whose effect will be only negative to society. Sure, the hypothetical gene that means the person will definitely become a serial killer would be great to find, but it likely doesn't exist. Say it makes the person twice - or even ten times - as likely to be a serial killer. That still means a very small number of people with the gene will be serial killers. In the far more likely cases where a gene has both positive and negative effects, how do we decide if it goes on the list of bad genes? What about effects that people disagree concerning whether they are positive or negative.
I hesitate to have one particular generation of humanity decide what the unacceptable types of people are, even if no compulsory "treatment" results.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: None I can think of, at least on a mandatory basis. I might be willing to consider voluntary genetic screening and making special assistance available, but I have trouble envisioning safeguards that would make it acceptable to me.
The overall problem I see is this: who decides, and what criteria do they use, which genes are "problematic"? Let's assume we can determine the effect on behavior with perfect accuracy. There are few genes whose effect will be only negative to society. Sure, the hypothetical gene that means the person will definitely become a serial killer would be great to find, but it likely doesn't exist. Say it makes the person twice - or even ten times - as likely to be a serial killer. That still means a very small number of people with the gene will be serial killers. In the far more likely cases where a gene has both positive and negative effects, how do we decide if it goes on the list of bad genes? What about effects that people disagree concerning whether they are positive or negative.
I hesitate to have one particular generation of humanity decide what the unacceptable types of people are, even if no compulsory "treatment" results.
Interesting. I believe I agree with you.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "three generations" quote is the best known part of that particular decision. To me, though, it's always been this passage that sends chills (not the good kind) down my spine:
quote:We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.
quote:We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.
I agree - it's not as flashy, but far more chilling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those who find themselves wondering just what all the fuss is about...i.e., why eugenics arguments are dismissed by scientists as nonsense even in this day of advanced genetics and seemingly daily discoveries relating DNA to human behavior and "capacity," I highly recommend Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man.
It also gives a fairly decent overview of why the "science" behind this stuff was obviously flawed even "back in the day." To me, it's more compelling even than the arguments against it from a moral standpoint because the science that was used to promote this stuff was bad from get go, and anyone who wanted to could've seen that right off. It was NOT that the science of the time supported the view of eugenicists. It's that, for the most part, the data were either falsified, misread, or simply ignored. And that, I believe, points to the larger failing of society bending the rules to do justify something that "just had to be true" rather than admitting that there were (and still are) unknowns, or that what we do know points in exactly the opposite direction.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
