Richard Dawkins and Peter Wehner are having an online 'discussion'. Here are the tweets of Richard Dawkins, and here is the reply of Peter Wehner. Dawkins advised that if a woman knew she had a Don's Syndrome pregnancy that she should “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Wehner in turn makes a beautiful and passionate defense of DS children and adults. It seems to me these men are talking past each other and about two very different things. One is speaking about society and Darwinism, and the other about Humanistic values.
As a faculty member in a large, public hospital I deliver many indigent patients, as well as drug addicts and illegal immigrants. Many of these people have large numbers of children. Three is common and I have seen families with 5,6 or even 8 children. Typically there is sneering and shaking of heads over these people. They are not well educated, often not very bright, or engaged in destructive habits. They do not use contraception correctly, or at all, and are often assisted by various Federal welfare programs. The most common type of comment is that 'we' (ie, the working professionals) will support these people with our taxes.
From a Darwinian perspective, however, these people are by far the more successful. One purpose of an organism is to propagate itself. Educated people are incredibly bad at this. In fact, Americans and most of the Western World are bad at this. 47% of American women are now childless by age 45. It is 35% in Germany and 47% in Australia. Whether you measure a woman's 'worth' in her work, or her 'sophistication' or whatever, from a chromosomal point of view a childless adult is a complete waste of time. Childless people have failed as Darwinian organisms.
From a genetic point of view it is people with large numbers of children that are shaping the gene pool of the West, and of the world in general for that matter. We value so much the size and accomplishments of our cerebrum that we forget other traits and advantages. Writing, music, poetry, sophisticated scientific work- none of these are of any substantive meaning from a species propagation view. Resistance to disease, reflex speed, vision, fertility- these are the traits that keep a species alive every bit as much as intellect. Perhaps those whom we admire or envy are in fact genetic anomalies, and non-reproducing ones at that, every bit as odd as the DS people.
From a social point of view genetic anomalies like DS are a problem. These people must be housed, fed and cared for while producing very little. Every news portrayal of DS shows a happy person going to work, or interacting with others. These are real images. Most people with DS are in fact very pleasant, and the simplicity of their views and reactions is often touching and provocative compared with the cynicism of daily adult life. However, only 20% of DS adults work, and even fewer live independently. The average IQ of a DS adult is 50, often educable, but very limiting in daily life. 50% of DS children have congenital heart defects, requiring expensive evaluation and often major surgeries.
From a social Darwinism perspective people with DS are non-contributory. Should they be killed? There is a long history of killing babies, whether by abortion or through exposure. Spartans threw their unwanted children into the valley by Mt. Tegetus, leading Dante to use this as the name of the central part of Hell. Romans exposed children as well. The father was presented the newborn at his feet. If he bent and raised the child up, it was kept and acknowledged. If he turned away, the child was exposed (this gives a different perspective on the question who raised you). Western societies into the mid 1800s placed unwanted children at fountains and in public squares, there to be adopted or die.
Eugenics was developed mainly in the US, and practiced here mainly as forced sterilizations of the mentally retarded, deformed or of African Americans (American Blacks have an abiding distrust of sterilization even now). Eugenics as social policy was brought to its most troublesome expression, however, by Nazi Germany. The National Socialists articulated, quite rightly, that handicapped children were more expensive to teach and less productive. Therefore, seen from the view of the State as a whole, such children should not consume State resources. This ultimately was expressed by the assertion of a right, indeed, an obligation, of the State to kill for its own wellbeing.
This assertion is the most central moral and philosophical error of Nazism. It is not moral to kill another person for the good of 'the State'. The practice exposure, or abortion, or other forms of child killing, have always been individual decisions, not governmental ones. This separation of responsibility has broken down, however, in the modern welfare state. A person may decide to have many children, or deformed children, and will not have the responsibility of caring for them. The individual makes the choice but society pays the costs. As I have written many times, this is an inappropriate and unaffordable separation of autonomy and responsibility. Dawkins and Wehner come together on this issue. It is perfectly fine to have a DS child, but you have to raise that child. You have to pay for its surgery, you have to house and feed that child. When made an individual responsibility as well as individual choice Dawkins doesn't seem quite so harsh.
So, summing up all this rambling, we have different answers depending on the moral viewpoint. DS children are not good for the State, but arbitrarily killing DS children, especially in the name of the State, is wrong. And we have the unspoken reality that many of the educated, articulate commentators on this issue are in fact Darwinian, chromosomal failures, their intellect perhaps as much a genetic anomaly as the DS children they condemn.
What ended up touching me most in all of this, however, was the image of the individual DS adult or child. Sure, these children will not go to college, will not own suburban homes, will not have stocks and wealth. However, every DS adult I have ever seen was a joy to be with. I was moved to tears by a DS man bagging groceries. And for all we know, it is in the faces of DS adults that we see God, not in the writings and works of others. I am reminded of Dickens words in 'A Christmas Carol'- It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child.
We should each be responsible for our own choices and acts. But we should also be very wary of condemning others simply because they are not as 'bright' or as 'productive' as another. Everyone makes their contribution, and perhaps the greatest contribution of a DS person is to show us the face of God, and help us find mercy and compassion rather than judgment.
Ted
As a faculty member in a large, public hospital I deliver many indigent patients, as well as drug addicts and illegal immigrants. Many of these people have large numbers of children. Three is common and I have seen families with 5,6 or even 8 children. Typically there is sneering and shaking of heads over these people. They are not well educated, often not very bright, or engaged in destructive habits. They do not use contraception correctly, or at all, and are often assisted by various Federal welfare programs. The most common type of comment is that 'we' (ie, the working professionals) will support these people with our taxes.
From a Darwinian perspective, however, these people are by far the more successful. One purpose of an organism is to propagate itself. Educated people are incredibly bad at this. In fact, Americans and most of the Western World are bad at this. 47% of American women are now childless by age 45. It is 35% in Germany and 47% in Australia. Whether you measure a woman's 'worth' in her work, or her 'sophistication' or whatever, from a chromosomal point of view a childless adult is a complete waste of time. Childless people have failed as Darwinian organisms.
From a genetic point of view it is people with large numbers of children that are shaping the gene pool of the West, and of the world in general for that matter. We value so much the size and accomplishments of our cerebrum that we forget other traits and advantages. Writing, music, poetry, sophisticated scientific work- none of these are of any substantive meaning from a species propagation view. Resistance to disease, reflex speed, vision, fertility- these are the traits that keep a species alive every bit as much as intellect. Perhaps those whom we admire or envy are in fact genetic anomalies, and non-reproducing ones at that, every bit as odd as the DS people.
From a social point of view genetic anomalies like DS are a problem. These people must be housed, fed and cared for while producing very little. Every news portrayal of DS shows a happy person going to work, or interacting with others. These are real images. Most people with DS are in fact very pleasant, and the simplicity of their views and reactions is often touching and provocative compared with the cynicism of daily adult life. However, only 20% of DS adults work, and even fewer live independently. The average IQ of a DS adult is 50, often educable, but very limiting in daily life. 50% of DS children have congenital heart defects, requiring expensive evaluation and often major surgeries.
From a social Darwinism perspective people with DS are non-contributory. Should they be killed? There is a long history of killing babies, whether by abortion or through exposure. Spartans threw their unwanted children into the valley by Mt. Tegetus, leading Dante to use this as the name of the central part of Hell. Romans exposed children as well. The father was presented the newborn at his feet. If he bent and raised the child up, it was kept and acknowledged. If he turned away, the child was exposed (this gives a different perspective on the question who raised you). Western societies into the mid 1800s placed unwanted children at fountains and in public squares, there to be adopted or die.
Eugenics was developed mainly in the US, and practiced here mainly as forced sterilizations of the mentally retarded, deformed or of African Americans (American Blacks have an abiding distrust of sterilization even now). Eugenics as social policy was brought to its most troublesome expression, however, by Nazi Germany. The National Socialists articulated, quite rightly, that handicapped children were more expensive to teach and less productive. Therefore, seen from the view of the State as a whole, such children should not consume State resources. This ultimately was expressed by the assertion of a right, indeed, an obligation, of the State to kill for its own wellbeing.
This assertion is the most central moral and philosophical error of Nazism. It is not moral to kill another person for the good of 'the State'. The practice exposure, or abortion, or other forms of child killing, have always been individual decisions, not governmental ones. This separation of responsibility has broken down, however, in the modern welfare state. A person may decide to have many children, or deformed children, and will not have the responsibility of caring for them. The individual makes the choice but society pays the costs. As I have written many times, this is an inappropriate and unaffordable separation of autonomy and responsibility. Dawkins and Wehner come together on this issue. It is perfectly fine to have a DS child, but you have to raise that child. You have to pay for its surgery, you have to house and feed that child. When made an individual responsibility as well as individual choice Dawkins doesn't seem quite so harsh.
So, summing up all this rambling, we have different answers depending on the moral viewpoint. DS children are not good for the State, but arbitrarily killing DS children, especially in the name of the State, is wrong. And we have the unspoken reality that many of the educated, articulate commentators on this issue are in fact Darwinian, chromosomal failures, their intellect perhaps as much a genetic anomaly as the DS children they condemn.
What ended up touching me most in all of this, however, was the image of the individual DS adult or child. Sure, these children will not go to college, will not own suburban homes, will not have stocks and wealth. However, every DS adult I have ever seen was a joy to be with. I was moved to tears by a DS man bagging groceries. And for all we know, it is in the faces of DS adults that we see God, not in the writings and works of others. I am reminded of Dickens words in 'A Christmas Carol'- It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child.
We should each be responsible for our own choices and acts. But we should also be very wary of condemning others simply because they are not as 'bright' or as 'productive' as another. Everyone makes their contribution, and perhaps the greatest contribution of a DS person is to show us the face of God, and help us find mercy and compassion rather than judgment.
Ted
Excellent! This piece got to the heart of the matter of what Dawkins and Wehner were arguing over and put the whole thing in good historical, social, and moral perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest shock for me was in reading that 47% of American women, 47% of Australian women, and 35% of German women are childless by age 45. I had no idea the decision to forgo childbearing was that common in those countries. This represents a tremendous cultural shift in values for these nations. It is in great contrast to the rest of the world, including Latin America, where a woman who doesn't have any children is usually seen - by others and by herself - as only half a woman.
How ironic that the childless among those who criticize the low intelligence fertile producers of large families are - from a Darwinian persective - failures. The most that can be said of them is that like homosexuals who don't pass on their genes, they are "enablers" of others who do.
Captain Jack Sparrow was right when he pointed out life's irony to Captain Barbossa and said, "Funny old world, isn't it?"
With respect to the value of Down's Syndrome children, I suppose it comes down to asking about the value of any particular individual in society. Even if we were to take Spock's utilitarian view of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," we ought to wonder: "What does infanticide or abortion or euthanasia do to those of US who form part of 'normal' society? We have physical needs, yes, but what about the emotional or spiritual needs - what happens to them when we kill off those we don't want?" These questions merit a great deal of pondering.
In Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, these questions became so pressing that in August of 1941, public disapproval of the T4 euthanasia program forced Hitler to order its cancellation (though unofficially euthanasia was still practiced up until the end of WW2). The west thought so ill of the practice that in December 1946, an American military tribunal prosecuted 23 doctors and administrators for their roles in war crimes and crimes against humanity, which included the systematic killing of those deemed "unworthy of life", including the mentally disabled, the institutionalized mentally ill, and the physically impaired. After 140 days of proceedings of 85 witnesses and the submission of 1,500 documents, in August 1947 the court pronounced 16 of the defendants guilty. Seven were sentenced to death and executed on 2 June 1948.
The flip side of this is that if a society decides to do away with euthanasia, then the individuals of that society must care for those with disability, like Down's Syndrome. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, perhaps those with Down's can teach us about mercy and compassion: surely good traits not only in and of themselves, but also helpful for survival, which ought to satisfy even an ardent Darwinian proponent.
-D-