Posted on 04/15/2015 8:35:22 AM PDT by wagglebee
Part 1
Materialism focuses attention on material security and quality of life in this world, yet the continued consistent application of the ideal of a high quality of life finally results in a devaluing and loss of life. That was the message of speakers at the L'Abri Fellowship conference on Life and Liberty, held Feb. 13-14 in Rochester, Minnesota, in two presentations that focused particularly on euthanasia and the history of the American eugenics movement.
Henk Reitsma of the L'Abri Fellowship's Dutch facility discussed the deterioration of respect for life in the Netherlands under the impact of the legalization and acceptance of euthanasia. Reitsma said we should not think that "we're on the safe side of the ocean, [that] this is not really a topic which is so relevant to us today." This is because the Dutch "serve as a window for the rest of the world." The beliefs now common in the Netherlands transcend borders in the Western world, and they are "painfully relevant." Indeed, these ideas of quality of life affect faithful Christians who may not at all agree with the radical departure from Christian morality now so common, because we are "children of our culture." He noted that for Francis Schaeffer, concern with the right to life was "a logical extension of his apologetic," not simply an "add-on." Reitsma said that a loss of belief in God affects how we deal with other people, and to "a loss of life and meaning."
Reitsma's own grandfather was killed involuntarily at a home for the elderly in the Netherlands. While a traditional Christian belief in the sanctity of life precludes euthanasia, people today want to know why we don't put people out of their suffering just as we do with animals. The contemporary world is "profoundly out of touch with what it is that makes it so special to be human." But we are different. "We think about how people will perceive and remember what we are doing." Each human life is endowed with "a weight of glory," Reitsma said.
A problem for this traditional understanding of the worth of humans is the utilitarian ethic. Pleasure is identified with good, pain with evil. But Reitsma said, "for outcomes in a human life … meaning is more important than the presence or absence of pain." He pointed out that the Bible says that "if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong" (I Pet. 3:17). He also noted that the word "compassion," in its historic formulation, includes the meaning of "to hold on," or "to endure." True compassion, Reitsma said, is "to come alongside your fellow [suffering] human being[s], and hold on to them." For human life, "the presence or absence of pain is not all-defining." He spoke of an elderly frequent visitor to the Dutch L'Abri facility, noteworthy for her acute thinking, who declined to take sedatives to relieve the pain of her illness because they would cloud her mind. But Reitsma pointed out that ironically, in general, the more we have sedatives available in the Western world, the less remaining pain we are willing to accept.
In the utilitarian ethical context of the contemporary West, the meaning of compassion has been altered by the reigning doctrine of moral autonomy. Now it means, "providing someone with the space in which they can be fully autonomous, and do their own thing." Pro-euthanasia movies carry the message that "because your life is not perfect, it's not worth living … when the immaterial fades, and the material becomes all-defining, the definition of what it is to be compassionate shifts. Then physical pain avoidance, and freedom in terms of immediate physical longings and lusts, becomes dominant."
The "quality of life" commitment of the Western elite has had perverse results in Asia, Reitsma said, where pre-natal sex identification technology and abortion have resulted in the loss of 160 million girls, with a resulting sex ratio of 122 boys to 100 girls in China and 112 boys to 100 girls in India. This catastrophic ratio is different from that of the past, when wars at times resulted in an imbalance of females over males. The latter imbalance was accommodated at times with polygamy. But a male over female ratio results in a more violent society, with rape common.
With philosophical materialism and utilitarian ethics coming to the fore as Western society becomes more secular, euthanasia is a "concept on the move," according to Reitsma. Whereas in the Netherlands, statistics once distinguished between active and passive euthanasia, now only cases of lethal injection are considered euthanasia, passive measures to effect death, and even physician assisted suicide, are no longer counted. Thus, Rick Santorum's claim that 10% of Dutch deaths are the result of euthanasia may be correct, or approximately correct, although by the current Dutch definition it was inaccurate.
Yet the rapidly rising rate of actively killing patients by lethal injection was made possible by the acceptance of passive measures, such as "continuous deep sedation," which keeps patients presumed to be near the end of life unconscious to avoid pain. In a world such as are emerging, people not only choose death for themselves (which remains wrong), but also for the weak and vulnerable that may not have chosen it for themselves. Such people may be eliminated for the good of society, which is caring for them, as well as their own suffering, according to the emerging utilitarian ethic. Reitsma mentioned the case of his own grandmother, who had a home for the elderly within 5 kilometers of where she lived, but moved instead to a conservative Christian home many hundreds of kilometers away, in a community where she knew no one, for fear that at the local home, she would be put to death. Against such an emerging secularist society, Reitsma said "to be human is to care for the vulnerable and the weak." It means that compassion involves much continuous care for those who may be suffering greatly, with little hope of a return to normal life. But it is what the Biblical doctrine of man in the image of God requires, and is a sure guard against the cancerous growth of a culture which chooses death over life.
The same choice of death over life, the essential part euthanasia, is also involved in eugenics, which has as its objective a more perfect life and the elimination of imperfections. This was discussed in a presentation by Dr. Christopher Hook, reviewed in a subsequent article.
Part 2
Philosophical materialism, a key factor in advancing a utilitarian ethic and its turn to euthanasia, is also the driving force behind the return of eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species by encouraging persons with traits thought desirable to reproduce, while attempting to prevent persons with traits held undesirable from reproducing.
The twentieth century history of the eugenics movement was discussed by Dr. Christopher Hook of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity and Associate Professor of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, referred to in the present writer's earlier articles on his lectures concerning bioethics and the related denial of medical liberty of conscience. While eugenics is associated with Nazi Germany, it was in large measure an early twentieth century Anglo-American project, Hook said. Its roots are in Plato's Republic, which proposed breeding people for different classes. It has roots as well in the Enlightenment, with the Marquis de Condorcet speaking of the "unlimited perfectibility" of man by man.
Lamettrie's Man a Machine claimed that since men are machines, they can be re-engineered. Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics." Galton believed we should judge the "worth" of other human beings. He also believed that modern conditions "remove the action of natural selection," causing "disgenesis" (deterioration) of the human species. The "chief culprits" of disgenesis were Christianity, with its "sense of compassion for all individuals," and modern medicine, which allowed the unfit to survive and have children. Another nineteenth century Englishman, Herbert Spencer, coined the term "survival of the fittest." Hook noted that there are "two prongs of the Galtonian program … 'positive eugenics,' and 'negative eugenics.'" Positive eugenics endeavored to get persons deemed desirable to reproduce, while negative eugenics focused on preventing people deemed undesirable from reproducing.
Both of these prongs were strongly promoted in early twentieth century America. Significant portions of forced sterilization legislation in America were adopted by Germany in its forced sterilization act of 1933. Notably, the University of Heidelberg later awarded Henry H. Laughlin, a major promoter American sterilization law, with an honorary doctorate. Families with strong musical talent or with high intellectual function or performance were noted. IQ testing was developed during this time. Origins of the IQ test were "purely eugenic" in nature, Hook said.
Margaret Sanger was a strong advocate of eugenics, holding that weak persons unable to support themselves should be left to die. She surrounded herself with "some of the most outspoken white supremacists of the time." In line with this, the first clinics of Planned Parenthood were placed in areas that were heavily populated with African Americans. Theodore Roosevelt also strongly supported eugenics, as did progressives in both political parties. Other eugenics supporters John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Carnegie Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. The Kellogg Foundation sponsored three "race betterment conferences" early in the twentieth century.
Eugenics influenced American law. "Ugly laws" in various cities said ugly persons "should not expose themselves to public view … Aesthetics was a huge part of the eugenics movement" Hook said, with photography developing in conjunction with this in the early twentieth century. The Immigration Act of 1924 limited immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, deemed to have biologically inferior people. Forced sterilization was also enacted into the law – Hook noted that legislation was even proposed that would prevent persons with glasses from having children. Hollywood also supported eugenics. Eugenics book clubs discussed the latest eugenics books.
Leaders of the Mayo Clinic supported eugenics. These "compassionate men" were "led astray" by "bad science, which was thought to be good science," Hook said. We must be "very humble" about what science claims, particularly in support of efforts "to re-engineer the human species." He observed that one prominent eugenics supporter who helped inspire the eugenics law in Minnesota reported his success to Hitler in a letter. Hitler responded in a note congratulating him.
The Carrie Buck case in Virginia involved the first woman in Virginia selected for involuntary sterilization from a state institution. She challenged the law, supported by conservative Christians. The Supreme Court upheld the Virginia law in an 8-1 decision. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority decision, which said that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
American Protestant denominations offered wholehearted support of eugenics in the early twentieth century. Only the Roman Catholic Church and conservative Protestants opposed it. Eugenics dovetailed with the objective of the Social Gospel for improving society. Harry Emerson Fosdick "promoted the 'Saints of secularism,' and was a member of the American Eugenics Society. The society promoted sermon contests, in which pastors were challenged to come up with the best sermon promoting eugenics. "Technicism," (the belief that through technology man can master all of reality) noted by Hook in an earlier presentation on bioethics, "ties in very well with the eugenics idea," he said. These ideas were well expressed in the 1933 World Fair motto, "Science finds, industry applies, man conforms."
Eugenics went into eclipse after World War II, due to its association with Nazi Germany and the mass murder perpetrated by that regime. But in the 1960s and 1970s, it began to revive, supported by some Nobel laureates. Currently bioethicists have revived the Nazi German idea of "wrongful life," and "wrongful disabilities." Geneticists are now holding that genetic counseling should involve more than simply presenting couples with choices, but should be "very directive." Genetic screening is also used to determine which human embryos will be allowed to live based on the benefit others may have from their body parts. This is the "savior sibling scenario." Thus, the principle is established "that's it's okay to allow people to live based only on their genetic utility to other people."
"Science, institutional religion, and politics" is a dangerous combination in the area of bioethics, Dr. Hook said. Scientists are not necessarily superior guides for social direction, and they "make horrible social engineers," he said. "Laissez-faire eugenics are likely to be just a problematic as the state sponsored version," Hook claimed. "Governments will always view people as something to control … [to increase] social productivity and minimize social costs." This is true despite political calls for "inclusion." "State controlled medicine is a recipe for disaster … medicine cannot fix humanity … great harm can be done in the name of good and compassion," Hook said.
A questioner noted that today's advocates of human re-engineering deny that what they favor is eugenics. Dr. Hook added that the history of eugenics is no longer taught in American history. In response to this denial, Hook said his reply to those who deny the return of eugenics is to overwhelm them with quotes from the early twentieth century proving that what contemporary bioethicists and transhumanists are doing is essentially the same as the early twentieth century eugenicists. After World War II, the term "eugenics" was replaced by "medical genetics." American eugenics, is, however, an extremely "unfortunate heritage" for Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and other social liberal groups. People "don't want to hear that they are sinful human beings, and unfortunately, that's what history teaches us."
And we are on a course for something far more disastrous than what happened in the 20th century because there is no longer a moral superpower to stop it.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Materialism eliminates any objective basis for morality. All that’s left is personal preference and social convention which generally manifests itself as relativistic moral pragmatism.
Thanks for the ping!
Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.