1) If we design animals and develop a better horse, that has little ethical relevance for mankind. But if we manipulate human genes and develop "better people" then we have given ourselves the role of Creator (which we should not) and we would be making people, not in God's image, but in an image that seems pleasing to us. From a Christian standpoint, this is not good for us to do.
2) Historically, eugenics has tended to involve a lot of coercion. Retarded relative? Well, someone will grab her, drive her across town, sterilize her and bring her back home. Don't ask questions, unless you want trouble. Or, if some people (like the Jooooos) are classified as sub-human, then we load them on trains, take them to special camps, and kill them. Great way to improve overall genetic health of the human race.
No. I would say that from an ethical standpoint, this idea reduces us to the level of mere animals (better horses = better humans) and in addition, the implementation of the idea reduces us to the level of devils.
This is not for humans to do.
Thanks for that.
So if I’ve interpreted correctly what you’ve written, from your viewpoint (and mine as well) Eugenics isn’t so much “false science” that has been proven wrong and discredited, so much as it is an “evil science” that mankind is best not to meddle with for a whole bunch of good ethical reasons, not least of which being that a) we don’t know what we’re doing, and b) even if we did we would misuse Eugenics to serve other-than-noble ends.
Would that be right?