You, wilbur, just don't get it. We keep "going back to the Nazis" because they too felt that there was a definable population amongst them who were "less than human", and enacted programs to reduce that population. It wasn't solely along lines of religion (Jew v. Christian), it also included homosexuality, political philosophy (Communists), mental/physical handicap, etc. The Nazi party, as a movement, decided that certain people weren't worth keeping.
Oh I do get it - but I believe you are entirely wrong, and your continual comparison to the holocaust is without merrit and based on willful misunderstandings of my position.
First, I my principle doesn't define a population as "less than human" so again, your criticisms are aimed at the wrong target. I fully agree that fetuses, embryos and zygotes are human. So are corpses, and flaked off skin cells. But the term human is designated to all these things in a scientifically useful way, not a morally useful way.
In fact, it is your principle which hinges on the pure semantics of how this amoral "human" designation was coined - and is therefore explicitly tied to what ever direction it may potentially shift.
If your principle is "all human life" is valuable, then it is actually YOUR view which is vulnerable to redefinitions of the term "human", It might even be your view that could be said to have enabled the holocaust.... since as you say, the Nazi's were able to successfully categorize the Jews as "less than human".
Just as an aside, I don't know if you are Christian or not, but in fact, the majority of the German population was. Most were Lutheran. And Christians certainly tend to agree with the principle you are defending. Unfortunately, the Christian German population was teeming with good ole' anit-semitism inherited from that German guy, Martin Luther. Martin Luther pretty much wrote the guide book for the holocaust -
The Jews and Their Lies. This was a major piece of the groundwork that enabled the systematic demonization of Jewish people in Germany. And yea, we all know there were also great Christian who didn't get taken in by any of that, and helped the Jews escape the gas chambers at great risk to themselves. But one can't deny the irony here.. you bring up the holocaust time and time again, but it was really your own principle about human life which utterly failed the Jews - not one similar to mine.
Now my principle may hinge on the definition of "mind". But I feel that "mind" is less vulnerable to redefinition and I think it really maps to the significant facts about our nature that place us in the moral realm (and other living things as well) far better than the term "human'.
You, wilbur, are stating the same position: that a certain, definable segment (that segment being fetuses of under 23 weeks gestation) of our population is not worth keeping. You define that segment as "mindless beings" and state that they have "no value".
I concede that you have defined your "less than human" population differently than the Nazis defined theirs, but other than that stipulation, what is the difference in philosophy? Where would you be willing to shift your definition to, and under what circumstances? And by what right do you decide what group does or doesn't deserve an opportunity to live?
Again, "less than human" is not accurate. There are humans in relation to which we have certain moral obligations, and there are humans to which we differing moral obligations. And everybody agrees to this, even you. Its completely uncontroversial. If an innocent person is about to be executed, you might feel you have a moral obligation to fight for him. If a serial killer is about to be executed, you might feel like you have a moral duty to allow the execution to be carried out. And I argue, that in the case of mindless humans (or mindless organisms, period) we have little or no moral obligations.
And your argument about eugenics being a "top-down" program couldn't be farther from the truth. Eugenics is simply the philosophy that some traits, designated by man, are more desirable to keep and pass on than others. These traits could be positive values such as intelligence, honesty, or even strength, or they could be negative, discriminatory, values to attempt to "breed out", such as criminality, race, etc. The part of eugenics that disgusts civilized people is that man, not God, define what is "right and proper", which is not the way it should be.
If Eugenics is simply the philosophy that some traits as designated by man, are more desirable then others, then everyone is a eugenicist. If looks or any inheritable trait had anything to do at all with why you chose your mate, then you are practicing eugenics according to your definition. In fact, your definition of eugenics is so broad as to prohibit any and all potential cures to genetic disorders, that operates at the level of the genes. If we produce a cure for cystic fibrosis through gene therapy - nope, can't do it - that's eugenics, and eugenics is evil, right - because cystic fibrosis is obviously what's "right and proper" according to God's standards, which we should not alter.
But I think we all agree, that say, to alter a baby's genes to cure its cystic fibrosis isnt wrong at all. Right?
Eugenics wasn't evil in times past just because it attempted alter our gene pool - it was evil because it did so through attempts to cull the population, through barbaric and totalitarian means that violated the natural rights and freedoms of those to whom we do have moral obligations (not to mention the flawed scientific assumptions they were working from).
We might one day actually see a friend(lier) eugenics resurface, if we ever do see the day where gene therapy can successfully alter our genetic make-up (inside the womb or out). But in that case, eugenics will most likely be driven by consumer demand, not totalitarian decision making about the genetic future of the human race. It will of course start with the demand for cures to genetic diseases - and then who knows where it might lead.... people of greater intelligence, rationality, or physical health, etc. Maybe someplace good, maybe someplace bad.
