Social Darwinism: Right or Wrong

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Darwinism as a process results in a stronger, more survivable species. This increases the value and goodness of human beings, partially or wholly relieves common human needs and on its own contributes to the resolution of human problems.

On all areas of your definition, social darwinism thus has a positive humanistic impact.

After all, humanistic values ultimately boil down to survival and reproduction.

Ok, question tiem!

Do you suggest we automatically euthonize children born with down syndrome as an attempt to improve the gene pool? What about other well known genetic disabilities? How about Parkinsons? Sickle Cell Anemia? Diabetes? Cancer? These are traits that are either entirely genetic or at least partially genetic. If you're suggesting we weed out the undesirable traits from humanity, what would you suggest we do with these people?

What do we do with these people? We prevent them from creating more people at the very least.

It's certainly consistent with the pro-choice position to euthanize children born with down syndrome. We do that already, although before the fetus comes to term (see Rowe vs. Wade).

If Down Syndrome markers show on the CVS test (That's Chorionic Villi Sampling test, not the convenience store), then we proceed to abort. Over 90% of Down Syndrome births in Europe are aborted just like this already. And there is no real difference between a fetus inside or outside a womb for most medical ethicists today.

So the bottom line is, there's no problem with euthanizing people outside the womb. But if that's a problem we can start slowly, by legalizing sterilization first, so that they can't reproduce. The only problem is finding a convenient legal avenue in the American courts. We need 30 years at the most of consistently liberal Supreme Court selections till it's possible to start open, large-scale euthanasia or sterilization of some form in the US.

Now that the Republicans have been destroyed in this last election, we are ready to start this chain. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is already 79. Those achy bones need to be replaced with a young, liberal maverick.

And frankly it's about time.