WaPo has an interesting review of Better for All the World, a new history of the eugenics movement in the U.S. Hubby has long thought that the story of Carrie Buck, the supposedly impaired woman (it seems in retrospect that wasn't so) whose case put the SCOTUS stamp of approval on forced sterilization, would make a great movie. I learned from the review that one was done in 1994.
Actually, we've had more than three generations of eugenicists here. Ever since Darwin popularized the idea of evolution, there's been no shortage of people eager to speed up nature's slow progress toward perfection by preventing those of whom they disapprove from reproducing. In his infamous "cornerstone" speech, the vice-president of the Confederacy invoked the new science of evolution as proof that the Founders' idea of the equality of all peoples was flat wrong.
They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.and further on
the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo—it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society.
Incidentally, looking for those quotations, I happened to read the opening of Stephens' speech:
When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time—I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say.
What a stuffy old fusspot! Which reminds me that we watched the original Cheaper By The Dozen over the weekend. By far the funniest moment is when a mischievous neighbor sends a Planned Parenthood officer to see if Mrs. Gilbreth would like to start a local chapter. The pinched, unpleasant woman is received graciously in the parlor, and then the parents enjoy watching the woman's horrified face as they whistle for their numerous children. She exits in a dither as if she'd encountered an infestation of rats or snakes. A friend old enough to know recalls that not so long ago that was the stereotype for all birth control types: schoolmarmy, prudish folks who seemed to have distaste not only for children, but for the act that engenders them. I guess the relation between radical feminism and priggishness goes back further than I'd dreamed.
WaPo's reviewer likes the book, but isn't quite convinced that eugenics is a bad thing. (Notice how smoking always gets into this discussion somehow? Proving the eugenics-prig connection?):
After all, Hitler was strongly against smoking; the simple fact that he was for or against something is not the ultimate moral determinant. Consider a case that Bruinius mentions, that of a woman with an IQ of 71 -- just about the level that even today's Supreme Court thinks makes a person incompetent -- who had eight children out of wedlock. Is it absolutely wrong if the state says, "Get sterilized or we will keep you out of society until you are past reproductive age"? I keep thinking of all of those kids. Even if they are not genetically inferior, I doubt very much that they are going to have the warm, nurturing upbringing I have tried to give my children.
Judge me a moral monster if you will.
I don't think it's monstrous to worry about that woman and her kids, but it's monstrous to set yourself up as the person who decides who gets to reproduce. Who's qualified to make such a decision? Anyone who thinks he's worthy of the job is automatically disqualified. Lincoln put the principle of equality best:
As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.
There isn't any principle you can put forth that allows you to make such judgments for others that can't ultimately be used against you by someone else (if 71 is the cutoff reproductive IQ, why wouldn't 72 be better? Or 93? Or 120? What's your IQ?). If we're to remain free, there can be no exceptions. (The beauty part is, the eugenecists generally don't reproduce themselves.)
