Your question on capital punishment has been previously reviewed and answered so feel free to check it out at http://sploxa.blogspot.com/search?q=capital+punishment
“Eugenics” literally, meaning normal genes. It can be defined as developing strategies for attempting to improve the gene pool of a species either by halting the transmission of unwanted characteristics or increasing the transmission of desired characteristics. This can involve issues related to eugenics, human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia.
Eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein's sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics. The Nazis notoriously engaged in negative eugenics by genocide. The word "eugenics" was coined by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to denote scientific endeavors to increase the proportion of persons with better than average genetic endowment through selective mating of marriage partners.
The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped, the mentally ill, and ethnic minorities (particularly people of mixed racial heritage), and the adopting out of their children to non-disabled, Caucasian parents. Similar programs spread widely in the early part of the twentieth century, and still exist in some parts of the world. It is important to note that no experiment in eugenics has ever been shown to result in measurable improvements in human health.
In Canada, the eugenics movement gained support early in the 20th century as prominent physicians drew a direct link between heredity and public health. Eugenics was enforced by law in two Canadian provinces. In Alberta, the Sexual Sterilization Act was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women's Group. Individuals were assessed using IQ tests. This posed a problem to new immigrants arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. As a result, many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who were unfairly categorized. The province of British Columbia enacted its own Sexual Sterilization Act in 1933. As in Alberta, the British Columbia Eugenics Board could recommend the sterilization of those it considered to be suffering from "mental disease or mental deficiency."
The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the Depression when sterilization was widely seen as a way of relieving society of the financial burdens imposed by defective individuals. The eugenics excesses of Nazi Germany diminished the popularity of the eugenics movement.
Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased call for caution. Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical.
Consider the following principles and issues with modern new technologies and genetic engineering:
“Eugenics” literally, meaning normal genes. It can be defined as developing strategies for attempting to improve the gene pool of a species either by halting the transmission of unwanted characteristics or increasing the transmission of desired characteristics. This can involve issues related to eugenics, human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia.
Eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein's sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics. The Nazis notoriously engaged in negative eugenics by genocide. The word "eugenics" was coined by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to denote scientific endeavors to increase the proportion of persons with better than average genetic endowment through selective mating of marriage partners.
The practice of eugenics was first legally mandated in the United States in the state of Indiana, resulting in the forcible sterilization, incarceration, and occasionally euthanasia of the mentally or physically handicapped, the mentally ill, and ethnic minorities (particularly people of mixed racial heritage), and the adopting out of their children to non-disabled, Caucasian parents. Similar programs spread widely in the early part of the twentieth century, and still exist in some parts of the world. It is important to note that no experiment in eugenics has ever been shown to result in measurable improvements in human health.
In Canada, the eugenics movement gained support early in the 20th century as prominent physicians drew a direct link between heredity and public health. Eugenics was enforced by law in two Canadian provinces. In Alberta, the Sexual Sterilization Act was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women's Group. Individuals were assessed using IQ tests. This posed a problem to new immigrants arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. As a result, many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who were unfairly categorized. The province of British Columbia enacted its own Sexual Sterilization Act in 1933. As in Alberta, the British Columbia Eugenics Board could recommend the sterilization of those it considered to be suffering from "mental disease or mental deficiency."
The popularity of the eugenics movement peaked during the Depression when sterilization was widely seen as a way of relieving society of the financial burdens imposed by defective individuals. The eugenics excesses of Nazi Germany diminished the popularity of the eugenics movement.
Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased call for caution. Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical.
Consider the following principles and issues with modern new technologies and genetic engineering:
1. The Bible states that all things were created by God and for Him (Colossians 1:16). As individuals we are made in God’s image and therefore should be subject to His plan (Genesis 1:26,27;Matthew 22:20,21). God designed all living things after certain “kinds” (Genesis 1:11-25). Too much manipulation of the genetics (altering species) could be delving into issues reserved for the Designer, Creator and God of the universe.
2. Creation was affected by the events recorded in Genesis 3 (mankind’s rebellion against God’s plan). Death entered into the world, and man’s genetic make-up and that of the rest of creation began a change toward demise. In some instances, genetic engineering could be seen as an attempt to undo this result called the “curse.” However, God has said that He has a remedy for this—redemption through Jesus Christ, as described in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15. The creation anticipates newness associated with the culmination of God’s promise to restore things to an even better state than the original. To go “too far” to fight this process may compete with the responsibility of individuals to trust in Christ for restoration (Philippians 3:21).
3. It seems evident from general scriptural study that God has a plan for the process of life. It seems evident that the process is unique and purposeful. There is concern that if humanity interferes with that process, something could go terribly wrong. For example, Psalm 139 describes an intimate relationship between the psalmist and his Creator from the womb. Would the use of genetic manipulation to create life outside of God’s plan jeopardize the development of a God-conscious soul? Would interfering with the process of physical life affect the prospects of spiritual life? Romans 5:12 tells us that all humanity sins because Adam sinned. It is understood that this involved the transference of the sin nature from generation to generation so that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). Paul explains the hope of eternity through the conquering of Adam’s sin. If all that are in Adam (from his seed) die, and Christ died for those in such condition, could life created outside of that “seed” be redeemed? (1 Corinthians 15:22, 23).
4. There is also the concern that such bold strides in genetic engineering are motivated by a defiance of God. Genesis 11:1-9 discusses what happens when the creation attempts to exalt itself above the Creator. The people in Genesis 11 were unified, yet they were not submissive to God’s design. As a result, God stopped their progress. God certainly recognized that there were some dangers involved with the direction in which the people were headed. We have a similar warning in Romans 1:18-32. There God describes individuals that have become so enamored with the creation (actually worshipping it rather than the Creator) that those individuals spiraled down to destruction. There is a danger that genetic engineering could foster similar motivations, and ultimately, similar results.
5. Finally, if humanity was created, then there must be a Creator, and humanity is therefore subject and accountable to that Creator. Although the world’s thinking would have one believe that man is accountable to no one but himself and that man is the ultimate authority, the Bible teaches differently. God created man and gave him responsibility over the earth (Genesis 1:28-29, 9:1-2). With this responsibility comes accountability to God. Man is not the ultimate authority over himself, and he is therefore not in a position to make decisions about the value of human life. Neither, then, is science the authority by which the ethics of eugenics, human cloning, abortion, or euthanasia are decided. According to the Bible, God is the only one who rightfully exercises sovereign control over human life.
As a follower of Christ, one needs to seriously consider these questions and issues before making too speedy a decision to accept all benefits that science promises.
Check out the article by Church Colson and his view on eugenics: “War on the Weak - Eugenics has made a lethal comeback”. He says, “We are reminded that every life at every stage is precious in God's design. We must help our neighbors understand that this aspect of the Christian worldview—the conviction that all life is sacred—provides the only defense for the weakest in our midst.”
As a follower of Christ, one needs to seriously consider these questions and issues before making too speedy a decision to accept all benefits that science promises.
Check out the article by Church Colson and his view on eugenics: “War on the Weak - Eugenics has made a lethal comeback”. He says, “We are reminded that every life at every stage is precious in God's design. We must help our neighbors understand that this aspect of the Christian worldview—the conviction that all life is sacred—provides the only defense for the weakest in our midst.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/15.72.html
Check out the article on “What is the Christian view of human cloning?”
http://www.gotquestions.org/cloning-Christian.html
HOPE THIS HELPS! THANKS FOR ASKING!
[Answered by Ray Lee, Summer Intern]
