As an animal husbandry tool, selective breeding has been a useful practice for mankind ever since he stopped being nomadic hunters and began building permanent communities.

The results have provided bigger and leaner cattle, sheep with thicker and softer fleece, an types of improved beasts of burden and have even provided beloved pets of all descriptions.

But selective breeding has a darker side when the concept is applied to humans. Then it becomes eugenics, the deliberate breeding of human beings. Advocates of eugenics believe that only "perfect" humans should be allowed to reproduce, or even live. Those born with deformities should undergo sterilization to ensure that defective genes will not be passed on to future generations.

Should human beings be selectively bred? Should those with damaged genes be allowed to reproduce? Should women be allowed to abort fetuses that an amniocentesis has shown to be defective? These are tough questions to ask and answer.

Did you know that one form or another of eugenics has been practiced in this country since the 1930s?

Who could demand that a woman give birth to a child who will be born with Tay-Sachs disease, knowing that the child will be dead in a few years - and that the child will suffer horribly before finally dying?

Afamily I knew suffered through something similar to Tay-Sachs with their youngest child. By a fluke of nature, each parent unknowingly carried a recessive gene for a particular syndrome, one which prevented children from thriving. According to the odds, any of their children had a 50 percent chance of not surviving.

This couple had two children, a boy and a girl. The boy was perfect, healthy, hearty, quick and strong.

His little sister was not so fortunate. Born seemingly normal, by the time she was four she was emaciated, blind, fed through a tube and totally unresponsive to any outside stimulus - including her mother's touch. The little girl died not long after reaching this point.

After seeing the heartbreak this family went through, I certainly don't want to be the one who decides whether it would be proper for any mother to carry a child bearing any syndrome similar to Tay-Sachs to term. That question can only be answered by the parents themselves.

For although there was much heartbreak in watching one's child die by inch by inch, I also saw a lot of resolve and love in that home too.

The heart of the question is where do you draw the line in determining when it is a mercy to terminate a pregnancy and when it is not?

But who could advocate the termination of a fetus with Down's Syndrome in this day and age? Medical advances and early training have proven that many people bom with Down's Syndrome can grow up and live somewhat productive lives. But is everyone emotionally equipped to raise a child with Down's Syndrome? Who should make this decision, the state or the mother?

Should it be public policy that all those who carry the damaged genes which create a cleft palate be forcibly sterilized? If you begin sterilizing for cases such as that, how much bigger of a step is it to begin sterilizing those who carry the undesirable genetic qualities such as obesity or nearsightedness?

Should parents be able to choose whether their child is a boy or a girl? What eye color or hair color they should have? These types of choices are possible with the advances of modem medicine. But is it right, should parents be allowed to make these choices?

And if we allow parents to make these choices, how big a step is it before governments begin requiring citizens to be genetically tested for certain diseases?

How far a step from there before you have these governments stating that only those who are "genetically pure," may have children? Who gets to make these choices for the people?

It's been proven already that some people carry in their genetic makeup a likelihood of contracting heart disease, certain types of cancer and other diseases. Do we now tell these people that they will never be able to have children?

Where do you draw the line? When is the practice of eugenics a blessing and when has it become a mad, modem parody of Adolf Fhtler's Germany?

Hitler definitely believed in eugenics. According to him, the Aryans were the perfect human being - tall, thin, blonde, blue-eyed. Aryans were the master race, the future rulers of this planet. And he murdered by the millions to create a world for his perfect people. Are we now to become the inheritors of his mad scheme?

Did you know that since the 1930s a form of eugenics has been a common practice in some areas of Europe and in this country? Did you know that it is a common practice to sterilize retarded children who have been institutionalized? Did you know that in some cases from the 1930s to the 1950s, orphans who were not adopted by the time they were 18 were also sterilized? Not just in Europe - but in America, too! Is this right? Is this the kind of country we want?

Selective breeding is a useful tool if you're trying to breed healthier dairy cows or a prizewinning cat but it is an insidious, sickening tool when applied to human beings.

---

If you would like to drop the author a note about the article please email to deborah@ipa.net

Back to Main Page