 O Lord God, who has called us Thy servants, to ventures of which we cannot see the ending, by paths as yet untrodden and through perils unknown, give us faith to go out with good courage, not knowing whether we go, but only that Thy hand is leading us and Thy love supporting us through Jesus Christ our Lord, amen. I've been asked to announce that the Non-Western Studies course will not convene until 11.15, and I think I may presume to say that if you have any other courses that were scheduled to meet prior to that time, that your attendance may be deferred until that hour. It may be of some significance that this symposium on genetics and the future of man is being held at a college which has a close and secure relationship to the Church. It is our conviction that this is an appropriate question, the question of genetics and the future of man, to engage the attention of this kind of an institution, and that this kind of an issue needs to be explored in this kind of an environment. I would like to acknowledge that we have received the most enthusiastic endorsement and encouragement for this enterprise from representatives of the Church at both the state and national levels. The God in whom we believe and in whose service we are engaged is at work in the world now. Men are called upon to be his partners and instruments in what he is doing in our time, and he calls us to the fullest possible development of our mental capacities, to exercise dominion in the light of our best reasons and our soundest judgments. Therefore, nothing that concerns man or his future can be foreign to our interests. Indeed, in the measure in which a Church or a college is sensitive to its religious commitment, it is driven to the frontiers of inquiry, just as in the measure of its sensitivity to the character and love of God, it is driven to the frontiers of need. But it does not come to these frontiers empty-handed. It comes at least with questions to be asked, with a frame of reference for asking them and reviewing answers, and with a treasury of experience out of the past of judgment and conviction concerning values which need to be heard in reference to this kind of an issue as in reference to all others. What is particularly distinctive about this symposium is that an issue which arises primarily out of scientific advances is being examined in the light of its broader implications for human society. We are asking leaders of thought in religion and ethics and in the social sciences to guide us in that examination, in the hope and expectation that they will appraise the possible benefits as well as alert us to the hazards from the possibility of genetic control. And I would want to acknowledge also that we have been urged in this direction by our scientific advisors, including Professor Tisilius, the chairman of the Nobel Foundation Board, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Dr. Polly Karp-Kusch, and Dr. Philip Hentch. Our speaker this morning is Dr. Paul Ramsey, who will discuss the moral and religious implications of genetic control. We were led to seek his participation by his acknowledged stature in the field, indicated by the fact that he holds a distinguished chair at a great university, pain professor of religion at Princeton University, and chairman of his department. He has written widely in the field of Christian ethics, including a basic text of that title and several volumes dealing with contemporary social and ethical issues such as war, the sit-in, and so forth. He has had extensive experience in Princeton's special program in the humanities. He served as president of the American Society of Christian Social Ethics in the United States and Canada in 1962 and 63. I know that he has taken this assignment very seriously, and I am sure he will treat it very helpfully. Dr. Paul Ramsey. President Carson, members of the symposium. An introduction may be compared with a bottle of perfume. They both make a fragrant odor that no one would think of taking either internally. And so I begin. There is no ethics to be found among the contents of any science. There is nevertheless a morality of science. The geneticists I have read are themselves instances of this. They do not treat the individual as if he were merely the carrier of the genetic determiners that will be productive of the next to future generations. They do not reduce him to the red color or the sweetness of a ripe apple fallen to the ground, of which it could perhaps be said, as it is said of the human genotype, that it is almost certain there has never been another blanket, which when engorged by an animal who defecates the seed at a distance from the parent tree secures the spread of the species. Few are the geneticists who in their proposals concerning genetic control toy with the idea that there might be a chemical added to the entire water supply to make everyone sterile. And then a fertility portion distributed at the city hall to those qualified to bear children. I listened with a little irreverent amusement last evening to the reading of the quotation from my friend Kenneth Boulding proposing the certificates of permission distributed to women to secure their bearing on the average only 1.36 children. Knowing as I do that my friend Kenneth Boulding is the parent, the happy parent of six children, it sounded to me like the person who demanded a remedy for stopping smoking that would not appeal to his willpower. Or at least would let Jane do it. The geneticists I have read do, I am saying, emphasize very strongly indeed the value of rational freedom. This is a fundamental ingredient in the morality of science. The rationale for this must be found among the presuppositions for there being any science of genetics at all. And not as such as a value among the contents of that or any other science. There is an ethics and there is a view of man that makes science possible. Man must be, his mind must be, his virtues or values must be of a certain order for there to be the preconditions of any scientific knowledge at all. And as Emmanuel Kant long ago knew, anything that is the necessary presupposition of scientific knowledge must be as certainly valid as that scientific knowledge itself in its content. Biologically speaking, man is a speck off of an informational speck. But still speaking biologically and genetically, man is to say the very least the geneticist who knows this. We may rewrite the celebrated thinking read passage of Blaise Pascal to read, man is a thinking mutant. It is not necessary for the whole universe to arm itself to crush him. A vapor, a drop of water, a mutant gene is sufficient to slay him. But were his genetic load to crush him, man would still be nobler than that which kills him, for he knows that he dies. He knows all the truths of micro genetics and he foreknows that he may die of the degenerative forces accumulating in the genetic substructure from which also as from the dust in Genesis came his genetic superiority over other forms of life. While the universe on the other hand and the lethal genes know nothing of the advantage they have over him. Thus our whole dignity consists in thought. Thus the ethics of science applicable to this science based issue is the fruit of what I will call consciously intending the world as a geneticist. There is a genuinely humanistic ethic at work in proposals for genetic control which is a consequence. Find it contradictory, not especially to what the sciences in their contents say, but contradictory to the presuppositions of the very possibility of such scientific knowledge for it to be proposed to treat the human individual as a mere object of genetic determination to be imposed coercively upon him. To round out this opening preliminary point let me simply say that I regard the book by Brunowski entitled Science and Human Values to be a very excellent book indeed and I recommend it to you as an expression of what I am calling the morality of science which is the fruit and the necessary presupposition of intending the world as a scientist. Now it is of course true that there are limits in the extension of this ethic or this morality and Brunowski says some manifestly absurd things in attempting to stretch this morality and this ethic to embrace for example Bishop Wilberforce's campaign against slavery in the British Empire and those two great epical moments by in the history of British and American liberties Magna Carter and the Declaration of Independence there will have to be an ethic in addition which is the fruit of intending the world as a man in the community of men and not simply the fruit of intending the world as a scientist in the community of science. Now this morning I propose simply and forthrightly to attempt to say to you some of the relevant things to the problem we're discussing in this symposium that seem to me to be the fruit of intending the world as a Christian or as a Jew and it will be obvious that there are some things from the point of view of this mode of personal existence in the world that have to be added to the morality of science which is the fruit of intending the world as a scientist with its simple and direct powerful and admirable emphasis upon the meaning of rational freedom. There are more ways to violate the human person than to violate his rational freedom and if there are these additional ways to violate the human person than to violate his rational freedom the fact that he voluntarily agrees to it is not as such sufficient to make that right. Now a first point is a fairly general one. Anyone who intends the world as a Christian or as a Jew knows already along his pulses that he is not bound to succeed in preventing genetic deterioration for example. Any more than he would be bound to succeed in holding up entropy or preventing planets from colliding with this earth or the sun from Cooley. He is under no necessity of ensuring that those who come after us will be like us any more than he is bound to ensure that there will be those like us to come after us. He who intends the world as a Christian or as a Jew knows no such absolute command of nature or of nature's god to which modern thought has been reduced since the 18th century began to darken the human sky and to moor and anchor all human values in the future of humanity in its temporal historical existence. This does not mean that he will do nothing but it does mean that as he goes about the urgent business of doing his duty in regard to future generations he will not begin with the desired end as absolutely imperative of success and deduce from that his obligation exclusively. He will not define right conduct now merely in terms of conduciveness to that historical and absolutely imperative go. He will not decide what ought to be done simply by calculating what actions are most likely to succeed in achieving the absolutely imperative end of genetic control are improved. The Christian knows no such absolute temporal or historical imperative that would justify any means. Therefore he goes about the urgent business of bringing his duty to people now alive more and to line with his genetic duty to future generations but he will do this always having in mind the premise that there may be a number of things that might succeed better but which would be intrinsically wrong means for him to adopt. Therefore he has a larger place for an ethics of means or an ethics of present conduct not wholly dependent on the ends or consequences of the action he puts forth. He knows that there may be a great many actions that would be wrong to put forth in this world no matter what good consequences are expected to follow from them especially in that temporal sphere where success has not been promised mankind by either scripture or sound reason. He will approach the question of genetic control with a category formal and empty so far of cruel and unusual means which he is prohibited to employ just as he knows that there are cruel and unusual punishments that are not to be employed in the penal code. He will ask what our right means no less than he asked what are the proper objectives and he will know in advance that any person or any society or or any age that expects and relies ultimately upon success where ultimate success is not to be found that such an age is peculiarly apt to devise extreme and morally illegitimate means of getting there. This he will know can easily be the case if men go about making themselves the lords and creators of the future race of men. He will say of course of any historical or future-facing action in which he is morally obliged to engage. He will be concerned with the consequences and he will say as Dean Atchison recently said a forum policy only the end can justify the means. Because however he is not wholly engaged to the full extent of his being in future-facing action oriented upon future consequences he will immediately add as Dean Atchison did. This is not to say that the end justifies any means or that some ends can justify anything. That is to say there may be in the realm of goal-setting things that are so excessive in their nature that they could not justify anything in the realm of means. And there may be in the realm of means things that are so excessive and violative of what should not be handled or trespassed upon in human nature that nothing in the realm of ends or goals could justify. And ethics of means not derived from or dependent upon the objectives of action is the immediate fruit of knowing that men have another end than the ever-receding future. Now we have seen that an ethics which is the fruit of intending the world as a geneticist is an ethics which also has an ethics of means in its emphasis upon the very great value of rational freedom and the voluntary self-determination. I am saying therefore simply that one who intends the world as a Christian will know more than that. He will know that man's dignity consists not only in thought or in his freedom and he will find more elements in the nature of man to be deserving of respect and to be withheld from human handing and trespass. He will pay attention to this as he goes about using indifferent permitted or not immoral means to secure the relatively imperative end of genetic control or improvement. And it is to this ethics of means that I wish mainly to direct my attention this morning. In relation to genetic proposals the most important element of Christian morality and the most important ingredient that the Christian acknowledges to be deserving of respect in the nature of man in addition to his rational freedom which needs to be brought into view in connection with our problem is our understanding concerning the nature and the integrity of human parenthood. And this is contained in the traditional teachings concerning the union in human parenthood between the two goods of human sexuality. An act of sexual intercourse is at the same time an act of love and a procreative act. This does not mean that sexual intercourse intercourse always in fact nourishes love between the two parties nor that it always engenders a child. It means simply that sexual intercourse always tends of its own nature toward the strengthening of love which we may call the unit of good and toward the engendering of children which we may call the procreated good. In short this will be the nature of human sexual relations provided there is no obstruction to the realization of these natural ends. For example infertility preventing procreation or an infirm infertile or incurving heart which prevents the strengthening of the bonds of love. Now there has been much debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics concerning whether the unity of all the procreated good is the primary or the secondary end or concerning the hierarchical order or value rank to be assigned these two goods or features. I have shown elsewhere that contrary to popular belief there is in the present day little or no essential difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings on this point. The crucial question that remains is whether sexual intercourse as an act of love should ever be separated from sexual intercourse as a procreative act. This question would remain to be decided even if the unitive and the procreated goods are equal in primacy and even if it were said that the unitive end is the absolutely higher and the only primary one in this connection. It still would have to be asked, ought men and women ever to put entirely asunder what God joined together in the mystery of human parenthood assigned to sexual intercourse as an act of personal love the supreme importance and there still remains this question to be answered whether in what sense and in what manner this should ever be divorced from sexual intercourse as in and of itself procreative. Now I will state as the premise of my later discussion the premise that an ethics whether it is proposed by people nominally Christian or not an ethic which in principle thunders these two goods regarding procreation as an aspect of biological nature to be subjected merely to the requirements of technical control while saying that the unity of purpose is the free human personally and the matter that such an ethic would pay disrespect to the nature of human parenthood and which for the man who intends the world as a Christian does not belong among the animals God gave Adam the complete dominion over. Such a viewpoint would fall out of the bounds of the variety and there's a variety of Christian positions that might still be taken up and debated among people who undertake to intend the world in that way an ethic which in principle and radically separates between these two goods making procreation into the animals over which mankind was given complete and limitless dominion such an ethic would have violated something in the nature of human parenthood that ought not so to be valid but having stated that premise which I'm going to implore still let me say it's important that these outer limits be carefully defined in order for us to see clearly the requirements of respect for the created nature of man womanhood and for us not immediately to rule out certain actions that have traditionally been excluded most Protestants endorse contraceptive appliances which separate while it is being exercised the sex act as an act of love for whatever tendency there may be in the act at the time or in the sexual powers of the parties toward the engendering of a child but when they make that separation in the act they do not separate the sphere or realm of their personal love from the sphere or realm of their procreation they do not separate between the person with whom the bond of love is nourished and the person with whom procreation may be brought into exercise one has only to make this distinction this distinction between what is done in particular actions from what is either intended or done in a whole series of acts of conjugal intercourse in order to see clearly that contraception need not exhibit a fundamental attack upon what God joined together in the creation of man womanhood and of human parents where planned parenthood is not planned unparathood clearly the husband and the wife do not tear their own one flesh unity with one another completely away from all positive response and obedience to the mystery of procreation by which it is given them in a later moment of their own union also to pass or to intend to pass into the one flesh of the child moreover the fact that God joined love and progeny or the unitive and procreated purposes of sex and marriage together this is held in honor and not torn asunder when you think about it even when a couple for grave or for what in their case is to them sufficient reason adopt a lifelong policy of planned unparathood this possibility can no more be excluded by Protestant ethics than it is today excluded by Roman Catholic ethics which teaches that under certain circumstances a couple may adopt a systematic and possibly lifelong policy of restricting their use of the unity of good to only such times as it is believed there is no tendency in the woman's sexual nature toward conception the grave reasons permitting this or indeed obliging to this have been extended in recent years from extreme danger to the life of the woman if she attempt to give birth to include grave family financial difficulties because the end is the procreation and the education child and even extended to allow that the that the economy of the environment society and the world our specific local overpopulation may be taken into account by even the healthy and the wealthy as sufficient reason for having fewer children or for having no more at all once mankind's genetic dilemma is called to the attention of the mind of the church and its moral theologians I can see in this no intrinsic reason why these categories of analysis may not be applied to allow ample room for voluntary eugenic decisions to be made either to have no children or to have fewer children for the sake of future generations after all Christian teachings have always held that procreation is precisely the place where one has to perform his duty to the future of the species this has never been a matter of the selfish gratification of would-be parents if the fact situation disclosed by the science of genetics can prove that a given person cannot be the progenitor of healthy individuals or at least of not unduly defective individuals in the next generation then such a person's right to have children becomes his duty not to do so or to have fewer children than he might want since he never had any right to have children simply for his own sake Protestant and Roman Catholic couples in practicing eugenic control over their own reproduction may continue unless the latter church changes its teaching about contraception in the wake of the Vatican Council they may continue to say to one another we both worship the same God you and your way and I and his still still without without much if any alteration in the ethical concepts currently approved the Roman Catholic no less than the Protestant Christian could adopt a policy of lifelong non parenthood or less parentage for eugenic reasons such married partners I would argue would still be seeing by their actions and by their whole course of life that if either had a child or if either has more children this will be from their own one flesh unity with one another and not apart from this their response to what God joined together and to the claim he placed upon human life when he ordained that procreation come from sexual love would be expressed by their resolve to whole acts of procreation even the procreation they have not or have no more within the sphere of acts of conjugal love now a person who in this way is intending the world as a Christian and who then comes to be the subjective knowing mind who hears about the genetic dilemma and learns of at least a few of the proposals of genetic control is apt to say that in some of them at least personal freedom has been elevated out of all measure and to say that the respect in which there is contained here no longer any honor paid to this connection when men and women are called upon to act as if anything that technically can be done to exert dominion over procreation should or may be done provided it's voluntary a christian is apt to say of that ethics and it is an ethics that it could be summed up in another myth of creation that is not his namely by rewriting genesis to tell of the creation of man womanhood with two separate faculties sex serving the single end of manifesting and deepening the unity of life between the partners while human offspring are born from the woman's brow and somehow impregnated through the ear by a cool deliberate act of the man's rational will that is not the way in which the christian would understand this element in the being of man which is capable of being validated whether voluntarily or involuntarily to put radically asunder what god joined together in parenthood in making love procreated on the one hand to procreate from beyond the sphere of love as in artificial insemination by means of the semen of a non husband donor or by making human life and attest to you on the one hand or to posit acts of sexual love beyond the sphere of responsible procreation which is by definition married either of those extremes would mean a refusal of the image of god's creation in our very own for the christian at the very heart of his world in theological view lives by and out of the full that god creating out of and from within the midst of his love and in the union of procreation with love in man is a trace or an image of god in whose image we are made image of god is not to be located simply in the mind of man or in his rational freedom now science-based culture such as the present one of necessity he rose and makes nonsense out of all sorts of bonds and connections which a christian sees to be the case thus for example because of our modern atomistic individualism modern thought tends to deliver the verdict of guilty of monopoly upon definitions of marriage as a mutual and exclusive exchange of rights to acts which of themselves tend to the nurturing of love or unity of life and to the engendering of children when by that definition and those words was only meant to call the attention of men and women to the fact that there is a real bond of life with life reciprocally brought into existence by their marital consents and among geneticists H.J. Muller for one delivers the verdict guilty of genetic proprietorship that so many men hold dear or fixation on the attempted perpetuation of justice own particular genes or feelings of proprietary rights and prerogatives about one's own germinal material supported by misplaced egotism those are the verdicts of guilt that are assigned to the this particular teaching in the historic ethics of the west when all that is at stake in that historic ethic and actually in the minds of a great many people today is the bond to be held in respect between personal love and human procreation which as explained above is about as far from selfish proprietorship as anything could possibly be as far indeed as marriage is from monopoly there may be an irrepressible conflict for all i know between values governing in some genetic proposals and the historic values expressed by christian but there's no reason for the conflict to be an irrational one or irrationally conceived and this happens today whenever there is evidently such an unparallel breakdown of our moral tradition that men of science often cannot even understand what is being said in the utterance of christian ethical judgments the verdicts monopoly and proprietorship over germinal material turn it once into judgments upon a whole culture that could produce great intelligences capable of uttering them or incapable of understanding christian ethics in terms except in terms of such absurdities not let us resume our examination of the various methods that have been proposed for the control or improvement of man's genetic inheritance evaluating these in the light of the requirement that there be no complete or radical or in principle separation between the personally unitive and the procreative aspects of of human sexual life by this standard i would say there would seem to be no objection to eugenically motivated birth control if the facts are sufficient to show that genetic defects belong among those grave reasons that may warrant the systematic or even lifelong prevention of conception a husband and wife who decide to practice birth control for eugenic reasons are still resolved to whole acts of procreation even the procreation they have not or have no more within the sphere of their conjugal love now this understanding of the moral limits are out of bounds upon methods that may properly be adopted involuntary genetic control leads also i would argue to the permissibility of artificial conception control no less than the so-called method and i would additionally argue to the endorsement of voluntary sterilization for eugenic reasons now i know that many of my fellow christians do not agree with these conclusions yet it seems clear that both are open for choice as means if the ends are also important enough provided christian ethics is no longer restricted to the analysis of individual acts and instead is concerned with the coincidence of the spheres of personal sexual love and the procreation to which particular actions belong neither people who practice artificial birth control nor a husband who decides to have a vasectomy for eugenic reasons are saying by the total course of their lives anything other than that if either has a child or has more children this will be from their own one flesh unity with one another and not apart from this in principle they hold together they do not come put completely asunder what god joined together namely the sphere of procreation even the procreation they have not or have no more and the sphere where they exchange acts which of their nature tend to nurture their unity of life with one another their morality is not oriented upon genetic consequences alone which are believed to justify any voluntary means nor is it an ethics of inner intention alone which is believed to make any sort of conduct right they do something and they're constantly engaged in doing something which gives their behavior a character that is derived neither wholly from the desired results nor from the subjective intention they do something and they continually do something which is actually to unite through the whole course of life their loving and their procreativity which incidental to this they have not so they do no wrong they do not do wrong that good may come of it they do right that good may come of it in this moral reason I am I can see no difference between the case for contraception and the case for voluntary contraceptive sterilization except in the not unimportant differences in the finding of facts that may warrant the one of the other and the fact that as yet sterilization is ordinarily irreversible and even in terms of the more static formulations of the past it could certainly be said that a vasectomy performed upon the male is a far less serious invasion of nature than massive assaults upon the woman's generative nature by means of contraceptive pills I can myself only explain the praise heaped upon that device by the fact that most geneticists are male I as sometimes the pejorative explanation of some of the absurd ingredients in Christian sexual teachings namely most of the priests that wrote the books are celibates now concluding on this point may I simply ask my Roman Catholic friends here to consider if it be the case me not one who would presume to predict if it be the case that the significant movement made in the next 10 years in Roman Catholic teachings is the shift from concentration upon features of the conjugal act that ought not to be separated to concentration upon features of the order of marriage the sphere of the realm of marriage that ought not to be separated if it be secondly the case that this leads to the definition as possibly listed of the use of artificial concept contraceptive devices then it would seem to me impossible to keep the reasoning from leading on to the conclusion that voluntarily voluntary sterilization as a contraceptive device could be employed when any of sterilization becomes a ordinarily reversible procedure and then finally I would ask you simply to consider if that is the case what then happens to your moral conclusion when you bring together with this the fact that Roman Catholic thought no less than Protestant has already arrived at the justification for grave and sufficient reason of the systematic and possibly lifelong practice of the control of reproduction in any case this is to suggest to you the ethical analysis to which I would adhere now the notation to be made concerning genetic surgery or the introduction of some anti-mutant chemical intermediary which will eliminate a genetic defect before it can be passed on for reproduction what uh professor Tatum spoke about the notation to be made upon that I believe is very simple should the practice of such medical genetics become feasible at some time in the future it will raise no moral questions at all at least none that are not already present in the practice of medicine generally morally medical genetics to enable a man and a woman to be able to engender a child without some defective gene they have been discovered to carry would seem to be on all fours with treatment to cure infertility if one of the partners bears that defect any significant difference between these two cases arises from the vastly greater complexity of the practice of genetic surgery and the seriousness of the consequences uh if because of insufficient knowledge an error is made the cautionary word and it's only a cautionary word to be applied here is simply the moral warning against culpable ignorance the science of genetics and medical practice based on it would be obliged to be fully informed of the facts and it should have a reasonable and well examined expectation of doing more good than harm by eliminating the genetic defect in question the seriousness of this consideration arises from the serious matter with which genetic surgery would be dealing still the culpability of actions put forth in removable ignorance cannot be invoked as a caution without allowing at the same time that in the practice of genetic medicine the doubtless will be errors which are incomparably ignorant but genetic injuries of this order would be tragic like birth injuries under certain circumstances they would entail no wrong doing nor should applications of genetic science be stopped until all such eventualities are impossible that would be an impossible demand which no morality imposes now the paradox of the position I've arrived at is as I understand it that the most unquestionably moral means of genetic control that is direct action upon the genotype by some surgical or chemical method before it comes into reproduction is technically the most difficult and probably distant in the future while a number at least of the means presumable the means presently available phenotypic breeding in a breeding out are of quite questionable morality and questionable for reasons that the voluntariness of the practice would not remove now I'm not sure about this dilemma because the geneticist I read seemed to disagree on this the geneticists that stress the great strides we could make towards solving mankind's genetic the genetic dilemma if we obtain the capacity to perform genetic surgery and genetic medicine at that point are the ones that emphasize the scientific difficulties of phenotypic breeding in and breeding out accomplishing much those who approve of the latter methods being adopted are the ones who emphasize the enormous difficulty of our ever-retaining competence really to apply genetic medicine considering the consider the following two quotations which may indicate scientific disagreement alone in facts analysis and prognosis it may indicate some difference for all I know hidden and repressed in the moral stance taken by the two geneticists in any case it leaves me free or under the necessity of making a judgment on my own the first quotation is from Joshua Lederberger Lederberg who wrote the technology of human genetics is pitifully clumsy even by the standards of practical agriculture surely within a few generations we can expect to learn tricks of immeasurable advantage why bother now with somatic selection so slow in its impact second quotation from uh mr. Muller it is preposterous to suppose that in the foreseeable future knowledge would be precise enough knowledge in genetic surgery precise enough to enable us to say what substitution to make in the genotype in order to affect a given desired phenotypic alteration but even when we got the knowledge centuries hence he goes on to suppose that after it had become possible men would still be bound by the reproductive traditions of today preferring this genetic surgical ultra sophisticated method of improvement to the readily available one of selecting donor material free from the given defect already possessing the desired innovation that would be a calamity on the rationality of the human race it would be like supposing that in some technically advanced society elaborate super highways were constructed to carry vehicles on enormous detours to avoid defiling hallowed domains reserved in perpetuity for their millions of sacred cows now i will not enter into the scientific dispute but i must say that this last quotation from hj Muller indicates that he may be sorely in need of instruction in the difference between sacred cows and that sacredness in the temporal order who is man Muller of course respects man's quality as a thinking animal he would not violate his freedom and he challenges man to the most noble actions this ethics i've pointed out is not to be found among the contents of the science of genetics but is rather the necessary presupposition of man the geneticist and is the fruit of intending the world with the scientific mind neither is christian ethics to be found among the contents of any natural science nor can it be disproven by any of the facts which such science is no it is the fruit rather of intending the world as a christian and the christian understands the humanum of man to include the body of his soul no less than the soul or mind of his body in particular he holds in honor the union of the realm of personal love with the realm of procreativity in man-womanhood and in parenthood which is the image of god's creation from out of the midst of his love since artificial insemination by means of semen from a non-husband donor a id we shall call it puts completely asunder what god joined together this proposed method of genetic control origin genetic improvement must be defined as an exercise of illicit dominion over man no less than would be the case if his free will is forced not all dominion over man's own physical nature of course is wrong but this would be uh and for the reasons uh indicated now in outline professor moeller proposes a germinal choice be secured by giving eugenic direction to a id julian huxley once called this pre-adoption an a id you may know has already become a minority institution in our society he proposes further the comparable techniques be developed and employed faster pregnancy which is in a sense the reverse of a id uh and even porthenogenesis our stimulated asexual reproduction moreover just as the enormous difficulties in the way of perfecting punk deform genetic surgery inclined moller to uh phenotypic selection or breeding in or breeding out uh so the uh slow gains to be made by preventive or negative eugenics inclined him to go all the way uh toward uh the approval of positive or progressive uh eugenics so far as a id is concerned the idea is this instead of if a couple are going to practice a id instead of choosing a donor who is likely to engender a child resembling the adopted father the adopting father instead of using medical students notoriously not of the highest intelligence according to mr moeller instead of using uh instead of using bar hops as have sometimes has sometimes been done instead of using a id only when the husband is infertile or the carrier of grave genetic defects and instead of keeping the matter secret he proposes that the select the first the selection of donors of the highest proven physical mental emotional and moral traits he proposes that publicity be given to the practice so that more and more people may follow our genetic leaders and voluntarily decide to bestow upon that children the very best genetic inheritance instead of their own precious genes now in order for this to be most effectively done moeller proposes that the setting up of an elaborate system of deep frozen seaman banks uh and the keeping of phenotypic records uh that can constantly be evaluated at least 20 years should be allowed to elapse before the frozen seaman is used in order for a sound judgment to be made upon the donor's capacitors the men who earn enduring esteem can thus be manifolded and called upon to reappear age after age until the population in general has caught up with them um i think it was an insufficient answer suggested last night to the fact that in his 1935 book uh he declared that no intelligent and moral sensitive woman would refuse to bear a child of lenean uh while in later versions lenean is omitted and einstein pasture day cart lernardo and lincoln are nominated moeller might very well reply either by defending lenean uh or by saying that not enough time had a lapse for him to know uh because that precisely is one of his proposals now to his fellow geneticist i can well leave the task of stating or demonstrating scientific over that matter other socio psychological objections to this proposal in summary scientific socio scientific objections would include the fact that the genes of supposed the period superior male may include injurious recessives which by artificial insemination would become widespread throughout the population instead of remaining in small proportion as they now do that the children of genius is now alive do not give too much support for this proposal but it might turn out that parents parents who looked forward eagerly to having a harrow it's in the family would discover later that it was not so fine as they had expected because he might have a temperament incompatible with their normal family uh that it's bad enough for human beings to have to take responsible of all things for the environment in which our children grow up and for us to take responsibility for their genetic makeup too why then the guilt would become unimba would would become quite in quite unbearable uh that we would not have a healthy society because not many men would be emotionally satisfied by having children not their own that we know little of nothing about the mutation rate uh that would continue to go on in the frozen uh semen banks uh without opening however those questions it seems to me that the verdict has to be negative on other grounds on specifically the moral ground about the intrinsic nature of human parenthood and this being something the violation of which uh is as precious to the dignity of man as the preservation of his rational uh his rational freedom now let me however now conclude nevertheless looking back upon this review of the various notations affirmative or negative about various means that can be used in genetic control that there does seem to be uh in the united states how many parents after having had a seriously defective child already will accept a 25 percent possibility of having another equally defective and to learn that the risk i'm told by the doctor's read that the risk has to be about 33 and a third percent uh before they will adopt an ethic of genetic responsibility uh toward the forthcoming generation this can only be called genetic imprudence with the further notation that in any moral system imprudence is gravely morally evil what is lacking is not the moral argument but a moral movement the christian churches have in the past have they not been able to promote celibacy to the glory of god men and women who for the supreme end of human existence deny themselves if that is the word for it the goods of marriage these same christian churches should be able to promote voluntary or vocational childlessness or policies of restricted reproduction for the sake of the children of generations to come in place of Mueller's foster pregnancy the churches should set before such couples alternatives that might be called foster parentage by that i mean not only adoption but all the ways in which parental instincts may be fulfilled in couples sons would be called upon to deny themselves if that is the word for it one of the goods of marriage for the sake of that other uh end or good which precisely is the place uh where in the order of marriage one uh has impinging upon him uh his responsibility uh toward the future generations of mankind such persons would honor the creator of all human love and all human procreation in that they would still hold in incorruptible union the love which they have and the procreation that they ever have we shall ask the ushers to receive to pass through the aisles and receive any questions that you may wish to present to dr ramsey ramsey you have made use of a term which i think i understand and i'm sure that uh most of us do but would you comment on it briefly when you speak of intending a world as christians would you comment on the implications of the verb intend the tough one thank president carlson that's about the most difficult question you could have asked you know after all the some truth in poetry isn't there now i mean a mode of personal self-determination i suppose i'm invoking categories that you would only understand if you know a little bit about existential philosophy when i speak of man's mode of being in the world a man's mode of being in the world his fundamental stance of posture in the world how one intends the world one's orientation out upon the world i think the scientist as scientist has an orientation out upon the world defining his mode of existence cross scientist in relation to that word uh he may have other modes of existence toward the world ways of being in the world and orienting himself upon it a man in the community of men no less than a scientist in the community of scientists i think that should well just have to be sufficient here because that gets one into philosophy there's a couple of questions about abortion what would be the moral and religious implications of genetic control through the practice of having abortions at what point does abortion become murder it's not that i don't have anything to say it's that i have so much to say as a measure of genetic control abortion presumably would be being used as a contraceptive device wouldn't it a method of controlling reproduction without opening the question that the second card has on it about whether it is murder or not without opening the question does it not seem to you that the idea of abortion being systematically used as a contraceptive device has about it very grave questions indeed in terms of the massiveness of the attack upon the female organism and psyche if we're talking about a contraceptive device surely there are many contraceptive devices that if you go this far with me and my argument are to be encouraged and promoted before one would ever think of getting it socially accepted in the habits and customs of a society that abortion would be resorted to as a contraceptive device as it is rather systematically in in in japan i must say on this point another word that i averted to in the paper i know what plan parenthood association mean and it's certainly obviously right when they are always concentrating attention in the developments of methods of the control of conception that will be administered by the woman and not by the man now as a practical orientation of research in this area certainly well ordinary human race justifies that but if one's talking about the morality of the bond between man and woman in marriage then this concentration upon the woman who because she is the child bearer is also to take chief responsibility for the control of child bearing then one is saying something that i think fundamentally is to be called in question in terms of the nature of the bond between husband and wife i could almost argue for the moral responsibility on the part of the husband to take care of the contraception as a part of his responsibility in husband mean his wife's child bearing capacities uh running counter to this excessive emphasis upon what does what one is researching how to do and planning to do massively upon the female part of the population now do you want me to talk about murder and abortion let me let me just through comment without giving you a particular conclusion what i think we ought to have is some good discussion of this subject about abortion as it relates to the right of life now i want to inform you about the situation there are certain spheres of our existence that are always sort of antiquated in the need of reform our law for example defines there being an independent person with a right of life after birth you have to have a man alive in order to have the category of murder in the civil law where abortion is a separate crime criminal offense in the civil law it's not the cause uh fetal life before birth uh is regarded as the bearer of rights it's because society is presumed to have some kind of stake uh in that biological matter out of which a human life will come in other words the answer to this person's questions as far as the civil law is concerned the point of birth now there are also some other superstitious people around namely um roman catholics who uh they not only may but they do debate whether there came into existence another human life who is not a part of the woman's body at the point of insemination or much later at the point of uh animation our independent self movement in the womb then it may be debated among roman catholics is the point where god's creation of the unique individual soul comes to form in a human way that matter now as against these antiquated notions if i read my genetics geneticist are just about to resolve an ancient theological dispute uh they the position of traducianism uh you know taken for centuries in the church uh says that the unique human person soul is the word for it in the religious language the unique human individual is produced he's drawn forth from the parents at the time of insemination it would seem that science is uh in the significance given to the uniqueness if not quite the intrinsic unrepeatability at least the virtual unrepeated mess of the individual genotype uh coming into existence at the point of conception uh that if you do not find there the place to honor what is there you are not going to find the place to honor what is there uh when you later on bring in say the science of environmentalism to explain how our souls our minds our unique individuality uh was infused into our beings at a leader uh at a at a at a leader point in other words i i i myself uh simply in many ways suspend judgment on the question i i would like some really intelligent discussion of it instead of what i must regard as the expressions of trivial conscience uh when a person gets up in a professional society and says we're just about to be able to do something in the laboratory and somebody should begin giving attention to the ethics of the matter i it would be a serious and not a trivial conscience if it would genuinely meant that if we give attention to the ethics of the matter and if as a scientist i have brought in knowledge that tends to show uh that a uniquely new life is here uh then i uh will propose say for example to stop certain experiments uh which i would not have which i might have performed had uh had i not uh been able with my science to contribute some clarity to these ancient theological disputes is the church really an adequate body for deciding to make up a few generations i do not think that i suggested that it was um it certainly has something to do with the cultivation of an ethos that contains an understanding of every dimension of our duties the information the facts uh would be secured by members of the church from elsewhere uh than the church is teaching what do you think would become of christians uh do you think there would be enough christians who would voluntarily limit their parenthood that i don't know as i say i'm shocked by what dr reed informs me what should be the christian view on sex education courses in the public schools well i have no objections to them i don't think much ever comes from them precisely because education into the nature of human sexuality is not informational i think every young person sitting here hadn't read anything new on this subject since he as she was 12 i uh but i doubt very much if you understand it properly uh in terms of of a genuine human understanding uh of the of the of the of the of the matter uh education for marriage for example i quite seriously believe is primarily education to be able to promise us you need the information sure uh but how do you educate how do you educe out of uh our youth how any of us ever get that way uh a capacity to promise possibly to one's own hurt and change not uh which is the coven marriage i do not think that comes out of sex education would it be moral for people to one generation to plan the genotype of future generations particularly with respect to loading them increasingly with deleterious genes of course a lot of part is going if it if it goes on is going on in an unplanned fashion so i suppose what is being asked is simply whether in a program of positive or negative eugenics it will be moral for people of one generation to plan the genotype of future generations i think then that question is primarily raises a question that i did not at all discuss today having to do with the ethics of the goals to be set and ethics of the ends and that question is primarily a question of your choice in the field of eugenics between positive or progressive eugenics uh and uh negative eugenics now anyone who ask in some earnestness whether it's moral to plan the genotype of future generations surely would have that doubt in his mind erased if he is simply considering a proposal a plan of selective negative eugenics selective negative eugenics is certainly sufficiently founded in the capacity of human beings in the present generation to make judgments about selected things that would be gravely deleterious to wish off on any individual uh so i would judge myself that the person who wrote that question just ought to clarify it a bit and and realize that the doubt that the question expresses probably goes to proposals of a vast and sweeping order having to do with progressive eugenics the remaking as it were of of the of the of the of germinal poo and i would have very question about that too though i don't rule it out as a program of selective negative eugenics proceeded as the scientific basis for that became firmer and more adequate than would one would be making decisions that would tend to all put together have something positively to do progressively to do perhaps with the with the future if i can read this you talk about making life in a test tube as out of god's creative intent making life in vitro is not necessarily the same as making human life there's no reason to perpetuate this confusion in the minds of young people i'm very sorry um you quote you're quote from mulla near the end emphasizes the difference between life and human life well in connection with the abortion question we were upon the quest when there is human life it's a serious question but i was not in the analysis i gave for what it may be worth on this point i did not enter that question i don't care if the human life comes into existence at five years old which is when i like them best you know they got real personality not yet fallen at least not too much certainly in many points in our discussion the question when you have a human life a subject capable of being the bearers of an independent right to life is a very great problem and it does relate to the question of abortion um but i just want to repeat for your understanding i wasn't talking about that i was talking about the nature of parenthood the nature of that relationship as it will be reviewed by the christ by the religious traditions of the west i was talking about something about the man-woman hood of the parties in marriage as it enters into a definition of the nature and the integrity of their parenthood as providing us in so far as the religious ethic is concerned providing us with a way of understanding a bond of unity between act but between a sphere in which their love is manifested and nourished and strengthened from for one another as the sphere out of which without complete separation and violation their procreation or their permanent edges is is coming now whether the process by which that takes place leads at the point of insemination or at the point of animation or at the point of birth or at five years or when you get an A B from Gustavus Adolphus to there being a human being on the scene does not relate to that argument it has to do with the nature of human parent parentage as a moral bond a moral relationship uh that was the issue that i mean it was concentrating upon as you will note there are a sizable number of questions that remain i think we ought not to continue this session longer they will be turned over to dr ramsey and he may want to review them before the panel tonight the remaining sessions of this symposium are the lecture at two o'clock and the closing panel this evening at eight thirty