Wednesday, September 25, 2002

I can understand Dr. Moffatt's disagreement with my characterization of his ideas as resembling eugenics.

But Dr. Moffat did raise the issue of "fitness" for parents, saying that those who are emotionally, mentally, or financially unstable should really reconsider the decision to conceive. By implication, it seems, Dr. Moffat is suggesting that only parents who are 100 percent prepared to have children ought to do so.

This kind of picking and choosing which parents should or should not have children is at the root of eugenics, even if the consideration is on the theoretical level.

Writings by eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger lament the poor and uneducated having too many children, and advocate the use of the intellect, science, and social planning to prevent that destructive trend. Later, Sanger went on to advocate restricted births for blacks, Asians, and immigrants of all kinds.

Now, I am not a fool and agree with Dr. Moffat's admonition to parents to hold as paramount the child's welfare when considering parenthood. Our culture is too self-oriented and children are suffering at the hands of parents who view them more as toys or objects than as precious individuals who require sacrifice.

But Dr. Moffat seems to want to subject parenthood to the same sort of dry, self-interested analysis as we do economic policy or scientific research. Parenthood and childbearing instead need to be regarded as special institutions, set apart by God from the beginning of time for a special purpose: the creation and nurturing of new life.

If we can agree to that premise, then our ideas about how to best foster proper parenting will be in accord with the sanctity of life.

Trey Hoffman

Sharpsburg