Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
|
I've been following your discussion over the last few days. It's been dwelling in the back of my head as I run new electric wiring in the garage and install a new range in the kitchen. As a biologist, or at least one with a higher degree in biology, I am completely comfortable with life beginning at conception. Human life that it; of course animals like cows and pigs also begin at conception but we're discussing humans. In any case, it is a life and should be afforded the protections as such.
Your article raises new questions and helps direct thinking on previous questions. I find the argument "...must provide a moral value to society..." as a criteria whether or not to abort completely non sequiter. Rather than provide a moral argument this provides a moral excuse for a course of action that is obviously already supported and desired for reasons other than logic or prima facia evidence. The reasoning is very much before the horse, so to speak, and in stark contrast to what the RCC has propounded for eons. The RCC has perhaps changed the criteria it uses over time to prohibit abortion. What has remained constant throughout the history of the RCC is the value it places on life. Over time that tenet has remained constant. In fact I admire the institutions ability to adapt what science is telling us, i.e. life begins at conception, and act according to it's constant core beliefs as it has done (without change) throughout it's history.
The historical study of eugenics is a very interesting one indeed. At the time it was prevalent it was considered scientific consensus. Sound familiar? It seemed that most of the consenting scientists felt that it would be impossible for a Mozart to be bourne (yes, both biologically and raised) of an immigrant class. I see some of this thinking in the current immigration debate. More apropos to this discussion however is the the tendency for eugenicists to dictate what worth a person was to society. And thus whether that person should live or die. This is the logical conclusion of the above mentioned argument before the cart. Who decides? Obviously philosophy and ethics teachers - until someone who is more popular comes along and questions the worth of these folks to society. I'm thinking Pol Pot and others...
The genetic engineering aspect of the article you posted raises completely new questions. We are heading in a direction that is brand new. We have no history or precedence to guide us to "what is right". Scientifically we posit that humans are human because of human DNA. Morally we posit that a foetus (Latin for "little child") and that which is before has human potential that "we" are not stupid or arrogant enough to quantify at the point of conception. Additionally it possesses human DNA. Where do we go when/if we mix animal with human DNA? I don't have the answer to that and it's a good thing since it doesn't yet exist. But it will. I remember reading stories by Asimov about the very thing. And the Turing Test to quantify intelligence comes to mind. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise. The other seems fairly straightforward.