"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." -Albert Schweitzer
Time.com: Making sperm from stem cells (link to the article)
"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." - Genesis 9:7
"They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don't say that anymore." -Gattaca, 1997
If you've ever seen Gattaca or The Island, I fear it is to that end we are headed.
I am all for the furtherance of science and exploration into medical cure-alls for people with certain conditions, but procreation...the act of combining two sets of dioxyribnucleic acid (DNA for you less than swarthy types) to create a human being is best left to a man and woman who love each other.
Now before you get all anecdotal about how science has given infertile men and women the chance to procreate, let me assure you that in some given circumstances I find it to be acceptable to use artificial means. It is in this regard that the ends justify the means...if an infertile man or woman would like to propogate the specieas by donating material for that intended use, then by all means, go for it.
But to generate and create life for the mere purposes of playing God is a future that frightens me, simply because in our fallible and disgusting human nature, we tend to seek the more lucrative paths before we interject ourselves with moral ones. Just how much would a doctor make if they were to advertise the first "made-to-order" baby, where you can pick hair and eye color, gender and talents, with mere mix of a chemical cocktail?
Or how about creating copies of ourselves so we can harvest perfect donor organs when something goes wrong?
With mankind being as materialistic as it is, it is a shadow of the things that COULD be which may very well solidify into something that actually exists.
And it's a thought I do NOT like entertaining.
Let me also clarify...being a parent after life is created is not at all what I am targeting. Love is an existential entity...based on circumstance, environment, and most importantly, intent. If a single woman is intent on having a child through artifical means, and subsequently giving that child a wonderful life, then that is one of those cases where the ends justify the means.
But creating a human in a petrie dish?
Creating life is not a mere mix of chemicals and genetics. Is it not merely a seed being planted and raised in the fertile loam of a womb. There is but a spark that gives it meaning, and thought, and soul, and life. I would like to think that spark is called "love", and it is created when a man and a woman love each other.
And when God devines it through HIS grace. Not ours.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sparks, I feel much the same way (playing God, that is) about the docs who save a terribly wounded warrior who will have little good quality of life. Saving a brain damaged soldier injured from IUDs to the point of being a nonfunctional human being is sometimes not humane but instead cruel.
I feel much the same about extreme preemies. While I certainly am not advocating letting them die, I don't believe that the docs should use "heroic measures" to save them so the kids - and their families - fail to have decent quality of life.
I don't want to go down the slippery slope with the elderly or the Terri Schival types or preemies or our wounded warriors. However, I think our docs should use some ethics is saving some and shouldn't do it just because they can!
Post a Comment