As I mentioned yesterday, when it comes to issues of bioethics the “degradation of language only leads to linguistic confusion and muddy thinking.” A prime example can be found in the BBC article that Ryan cites. The term design means to intend for a definite purpose—and the gene mapping test is intended for the very definite purpose of culling embryos that do not meet the parent’s concept of quality.
The term reproductive technology is no longer just a metaphor of the factory. Now we are applying the actual methods of the factory, specifically the process of quality assurance—throwing out the products that do not fit our standard.
Such reliance on questionable or unethical reproductive technologies strips away the sense of mystery that surrounds the creation of new life. Instead of accepting children as created in the image of God, we are producing them in our own image.
The most troubling aspect may be in what it says about our expression of love toward children. In his book Faith, Hope, Love, the Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper explores the various meanings and connections between the concepts we refer to as love. What, he asks, is the “recurrent identity underlying the countless forms of love?”
My tentative answer to this question runs as follows: In every conceivable case love signifies much the same as approval. This is first of all to be taken in the literal sense of the word’s root: loving someone or something means finding him or its probes, the Latin word for “good.” It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, “It’s good that you exist; it’s good that you are in the world!”
Parent’s who design their child—choosing an embryo based on a standard of quality—are expressing a contingent form of love: “It’s good that you exist if you are free from defect.” The very process of embryo selection makes the parent’s love conditional. Children that do not meet the criteria simply are not chosen; they are discarded, thrown in the trash. In essence, they are being told that since they cannot be created in the way the parents’ desire, it’s not good that you exist; it’s good that you are not in the world!
Every child, though, deserves to be loved in the way that God intended parental love to be given, the way he gives it to his own children—unconditionally. Even if technology provides the means we should not usurp God’s role in the process of designing babies.
July 1st, 2009 | 1:58 pm
And the real question to ask is at what point would “We” no longer be deemed necessary for the world with all our organic unchosen personality traits. After all, we will be inferior to those children who via unnatural selection are taller, smarter and more physically perfect, creating a whole new keep up with the Jone’s type senario.
Designer genes to ensure long term economic success is just an extention of what we already have in place. We already have only 5000 of 45000 possible children born with Downs Syndrome as a result of the desire for a physical state of “perfection.” We will map out the genenome and when we do, what if we can distinguish learning disabilities, what if we can map out height, eyes, I.Q. or sexual preference.
Will we become a preselected society that lacks the capacity to cope with true “diversity?” Does anyone think (as a society) there won’t be pressure (public, social and perhaps via the government) to abort those we find less perfect in favor of those who would have less visible flaws?
July 1st, 2009 | 2:10 pm
From “Alasdair MacIntyre – Edited by Mark C. Murphy”: Marxist humanism “cuts off consideration of natural, historical, and social facts – all that remains is arbitrary choice … “I prefer this way of life to that.” End of subject. What are the options left for those who disagree?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact