Do read this article at the Telegraph, where an article by Professor Julian Savulescu, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, is reviewed.
It seems he has suggested that it is a 'moral obligation' to move forward in designing babies and choosing the type we want rather than rely on 'the natural lottery'.
It means testing each pregnant woman to see if the child she is bearing is 'defective' in any way......then killing the ones we feel are less than perfect. Just continue killing all the 'defective' ones until a perfect one comes along.
Are you reminded, as I am, of Hitler's quest for the perfect Aryan race, and his systematic killing of all the 'less-than-perfect' ones?
Does that sound 'Moral'?
Don't we have a 'Moral Obligation' to speak up for those who do not have a voice?
Related posts:
Image bearers
Open Letter to M: Why abortion cannot be a matter of personal choice
Only 0.006 percent of abortions are done to save the mother's life
It seems he has suggested that it is a 'moral obligation' to move forward in designing babies and choosing the type we want rather than rely on 'the natural lottery'.
By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out. In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.
"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.
"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.
"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.
"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.
"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others." "If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should."What he has forgotten to mention (as this article points out) is what this 'Genetic Selection' actually means.
It means testing each pregnant woman to see if the child she is bearing is 'defective' in any way......then killing the ones we feel are less than perfect. Just continue killing all the 'defective' ones until a perfect one comes along.
Are you reminded, as I am, of Hitler's quest for the perfect Aryan race, and his systematic killing of all the 'less-than-perfect' ones?
Does that sound 'Moral'?
Don't we have a 'Moral Obligation' to speak up for those who do not have a voice?
Related posts:
Image bearers
Open Letter to M: Why abortion cannot be a matter of personal choice
Only 0.006 percent of abortions are done to save the mother's life
No comments:
Post a Comment