An early test for Down’s syndrome is developed. With this future mothers will know even earlier if their child-to-be-born has this disease. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22796078]
Such tests really terrify me. Because they are not performed with the intention to preserve or sustain life, but with the intention to terminate it… The need to “know” is urged by a need to kill anything unperfect.
Our civilization is a civilization of (spitirual) death.
We WILL create the perfect body, like Hitler visualized. But when we do, we will have killed its soul…
Science (e.g. genetics) needs a stronger bond with Ethics!
Now its the time to do so.
Scientists can no longer claim to be “ethically neutral” in an era of such evil…
You are right.
And this is exactly why I do not play “God” here.
I know this is a hard decision to make.
But science can no longer stay out of the game…
Science does not have a effective way to determine the quality of life of an unborn disabled person or the changes in quality of life of the parents who must care for that person.
I think the testing is reasonable. What we, as a society, do with the results is an ethical problem but not a scientific one. A scientist has no more to say than the ordinary person on the street.
Yeah, but there are ways to address this other than simply not having such children. Societies can help these parents cope. Looking for the quick technological fix is not in everyone’s best interests, especially in the long term.
“Scientists” aren’t demanding the foetuses be terminated. “Science” just provides the information. The parents get to decide, and to make possible arrangements to their working situations, to inform family… a serious burden is easier if you can prepare for it.
If someone decides termination is mandatory, it will be a politician, an economist or a priest, not a biochemist.
Or a bioethicist----i.e., a doctor with a training in ethics, or an ethicist with a training in medicine. Bodies of these half-breed scientist and ethicist are the closer link the OP was talking about, between science and ethics. They’re needed, I think. Politicians may write policy, but we’ll go to hell if they’re not advised by these half-and-halves.
I’m not sure exactly why, but this claim seems right to me, on the surface. Which is to say, I’m a bit skeptical of the individual scientist who creates a gigantic weapon, and then washes his hands of all responsibility for what becomes of the world with that weapon in it.
Listen to what you are saying: I develop a test that I KNOW will be used to justify the killing of someone and yet, I am “not” responsible for the results…
Abortion is already legal and justified in our society. If Down Syndrome or another potentially fatal or crippling genetic combination is detected, then it should be corrected or terminated, why not? Both the child and parents can suffer from going through with the pregnancy and rearing. Plus, should adults with down syndrome be “allowed” to sexually reproduce further? This is a very difficult moral and ethical question. Few people have confident answers about this, and refuse to face the question.
If we cannot genetically modify and “fix” a corrupt mutation, then it should become aborted imo.
Wars which eliminate whole nations are also “accepted” by our society. That does not make them just or correct in any way.
Killing is killing. The justification does not change that.
A scientist should consider the ethics of a research project. That’s not always done.
However, one has to consider that almost any research can be justified as being beneficial in some way. And the future applications of research are often not easily predictable.
Once the cat is out of the bag, the problem of how to deal with it becomes a collective responsibility.
Like anybody else, I feel negative about abortion, even abortions of people with severe disabilities. The thought of ending a life like that for that reason…it doesn’t feel good to me. If someone told me that some time last year, they found out they were 1 month pregnant, and found out the baby was going to have downs syndrome, and then aborted it, my stomach would sink. That would be my emotional reaction.
But on an intellectual level, I don’t think that’s right. My emotional reaction doesn’t match what reason is telling me. Reason is telling me that such an abortion is likely devoid of any pain for the baby. Reason is telling me that the loss of a sperm-with-egg is, all other things being equal, not any worse than the loss of a sperm and an egg separately – an egg is lost every period a woman has, and millions of sperm every time a man ejaculates. And all other things are equal, if there’s no pain involved. So I can’t intellectually see a reason to oppose aborting a 1 month old fertilized egg and not also oppose male masturbation and females not getting every egg pregnant.
I have the feeling nonetheless. I just don’t think the reality of the situation warrants that feeling.
I agree that informed policymaking is preferable, but in practice it’s a pipe dream for most politically-charged questions in a democracy. A Christian Democrat (for example) is not going to ask a bioethicist’s opinion on abortion unless there’s no chance of ethical advice in favour of abortion coming out of it.
If you’re talking about your example, you’ve already taken the position that the foetus has personhood. Sort of begging the question… unless your argument is that science needs a closer bond with your particular ethics.
One could make a cogent argument for science being used to terminate life humanely rather than painfully. And certainly a utilitarian argument for aborting foetuses with certain chromosomal abnormalities. There is definitely an argument that, even if the test is bad, it’s better than the current test which leads to later terminations of more developed foetuses, with higher risks of false positives. If you think this test is bad, the current situation is worse - I don’t see how it’s not better to know even earlier and more accurately, given that people are taking the test and aborting as is.
Science isn’t a monolithic slab. There are people doing very ethical science, and people not doing science that they consider to be unethical - on stem cells, for example, or involving animal testing. There’s no agency, no guidance. Science is a tool - or rather, a collection of disparate tools - that ethical and unethical people alike use.
That’s just way too cynical, and factually wrong since there are Christians who support abortion rights and, in general, people don’t tend to form their opinion with their ears shut to expertise. I’m surprised because it seems to me like everytime a politician faces a tough question they wiggle their way out of an answer by putting together an expert body to examine the issue and what they should do… i.e., all kinds of scientists for research/development, the environment, food safety, health, etc.
Of course there are Christians who support abortion rights. But can you show me a politician who got elected on strong Christian policies who does? That politician would know they would be out of office at the next election; it would be career suicide.
There are differences in different countries’ political systems, of course, and many issues that require scientific input, like food safety or health campaigns, are not strongly emotive moral trigger issues but a balance of benefits and resources. Similarly, many trigger issues like gun control, gay rights or immigration policy leave little to say to the scientists. But where they intersect, representative democracy favours voter morality over expert advice, by its very nature.
So all animals are basicly Nazis? Because they leave the weak behind and only the strong survives? That’s nonsens.
Don’t get so hysterical about selective breeding, it’s also a thought about the quality of life such child must have, if the parents can’t afford to take care of the child, it will suffer.
Not all animals choose to leave the sick behind. Humans help the weak, they offer them support and love, the offer compassion. We are deeply unfit for survival based on the Theory of Evolution at its most strict version…
Factually: Both Obama, and Harper (the current Canadian PM) got elected on strong Christian policies, and both support abortion rights.
Conceptually: We just agreed that there are Christians who support abortion rights. That means that it is a Christian policy to support abortion rights.
Many are. Issues about food safety are among them, which you see pretty much any time the food isn’t safe. Issues about the environment, global warming, oil use, giving money to oil alternatives, spending on research, stem cell research, etc.
At a societal level, representative democracies argue and debate policies. Sides win votes over in the legislature on the strength of those arguments when the democracy is working well. Guess who makes the arguments about these issues? --Experts. That’s their job. If you’re having a debate on abortion, you can expect to hear what bioethicists are saying. And when you write the bill, no voter is going to write a single line of it. It’s likely going to be drafted by bioethicists.
At a personal level, people don’t tend to close their ears to the best expert argument about some issue----even if it is a moral issue.
