Bio-Technology

[David Morris]

Again, sorry for so belated a response.  This one was not possible to 
respond to quickly:

>From: lorentzen-nicklaus at t-online.de (lorentzen-nicklaus)
>  david,
>
>  since we kicked the issue not only in cyberspace, yet also face-to-face, 
>you should be fully aware that i am  n o t  your young republican 
>"christian fundamentalist" who don't wanna know any damn difference between 
>devilish things like teenage sex, pornography, abortion or bio-technology. 
>my worries are of a more sociological nature ---

I respect you and would not try to paint you as one of those religious 
sociopaths.  We do, however, differ greatly on this topic.

>  practical scepticism towards the "inevitability" of bio-technology is, by 
>the way, not limited to religious fanatics. that leon kass, he absolved, so 
>i read in today's paper, not a theological but a medical  and 
>bio-chemistral education. doesn't hinder him from being against the cloning 
>of humans and other completely irresponsible things.

There are many reasons to oppose human cloning: The technology is far from 
flawless and would result in many sick and deformed babies before it could 
be "perfected."  [but I have to ask if this is a valid concern for you, 
given your argument against pre-natal testing below]  In itself as an 
alternate means of reproduction I have only questions, not objections.  The 
psychological aspect (burden?) of being a "copy" needs examination, though 
we know that no identical twin is actually a "copy."  I'm sure there are 
many other considerations I've not seen.

>  the question whether the embryo is an actual soulful human being has been 
>controversially debated since ancient greek times. without any clear 
>result. here nobody - perhaps except for avatars or 'secret chiefs' (don't 
>call us: we call you!) - knows more than you or me. but whatever your 
>metaphysical beliefs are and whenever it might be that the deeper karmic 
>personality enters the baby, you can not deny that the embryo is a 
>potential human being. human being which hasn't got a voice yet.

First you play fair, then you slip in this last sentence (you've left off 
the word "potential").  The existence of "soul," let alone a definition, is 
far from evident.  So whose beliefs should rule here?  I think the 
foundation of this issue really rests in a very wobbly but important concept 
of "respect for life."  But as you point out below, you indulge in meat now 
and then, as does much of the "natural" world, so I think your digression is 
very important.  Clearly we believe (you and I) that not all life is of 
equal value.  Some life is justifiably sacrificed for other life, but it 
should not be wantonly done.  This is where my elephant gets his nose under 
the hem of the tent.

>  ok, abortion. [I'm going to pass over this part]
>
>  right, myself i was never good at morals. i'm the guy who works in a 
>kinda 'affirmative' research program on distributed artificial intelligence 
>(got kids to feed!). about 80% of the food i'm consuming is meat. & then - 
>horrors! - i now and then like to wear nike textiles. probably just a few 
>years too old for this "seattle generation" ...
>
>  but i digress. we were talking about bio-technology. [snip]today's 
>"subhumans" are the handicapped people. they get wiped out from the face of 
>this earth ... exceptionally heartful and open human beings like lots of 
>the people with downs syndrom (once taught a group of them to read and 
>write german), they do not get born anymore. you know, clever pre-natal 
>diagnostics ... "you do want to live a  n o r m a l life, don't you? good, 
>so i suggest we get that convertible slime out of your body and keep trying 
>..." thank you, dr. what-was-the-name?!

Here we clearly part ways.  I am thankful for the ability to avoid birth 
defects by pre-natal testing.  I don't think your following argument is a 
valid reason to bring forth alive from the womb everything that forms there. 
  "Nature" routinely rejects deformities by auto-abortion.  Must we then 
suspend all judgment when it comes to birth?

>and nobody can assure or even guarantee you, with good reasons that is, 
>that they will, when all handicapped people are gone or even before, n o t 
>consider further "improvements" of the population. skin, hair, colour of 
>eye. also certain psycho-social qualities. think vineland. the english 
>sociologist zygmunt bauman, born jewish in poland, he speaks of modernity's 
>"hostility towards ambivalence", and the german historian hans mommsen 
>names the "idea of the changeability of population structures" as the very 
>essence of fascist politics.
>                let's stop bio-technology now!

What you have done above is two things:
1.  You've leapt from birth deformity to birth aesthetics.  I agree that we 
have no guarantee against such wantonness, but I believe the benefit of this 
choice outweighs the potential harm.
2.  You've leapt from personal choice in such matters to authoritarian 
direction.  This is a red herring that can be raised in any moral debate 
where a choice of options is weighed.  Authoritarianism is a separate evil 
that should not sully this topic.

I want responsible bio-technology.  That which is irresponsible should be 
opposed, but the aspect of irresponsibility should not (indeed cannot) cause 
us to throw the baby out with the bath water.  This baby won't go away.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp