dk

Hey brighid,

I think everyone agrees reproductive rights are moral and give parents the liberty to conceive a child. A moral question only surfaces if one child’s life is denigrated in order to better the life of a sibling. Parents have a moral right to conceive a child, so there’s no moral issue. But to genetically engineer a NTD birth defect in one child to harvest biomaterial would be immoral, because it destroys the life of one child to better the life of a sibling.

brighid

I am not entirely in disagreement with you. However, is the biological material of a genetic manipulation (or naturally occuring and unchosen defect) that lacks an actual brain a child or even alive and hence deserving of protected rights?

First of all, the actual genetic engineering of an entire, functioning, normal human being is going to be a very difficult task. At least if some of the literature I have read speaks any truth. It seems more likely (and is currently a work in progress that has had some rather promising success) that genetically viable material such as organs, skin, cartiledge and bodily fluids will be manufactured in laboratories as separate and distinct entities, and not in the wombs of women as human bodies without brain function.

This is not to say that at some point in the distant future this sort of exact manipulation will not be possible. It is certainly forseeable and therefore warrants in depth discussion and examination of the moral and ethical issues that arise from such a situation. But again, I think the things you suggest are due a separate discussion.

Brighid

dk

Trying to ferret through the morality of an intention, on the basis of a scheme procures a rationalization. In this case the intention is to better a life, and the scheme is to engineer a life for destruction. However good the intentions of the actor, the scheme violates the right to life (sanctity of life). . .