Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeraph
Natural is a subjective word. In my opinion everything is natural (everything comes from nature, this universe).
It's ironic for those that argue that we are playing god by cloning, by the very suggestion that we as humans can play god is blasphemous. Think about how arrogant that is to assume we can be god even if only in one aspect.
Basically all we do is move cells around with machines and devices. We are not providing that mystical spark of life, we are only allowing it to take place in a different way.
|
I'm not sure if you were referring to my post directly, but as I used the word natural, and I termed 'playing God' I want to address this. I could probably do with some more discussion on this issue.
My term of natural was used in relation to blastocysts/embryos being engineered as opposed to conception. I can agree also with your opinion of 'natural', yes it does all come from the natural world or universe.
When I talked about playing God I was coming from the perspective of cloning.. engineering new people with pre-determined aspects and traits. Creation of a super-race, decisions about 'what' we can actually bring into the world. I am short of another term for this... genetic engineers?
I also wonder if we at least know enough about how we work ourselves, let alone try to engineer us? Perhaps that is the worry induced by movies etc? I'm really not sure.
Yes, I do agree that moving cells around and allowing it to happen in a different way is just as valid, but what then? It's happened in a different way, does that mean we should do our best or ensure that every one we create we should implant it because it's human and therefore precious? Or is this created life not as precious as a more 'usual' one? Or is life just life?, should we not be so concerned with the outcome no matter how it came to be?
I am still unsure where I stand ethically...