Biology discussion

[angell1]

heu guys, need your help on something.

for our next biology lecture we will be discussing the ethics of uman cloning and abortion. i know both of these are immoral but i know this argument will come up, that it’s the same as curing a disease and that it might be God’s will for someone to get a disease and die. the opponents will argue that therefore cloning and abortion are the same thing and that if you can intervene in God’s will with a disease, you can intervene in these things too, especially if the child has a disability or the cloning will benefit humans.

now i know the difference between curing a disease and killing a baby or cloning human embryos, versus curing a disease, one is diractly interfering with life and usually halting it, while the other is making the best out of a situation that already is happening, without killing the person.

do you have any more insightful thought of how to articulate this because i’m having some trouble putting my feelings in to words. in accordance with church teaching of course. thanks a lot

 

[SleeepWarrior]

If they use that argument it is simple.

Attempting to save a life with medicine is actually consistent with giving a baby a chance to be born. Not having an abortion does not guarantee that a baby will be born safely, just as giving medicine to someone who is gravely ill does not guarantee that they will be restored to health. BOTH, however, are acts that honor the dignity of life.

If they want a direct refute of the argument:

If you give a sick person medicine, the person can still can die. The medicine does not prevent death, it treats the illness. It is not a guarantee of the return to life. That decision is in God’s hands.

If you have an abortion, the baby can NOT still live. The abortion destroys the life. It is a guarantee of death. That decision has been made by man.

If it is God’s decision for a person to get a disease and die, then the medicine won’t stop that process. When a person is conceived, God has made a decision to grant life. We do not have the right to destroy that life.

Now, when dealing with people who would use such a self-defeating argument–that your attempt to save a life is the same as attempting to destroy a life–you must be prepared for the furthering of their line of reasoning…

They might come back at you with: “Well if God makes the sick person die anyway if he wants them dead, couldn’t he make the baby live anyway if he wanted the baby to live?” At which point you can simply point out that are hundreds of thousands of documented cases in which a sick person dies in spite of medicine, but there are no cases yet of a dismembered baby somehow managing to live.

Hope that helps.

Human cloning involves the destruction of an embryo, so the same argument holds.

 

[Nelka]

Abortion is always unethical.

Cloning is always unethical.

Catechism: 2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.