Your question sounds philisophical when it comes to where does patching stop and a new creation begin? It’s a complicated question that makes someone think. If someone were to get a leg amputated nobody would argue that the person is still the same just missing a leg. What if the person were amputated from the stomach down? Would she still be considered as human? What if the only remaining part of her was her head and consequently all the other amputated parts were replaced? Would she still be the same person or as one would call it, have a soul? How does death actually occur? What actually happens to someone to have them die? What is the difference and is a brain dead person dead even though their heart is still beating? What about someone who is in a comma? Now if you kill or hurt someone because certain parts no longer work in order to create a new and better person then that is morally wrong. My rights end when I infringe on someone eles’s rights.
Yes, we are in full agreement on this - except of course about the “soul”. Especially your last sentence, which I like to formulate as: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.
The Catholic teaching (if I am not mistaken) is that the soul is “implanted” when conception occurs. Now consider maternal twins. At the beginning there is one “body” (a few cells, but still) - and of course one “soul”. Shortly afterwards, a physical split occurs and then there will be two (identical) “bodies”. What happens to the soul? Will one body be soulless? If so, which one? Will the two bodies “share” the soul? Will the “original” soul be kept by one, and brand new soul installed in the other one? Will the “original” soul “disappear” and two brand new souls installed at the time of the split? And please, don’t delude yourself that these are hard questions, best left to the Magistretium to answer. These questions show that the Catholic teaching (soul implanted at conception) is sheer nonsense, the concept of soul is meaningless.
Again I have to remind you that I am speaking from the perspective of a benevolent God and yes, many people will attempt to do artificially create life, clones, etc. but my question is not whether we can but whether we should and that comes from a religious, moral, and ethical perspective. I thing I have stated what kind of trouble we can get into and yes, many people are playing God but it’s not whether we can but whether we should? We have already begun to see such problems with cloning.
Unfortunately, when it comes God’s benevolence, we reach a fundamental difference. Of all the alleged attributes of God, the benevolence is the hardest one to swallow. If you look at the world as is, without the pink glasses of Catholicism, you will see a stark picture without divine love. The actual evidence shows indifference, if not worse.
Nevertheless, your concerns are well founded. The problems may be there, even without the religious overtones. Suppose, that the “created” adroids are treated exactly as the “natural” humans, no discrimination, no lower status. Do you still have any problems with that scenario? Disregard, if you can, the “soul”. These will be human beings, grown in a “vat”, if you will, but that is the only difference. What is wrong with it? Personally, I see nothing wrong, but you may offer a new insight, which I missed.
When it comes to aging there is no cure for it although the process might be slowed down a little bit. It doesn’t matter how long we prolong life (and life expectancy has already been prolonged today versus what it was a hundred years ago) one day we will die and that is a harsh but true reality.
We don’t know that. Aging is just a breakdown in the information transmitting process, which may or may not be reversible or curable. Biology is still in its infancy, so the “jury is still out” - and may be “out” for centuries.
