Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o

“The first thing to determine, is whether we agree on one big point: that if a “medical” intervention preserves/restores our person-ness, our human-ness, this is good; but if a “medical” intervention destroys / impairs/ redefines our humanness, this is not-good.”

Nope. I base my morality on the rights of the individual. It is not immoral for me to take any action that’s doesn’t violate the individual rights of any other human being. I can defend such a position very easily and with pretty damn good logic. On the other hand, you would have to define this ‘humanness’ thing and why it’s so important to keep the same.

But really that’s beside the point. Your mechanical legs point doesn’t really apply since there is no enhancement per se going on. While I’m perfectly willing to defend genetic and/or biomechanical enhancement, it’s simply not taking place here. This isn’t even in vitro fertilization…what’s happening in the body is all natural.

I think the problem is that you’re trying to apply a moral judgment on the process rather than the result. At a minimum this process involves three consenting adults (mother, doctor, donor) voluntarily engaging in a minor medical procedure. I don’t see a presumption of any violated rights of the resulting child so I just don’t see any immorality here.

And keep in mind that that the way you outlined it, it’s somehow more moral for a woman to go out and get a one night stand with a total stranger then to use AI, I’m at a loss there.

42 posted on 10/02/2011 9:10:28 AM PDT by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Raymann
"I think the problem is that you’re trying to apply a moral judgment on the process rather than the result."

That IS what I'm doing. But it's not a problem. Processes are means. Ends are results. Both means and ends have to be moral for an act to be moral.

Otherwise you could not criticize any crime (means) as immoral as long as the intended ultimate result was good. And every offender thinks he had a good enough reason, had a good enough end in mind, to do what he or she did.

The "right of the individual" are a good thing, but they are not the only good thing. It's like saying blue is the only color. Other virtues are needed for human flourishing; and among the most important virtues are those which uphold the sanctity of sex, marriage, and family, which are the natural sources of all human flourishing.

BTW, if ---as I would argue--- means and ends must both be blameless for an action to be blameless, then a woman having a one-night stand with a stranger in order to get pregnant, would not be acting blamelessly. This is either fornication or adultery, and both of these undermine the integrity in the person, and disrespect the sanctity of marriage.

But wouldn't she be blameless according to your philosophy?Whose individual right did she violate?

Yet I would not call her blameless, because of her lack of a due integrity and a due respect.

44 posted on 10/02/2011 10:01:59 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (In theory. there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is. -Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson