Science and Ethics: The need for a stronger bond...

[skakos]

An early test for Down's syndrome is developed. With this future mothers will know even earlier if their child-to-be-born has this disease. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22796078]

Such tests really terrify me. Because they are not performed with the intention to preserve or sustain life, but with the intention to terminate it... The need to "know" is urged by a need to kill anything unperfect.

Our civilization is a civilization of (spitirual) death.
We WILL create the perfect body, like Hitler visualized. But when we do, we will have killed its soul...

Science (e.g. genetics) needs a stronger bond with Ethics!
Now its the time to do so.
Scientists can no longer claim to be "ethically neutral" in an era of such evil...

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




May I completely accept your thesis and use that perspective to arrive at the complete opposite conclusion?




The world's population has exploded from ~ 1 billion people to ~8 billion in the past two hundred years.


Actually, this is beyond what we would normally understand as an explosion.


WE are in the grips of a human H-bomb. And there is no end in sight.




....................................................................



If you don't mind I made some minor adjustments to your thesis for this thread:

An early test for Down's syndrome is developed. With this future mothers will know even earlier if their child-to-be-born has this disease.

Such tests give me some hope. They are not performed with the intention to preserve or sustain life, but with the intention to improve it... The need to "know" is urged by a need to improve.

Our civilization is a civilization of (spitirual) life and death.
We WILL create the perfect body, like Hitler visualized. But when we do, will we have find its soul?

Science (e.g. genetics) needs a stronger bond with Ethics!
Now its the time to do so.
Scientists can no longer claim to be "ethically neutral" in an era of such evil...







.............................................................................................................................



Philosophically, have we found some common ground?





.

[The Voice of Time]

No, the test are politically motivated by the desire to allow as early as possible an abortion instead of letting a child mature too much in the stomach of a woman before it is aborted (by lawful reasons). In Norway abortions are regulated by a maximum life-span of the foetus, with an idea that the more it develops the more human it is and the more is its right to live and be preserved for birth, therefore, there is a desire to avoid waiting too long to figure out whether you want it or not, but be determinant as soon as possible and either let it die or let it live.

[skakos]

.

May I completely accept your thesis and use that perspective to arrive at the complete opposite conclusion?

The world's population has exploded from ~ 1 billion people to ~8 billion in the past two hundred years.


Actually, this is beyond what we would normally understand as an explosion.


WE are in the grips of a human H-bomb. And there is no end in sight.

If you don't mind I made some minor adjustments to your thesis for this thread:

An early test for Down's syndrome is developed. With this future mothers will know even earlier if their child-to-be-born has this disease.

Such tests give me some hope. They are not performed with the intention to preserve or sustain life, but with the intention to improve it... The need to "know" is urged by a need to improve.

Our civilization is a civilization of (spitirual) life and death.
We WILL create the perfect body, like Hitler visualized. But when we do, will we have find its soul?

Science (e.g. genetics) needs a stronger bond with Ethics!
Now its the time to do so.
Scientists can no longer claim to be "ethically neutral" in an era of such evil...

Philosophically, have we found some common ground?


.

I am not sure what you say. This test is clearly perform with the GOAL TO KILL the embryo. If the "improve" you mention means killing, then No. I do not like that "improvement". Would you accept "improvement" if it meant that someone killed you? Of course not...

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





If I may...respectfully...I'd like to ask you to not only copy the previous post of mine within this thread but to actually read it.




May I completely accept your thesis and use that perspective to arrive at the complete opposite conclusion?




The world's population has exploded from ~ 1 billion people to ~8 billion in the past two hundred years.


Science (e.g. genetics) needs a stronger bond with Ethics!
Now its the time to do so.
Scientists can no longer claim to be "ethically neutral" in an era of such evil...





So...you have not killed anything within your lifetime?


You live in a country that has never killed on your behalf...ya know, like to provide you with oil, natural resources, a modicum of democracy, food, safety...things like that.






....................................................................








.

[skakos]

Still don't understand what you say and why my country doing something bad has anything to do with science ethics.