🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CpyAuy.BLH@hippo.ru.ac.za> g92m2571@hippo.ru.ac.za (John A. McKane) writes:
>
>Research Essay Questionnaire.
>
>I am a Third Year Systematic Theology student and in the process of
>researching Bioethics in this new Bionic Age we find ourselves in. I would
>appreciate it if you could please answer these simple questions as honestly
>as possible.
>
>Occupation:    Physical Sciences Major
>
>
>(1)  If it were possible, would you want to take a genetic test telling you
>     which diseases you are likely to suffer from later in life?
>
>     __________Ofcourse
>
>(2)  If any defects were found, and they could be fixed, would you want
>     that?
>
>     __________Ofcourse
>
>
>(3)  If you or your spouse were pregnant, would you want the unborn child
>     tested for genetic defects?
>
>     __________Ofcourse
>
>(4)  If any defects were found, and they could be fixed, would you want
>     that?
>
>     __________Ofcourse!
>
>
>(5)  Do you think human cloning is a good thing?
>
>     __________What would be the point?
>
>(6)  Would you like to have been a clone?
>
>     __________Are you in second grade?
>
>
>(7)  Do you think medical research on cloning should be allowed to continue?
>
>     __________Why would you put a stop to any medical research?
>
>
>(8)  If you conceived a child, might you be interested in cloning the
>     embryo?
>
>     __________What would be the point. Cloning is a silly idea. I suspect 
that your research has been sluggish and you are proceeding from some silly 
notions about science, but I could be wrong.
>
>
>(9)  Do you think human cloning is morally/ethically wrong?
>
>     __________Again, why would anyone bother, what would be the point. A 
freak like Micheal Jackson might go for the idea and if enough rich freaks 
wanted to do it then some Doctors might do it but it is merely silly and 
pointless and dumb. The eccentricities of Micheal Jackson don't really hurt 
anyone, unless you want to say that pandering to human weaknesses such as 
feeblemindedness is hurting them (I think so) and cloning doesn't really hurt 
anyone but there is still no point. Why would anyone be likely to do it.
>
>
>(10) Do you think it goes against God's will?
>
>     __________Your assuming that I include an omniscient super being in the 
world I perceive around me. Not all of us do and if you yourself proceed from 
that premise then it is impossible for us to have a discussion about the real 
world. Do you see that? The convenient thing about religion is that you really 
cannot debate about it. It isn't debate material. Do you see what I mean? You 
can't sit at a table to discuss the dangers of lowest common denominator 
television and suddenly in the middle of the conversation factor in your own 
notions about something that exists in so far as you beleive it exists. 
Conversations based on those kind of notions go 'round and 'round. Those kind 
of notions cannot be discussed. They can only be advocated and preaced. 
Otherwise you just go 'round and 'round for an eternity argueing over 
something that no one can touch or do anything about. 
>
>(11) Do you think human cloning should be completely legal?
>
>     __________What do you mean by 'completely legal'?
>
>
>What are your thought on the scientific discipline of genetic engineering in
>general? [ie. in vitro fertilisation, cloning, cryonics, gene manipulation,
>gene transplantation, to name a few among many]

    I know that religion will not accept genetic engineering because religion, 
in private, behind closed doors where no one can hear, can't help but deduce 
the chain of events that will spell the end of the jobs of religious leaders. 
If sombody invents the smart pill, the concept of religion will disappear into 
history and the Pope knows it. The people who are in charge of things, through 
out history, have always known better. The church knew Galileo was right. The 
church knew that the ancient Greeks knew the world was round. The church had 
this information. Better they should have it than let it circulate. Knowledge 
is power. Those in power must be informed of the truth no matter how much they 
deal in lies. This is simple math but it is somthing few people think about. 
    Alert conformists, even businessmen and I suspect the richest among us 
tend not to be supportive of genetic engineering. If science managed to 
engineer a virus that would target only certain neurons and change the DNA so 
that the brain took on the biological characteristics of a very high IQ 
advertising would collapse, Walt Disney would collapse, a lot of institutions 
would collapse because people could no longer be played like Monkeys attracted 
to something shiny. It is easy easy easy to discount this arguement now just 
as it was easy for the church to tell the peasants of Galileos time that 
Galileo was a heretic but just as the church then knew the real truth, people 
in charge today know that if the 'smart pill' came to pass then the debate 
would be acedemic, just as taking those peasants into orbit and actually 
showing them would make the conflict with Galileo acedemic. 
   By the way, what is Systematic Theology?

>Thank you in advance for you feed-back.
>
>John A. McKane
>Systematic Theology III
>Rhodes University
>
>e-mail replies to:  g92m2571@giraffe.ru.ac.za
>            or to:  g92m2571@hippo.ru.ac.za
>
>-- 
>NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE  NOTE
>
>This is a sample signature file - please edit your file '.signature' and
>change it to suit your particulars.  Something along these lines is suitable: