Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The Problem of "Biological Colonialism"

To The Source asked me to write an essay for its newsletter on what I call biological colonialism. I was pleased to comply. From the article:

Commentators who reflect on this moral crisis [the weakening of the sanctity/equality of life ethic] usually focus on "culture of death" issues such as assisted suicide, abortion, and Terri Schiavo-type cases. But there is another profound threat posed by this ongoing rejection of human exceptionalism; the commoditization and exploitation of the body parts and functions of the poor, effectively treating human beings as mere natural resources to be exploited and/or harvested.
I discuss, at some length, problems such as the rich buying the organs of the poor, womb renting, embryo purchasing, the potential for exploiting destitute women for their eggs for use in human cloning research, and unethical human experimentation. I conclude:
One definition of evil is treating human beings as objects rather than subjects. That is precisely the implication of biological colonialism. While the poor may always be with us, that does not justify our exploiting our destitute sisters and brothers or putting them at risk to improve our own health or fulfill our familial desires. Rather, the proper and humane response to deep poverty is loving and selfless outreach, assistance, and devotion.
A more succinct way to describe my final point is that we should all follow the Golden Rule. And as I wrote the last sentence, it struck me that I haven't heard that term mentioned in a long time. Alas.

Labels:

5 Comments:

At January 13, 2009 , Blogger Joe said...

We should respect the basic natural rights of ALL human beings and ALL higher animals.

A just and decent and moral society respects the rights of human beings, both born and unborn, and respects the rights of animals as well. That is atrue culture of life.

 
At January 13, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Joe: You said it perfectly.

 
At January 13, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

The more there has been experimentation on animals, the less notice or talk there has been of the Golden Rule.

The connection between the vulnerability of those animals and of these humans is notable.

 
At January 14, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

This sent from a reader privately, reproduced here in full with his permission: Wesley:

I thank you very much for your constancy. I read you every day, and send your stuff to many others.

You mentioned that you do not hear the Golden Rule these days.

One of the reasons might be that the ethical meltdown you document every day actually subverts the golden rule completely, and turns it into an obligation to kill.

Once a person commits to the idea that "If ever I was in that position, I would like someone to put me out of my misery," then the golden rule becomes:

Do unto the spinal-cord-injured Ben as I would like someone to do to me. That is... kill him.

The golden rule derives its "gold" from its context: those who adhere to it already adhere to a community of people who share a wide set of "things to be held sacred." Once the sacred things are abandoned, the community dissolves, and the gold turns into lead.

Jim Ross
Saint Norbert Writing Service"

 
At January 14, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Jim hit the nail on the head.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home