genetic engineering and natural law

Question 1

why would GM not be considered natural?

Answer 1

• it means things aren’t the way god designed them to be
• infers with humans genes which is what makes them sacred and gives them there purpose from god
• god designed things a certain way for a reason (e.g. there is a reason why we have handicapped people)

Question 2

primary precepts supporting GM

Answer 2

‘to learn’

‘to preserve life’

Question 3

primary precepts disagreeing with GM

Answer 3

‘to live harmoniously’ (e.g. if we have designer babies not everyone will be able to afford this)

Question 4

enhancement gene therapy

Answer 4

this is wrong as it interferes with god’s purpose for individuals

Question 5

somatic cell

Answer 5

there is no problem with this as it helps to preserve life

Question 6

germ-line

Answer 6

this is wrong as it involves discarding embryos which does not preserve life or reproduce

Question 7

STRENGTHS of natural law and GM

Answer 7

• upholds sanctity of life
• not relativist
• best way to fulfil our purpose

Question 8

how is n.l. not being relativist a strength?

Answer 8

it does not rely on what we think the consequences might be as sometimes the consequences can be bad (e.g. slippery slope to designer babies). n.l. is deontological and so has clear guidance

Question 9

how is n.l. upholding sanctity of life a strength

Answer 9

it argues on behalf of the embryo, and sticks t the fact that god designed every person for a purpose

Question 10

WEEKNESS’S not natural law and GM

Answer 10

• fulfils the p.p ‘to preservelife’ and ‘to learn’ and so it can be hard to know if GM is right
• outdated (written before GM existed)
• claiming an embryo is scared can prolong suffering)