This paper analyzes the underlying tendencies and attitudes toward reproductive medicine borrowing the Nietzschean concepts of nihilism: “death of God” with secularization; “will to power” with reproductive liberty and technological power; and the race of “supermen” with transhumanism. Medical science has advanced in leaps and bounds. In some way, technical innovations have given us unprecedented power to manipulate the way we reproduce. The indiscriminant use of medical technology is backed by a warped notion of human freedom. With secularization in the (...) West, freedom has taken on greater significance in society, but with a heavy emphasis on individual choices and rights. As technology joins forces with sexual liberty, it is not difficult to understand why the public accepts the latest novelty from the reproductive industry. As a result, many find Catholic teaching behind the times and incomprehensible, if not downright anti-scientific. In fact, this coupling of reproductive liberty (will) with reproductive technology (power) echoes the famous dictum “will to power” Nietzsche predicted would characterize post-modern societies. When liberty becomes absolute and technology unchecked, transhumanism is the logical outcome. As a response to these nihilistic tendencies, the paper will end with a critique drawing from theological insights. (shrink)

Abstract.This article examines an orientation for thinking theologically and ethically about the cultural pattern of technology and a vision for living responsibly within it. Building upon and joining select insights of philosophers Hans Jonas and Albert Borgmann, I recommend the analytic and evaluative leverage to be gained through development of an integrative biocultural theological anthropology.

I takt med sekulariseringen av Norge har den kristne bioetikken mistet innflytelse. For klassisk kristen etikk har det vært mange nederlag de siste tiårene. Men det har skjedd noe mer enn at klassiske kristne posisjoner har mistet tilslutning. De kristnes argumenter har også mistet appell og gjennomslagskraft i det offentlige rom, i en grad som ikke alene kan forklares med at antallet kristne synker. Artikkelen identifiserer fem hovedgrunner til at kristne argumenter i bioetikken ikke får gjennomslag i offentligheten: politisk liberalisme, (...) avvisningen av religiøs argumentasjon, avvisningen av unntaksløse moralske forbud, moralsk subjektivisme og relativisme, og avvisning av handlingers symbolverdi. Grunnene drøftes med eksempler fra offentlig debatt.Nøkkelord: bioetikk, kristen etikk, naturrett, politisk liberalismeEnglish summary: Christian bioethics on the defensiveIn Norway, Christian bioethics has lost influence in step with secularization. For classical Christian ethics there have been numerous defeats in recent decades. However, something more than a simple decline in support for classical Christian positions has taken place. Christian arguments have also lost appeal and impact in the public square, to a degree that cannot be explained merely by the falling rate of adherence to Christianity. The article identifies five major reasons why Christian arguments in the sphere of bioethics fail to have an impact in the public square: political liberalism, the rejection of religious argumentation, the rejection of moral absolutes, moral subjectivism and relativism, and the rejection of the symbolic value of actions. The reasons are discussed with examples from the public debate. (shrink)

Religion has a considerable influence over the public’s attitudes towards science and technologies. The objective of the paper is to understand the ethical and religious problems concerning the use of embryo for research in assisting conception for infertile couples from the perspective of Catholic Christians. This paper seeks to explain our preliminary reflections on how religious communities particularly the Catholic Christian communities respond to and assess the ethics of reproductive technologies and embryo research. Christianity as a whole lacks a unified (...) and definitive statement on when an embryo becomes a person, although fundamentalist Christians tend to be opposed to embryo experimentation. Roman Catholics tend to believe that the embryo should be treated as human life from the moment of conception or fertilisation. As opposed to this preconception I have tried to point out that a foetus is a clump of cells and lacks individuality as a conscientious human being and thus can be used for research for therapeutic reason. The paper concluded that the Church accepts techniques on embryo that respect their life. So they would allow procedures that are akin with healing and improvement of life without involving undue risks. The Church feels children should arise out of act of love between man and his wife in co-operation with God. In this regard, it may be pointed out though the creation of a child through a conjugal act in a wed lock is the preferred method since it is the most natural, least expensive one. But that does not mean, it should be the only acceptable means to conception. To state a child born using ARTs would be less perfect compared to a child born through conjugal act of husband and wife is absurd one to be mentioned. (shrink)

Ramsey sees life as a gift and a trust given to people by God. This theological understanding of human life frames his judgment of the immorality of euthanasia in its many forms. Assuming Ramsey’s theological insights and framing of this issue, I highlight a particular way of thinking about euthanasia that both seems to capture the essence of the debate and does not necessarily build the moral evaluation into its description. I aim to identify and unpack the description most consistent (...) with the claims made by Ramsey of how other end-of-life (EOL) care options are seen as life choices in order to die well enough. If this project is right-headed, it can be used as a backdrop for assessing how many of the currently accepted and perhaps developing options in EOL and palliative care may or may not be morally distinct from euthanasia. Therefore, those who oppose euthanasia while wanting also to maintain the appropriateness of many of other EOL care options in certain situations are not acting inconsistently. This primarily conceptual work is done in service to those who take Ramsey’s theological framework seriously. (shrink)

Has not the time fully come to lift the prohibition on a regulated market in organs for transplantation? Is there a price for such a market that would be too high to pay? The author revisits the cases for and against organ markets in the light of cultural shifts in society and asks whether the traditional insistence on altruism represents a hindrance to much needed developments or a safeguard for much valued public goods.