Dear Editor,
Regarding the letter “Genetic science has a lot to offer”, (08.02.15) by M Xiu Quan-Balgobind-Hackett, February 15, 2008: M Xiu Quan-Balgobind-Hackett must have misread my letter for I did not “condemn outright the new techniques of genetic science”. I merely stated that there must be “moral limits” to science. This is commonsense.
While everyone would like to avoid suffering, it is nonetheless a necessary part of our mortal condition as human beings. When suffering is voluntarily accepted it takes on the value of expiation – it allows one to be pruned so that he can mature and bear good fruit. This is not “ancient” philosophy as M Xiu Quan-Balgobind-Hackett claims but the stark reality of our condition as human and spiritual beings.
In vitro fertilization is evil because it is against natural law which requires life to be generated naturally as a result of a human act between a man and woman rather than by some artificial means. This is why all artificial means of contraception are also evil. Hackett is correct in saying that Jesus was born in a “Supernatural” way. He is incorrect, however, in equating the term “supernatural” with “artificial”. There is nothing artificial about God.
Mr Hackett further misses the mark in claiming “The mad scientist who wants to take over the world does not exist; he is a product of fiction and mythology.” Those who have read or heard about Utopian leaders like Adolph Hitler and his eugenics programme will know this is not true. In fact, even the so-called legitimate “scientists” today that engage in genetic manipulation such as cloning, fall into the Hitler category because their methods involve the systematic murder of embryos which are human beings. We must help those who are suffering, but we may not use a good end to justify an evil means. There must be moral limits to science or science will end up destroying us all.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Kokoski
