Polar opposite or befuddled extremist?

Before I give blogging a break for a while, I think I ought to write a 'proper' post. The past few (from Main en griffe onwards) have been lumps of trite nonsense typed during my periods of R&R this past week.
Here's a thought that coalesced while I struggled (manfully, may I add; successfully, too) to spread a non-fitted sheet over my bed.

I've had quite a few arguments/diatribes about 'ethics' with various people. I think I'm generally a non-confrontational sort of person. I prefer to extract an opinion and find the best way of agreeing with the truth I can find in it, even if the crux runs counter to all my prevailing thoughts. My conscience dictates, however, that I expunge my brain of this filth right now - so here goes.

These are my opinions. They'll probably change someday. I don't apologise - I tolerate and I expect the same of others.

I have often found myself trying to take a stand in the 'middle ground' of an argument; comparing my views to those of others I (somewhat generously) declare myself a 'conservative liberal' (balderdash, I know - but give and take a little, c'mon). Let's look at pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (yada-yada-yada - here we go again). Would I allow it? Yes, but only for certain circumstances. So the conservatives and liberals alike slam my views as 'inconsistent.' The con declares I've betrayed my religious Christian principles, I've 'done a Judas' on absolute truth and descended into the moral abyss of post-modern relativism. The lib claims likewise that he's sickened by my narrow-minded willingness to cling to irrationally maintained 'ethical' standards that discriminate and cause hurt. So they've both spouted that I'm a neolithic throwback to an extremist era. Hmm...
Let's see. I'd allow a couple to choose a non-Huntington's foetus if one parent was diagnosed (pre-symptomatically) with the disease. If there was a treatment, I'd prefer that; I still believe that life begins at conception - c'mon, you can mutter on about neural self-awareness but at the end of the day it starts somewhere. (Yes, a simplification - I'm not getting into the whole Pope thing about spilling of seed). Put it down to my 'rigid' Christian belief. Yet practically I'd still allow you to 'select' a foetus - doesn't that run counter to my 'absolute' standard of faith? Yes, it does. I'm flawed - I'm human - I sin - I know. The con now mentions that I'm deliberately, knowingly, intentionally sinning (no quote-marks around 'sin' this time). Sure - so why do it?

E-M-P-A-T-H-Y. As I said before - I'm human. The good, kind, benevolent Lord did not give us medical technology just so we could use karyotyping to design wallpapers - we ought not to use all technological advances willy-nilly just to turn the earth into smithereens for our own amusement but, where we can eliminate suffering - we should try our darndest. It sounds like such tripe, but that's why I'm hanging on to this crazed idea of becoming a doctor. So I can give every OUNCE into doing something that will (hopefully) cure more than kill. Just imagine the couple who are told that they will have to raise a child who will one day grow up to have a disease that will kill him in his forties. Then imagine you're that couple. Then imagine you're that child. You could say that you would 'stoically' (the lib) accept your lot; you could say that God will grant you peace and blessings, that at least you haven't tried to 'play God' (the con) - either way, you're gonna die at forty-four. Now, feel some pain. You wouldn't want it to happen to you, so would you do it to anybody else? Life's too short - why shorten it? Life is precious. Now the con yells that I'm taking life in my quest to 'play God' and seek an immoral standard of perfection for the parents. 'No goal should warrant the bludgeoning of THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT upon the altar of moral relativism and wishful thinking, no matter how altruistic the objective.' The con can't comprehend my sheer arrogance and paternalism; my utter disregard for the absolute commandment.

No, I don't attach different standards of 'value' to a Huntington's versus a non-Huntington's life. Then again, NO - I don't see any reason to NOT cure the condition - you wouldn't ever say that the good Lord placed Vibrio cholerae on his good earth just so that humankind would learn to to live with the demonstration of his mighty power? You see, the good Lord thankfully gave us mere humans the gift of an intellect that discovered antibiotics and oral rehydration therapy. We can cure. So we should cure. Until then, let us ease some pain in the lives of others. It is not a sin to save - discarding IV foetuses (con) is indirect murder; I recognise it. The lib screams: IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THIS BELIEF YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BOTHER YOUR LITTLE MIND WITH SUCH TRIVIA AND YOU COULD JUST GET ON WITH SAVING THE LIFE!!! The lib's got his merits, but the motivation would then be lost.
I disagree with taking life (unless it's annoying and crawls on six legs or buzzes with a sting and doesn't deliver honey). I'm NOT a vegetarian - I love meat. We are not here to 'play God' but central to my personal belief and motivation is what I like to call 'the divine hand' (committing philosophical suicide, he continues)...
Life is a precious gift. It seems that I would allow a procedure that seems to violate one of my ethical/religious standards just to qualify a different one; back to square one. A lib or a con? By whose standards? A fence sitter or a fence-crusher (under his own weight, mind you - barbed wire is painful). I'm still caught in the middle, against a wall, with both sides pushing me down two sides of very slippery slopes.

I know I've blundered through some pretty hypocritical statements above - forgive me. The question must be asked; I would allow the procedure (before a cure is found - trust me - it'll happen some day - give it time - everything happens) - would I ever do the same for myself? Now we can bring ABORTION and EUTHANASIA into the picture. Oh goody! Hurrah! Harrumph. No. No. No. Another day. Another time.