Infusion of young blood is the key to eternal youth
It seems that what humanity needs is an injection of new blood – quite literally. For scientists at the Stanford University School of Medicine have discovered that by infusing the brains of old mice with the blood of young mice, the aging mind is rejuvenated and mental decline halted. No doubt this experimentation will now be swiftly extended to bunnies, beagles and primates, and thence to human dementia patients. And when the efficacy of the therapy is scientifically proven to combat Alzheimer's and reverse impairments to brain function, no doubt it will be marketed in shiny sky-blue packaging as the key to eternal youth.
And it will be worth biotech $billions, for everyone is aging quite naturally, and no one really looks forward to second childishness and mere oblivion. What 60-year-old doesn't want to feel 20 again? If our lives may be extended and decaying brains recharged with young blood, then why not roll out the therapy to mitigate our suffering and improve the human lot?
The problem is that this Brave New World will require a plentiful supply of young blood.
Fortunately, we already abort millions of babies and harvest billions of stem cells, so it looks as though we'll eventually be injecting embryo blood to strengthen our muscles and sharpen our minds. And why not? How exactly is this different from a routine blood transfusion or organ transplant? Since Parliament has determined that babies in the womb are not fully human and stem-cell research is a wholly moral pursuit, does it not make complete sense to use what would otherwise be discarded and incinerated? If it be acceptable to destroy potential life for human convenience, why not for medical expedience to the manifest benefit of those who are living?
Many of us who might object to routine vampirism on religious grounds tend to be quite accepting of stem-cell research in the pursuit of cures for disease: there is no consensus on the dualistic separation of the secular and sacred when it comes to bio ethics. If it be moral to combat neurological illnesses like Parkinson’s, then why not debilitating mental afflictions like Alzheimer's? If we may reverse dementia with infusions of baby blood, what is wrong with bio-engineering a therapy to prevent the onset altogether?
The 'unwanted child' is now a well-established part of or cultural-ethical landscape. Pregnant teenagers and career-minded women are no longer required to sacrifice their personal freedoms for the sake of a baby. Autonomy and individuality are the foundation of our rights, and it is deemed 'inappropriate' in our political discourse to weigh the rights of the woman against those of the unborn child, for the latter has none. The call now is for everyone to do what is right in his or her own eyes, which is a formula for moral chaos and disobedience to God (Deut 12:8; Judg 17:6; 21:25).
We no longer really care when life begins or whether a foetus is a person, not least because such questions are unanswerable both scientifically and scripturally. We may have an opinion or a belief, but morality is besieged by claims and counter-claims of liberation and empowerment, and the religious worldview is unsettled by experience. Life is sacred, yes, but much more when it is our own. And the 'quality of life' is now paramount. So who may reasonably object to the eradication of deformity or the mitigation of mental handicap with the infusion of new blood?