Reference no: EM132027882

Question: Comment 1

Imago dei means the image of God. It is a Christian concept of how man or human being was created in the image of God, and it bestows honor and dignity of each person irrespective of their social, mental and physical status (Shelly, 2006). Imago dei or the image of God is a theological term, and it applies to a human being only. The concept has its roots in Genesis. The concept of imago dei does not imply that we reflect the image of God in the real or literal sense but His intellectual, spiritual and moral nature.

Mother Teresa was driven by the concept of imago dei to care for the poor, the sick and also dying in Calcutta. This concept has motivated many Christians to care for the sick, the poor and the disenfranchised. Having an understanding that other human beings are created in the image of God is an important aspect that drives healthcare employees to care for a sick patient and also give those who are about to die a comforting and peaceful death (Shelly, 2006). The concept also help people in the societies to help each other in times of need. There is a saying in the healthcare sector that for the caregiver (nurse, physician, psychologist, social worker, etc.) the client or patient no longer remain a fellow human being in distress but the likeliness of eternal God. This awareness transform relationship between patients and caregivers to the recognition of the sanctity of other (Grove, 2015). The concept of imago dei is important in healthcare because it is the basis of the Western society's comprehension of human rights as well as undergirds of the legal system. It also helps them understand the social service and healthcare agencies.

Comment 2

The readings from Meilaender made an interesting distinction between procreation and reproduction as well as between that of being begotten and being made. Procreation refers to the world as designed or given by the Creator, whereas Meilaender defines reproduction as the work of humans to, "master and reshape our world" (2013, p.10) or, stated another way, by conceiving through man-made technologies (2013).

The term "begotten" goes along with procreation. If one is begotten, they have been naturally conceived. The child who is begotten is the union of his father and mother in physical, bodily form. This child has not been reproduced by human means. Their parents' act of love has resulted in life being given to the child. Our text describes the begotten child as being different but equal to his parents because he is created of their flesh. To quote Meilaender, "The Father gives all that he is and has to the son. He begets him" (2013, p.15).

Conversely, "made" refers to a child who is conceived through human means, such as in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, artificial insemination, or some other technology developed by humans. This child is described as being created through our own reason and will, as opposed to God's reason and will. The "made" child is not conceived through the human act of love, and thus, the most foundational component of human equality is absent (Meilaender, 2013).

I had not considered the difference between either procreation and reproduction or begotten and made, and I can very much see the validity in the argument put forth my Meilaender. However, I do not know that I completely agree or disagree. Like so many topics in ethics, I see a grey area. I do not think it's as simple as agreeing or disagreeing. I feel that if I agree, I'm saying that the parents who love and cherish their children who were conceived through technological means were "wrong" in doing so, but the parents who had children through naturally conception but do not love and care for their children are "right." To me that doesn't seem right. At the same time, I also understand that, if this is truly God's plan, I need not completely understand it in order to have faith in it.