Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer

NY Times ^ | 09.03.06 | AMY HARMON

[Coleus]

As Chad Kingsbury watches his daughter playing in the sandbox behind their suburban Chicago house, the thought that has flashed through his mind a million times in her two years of life comes again: Chloe will never be sick.

Not, at least, with the inherited form of colon cancer that has devastated his family, killing his mother, her father and her two brothers, and that he too may face because of a genetic mutation that makes him unusually susceptible.

By subjecting Chloe to a genetic test when she was an eight-cell embryo in a petri dish, Mr. Kingsbury and his wife, Colby, were able to determine that she did not harbor the defective gene. That was the reason they selected her, from among the other embryos they had conceived through elective in vitro fertilization, to implant in her mother’s uterus.

Prospective parents have been using the procedure, known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or P.G.D., for more than a decade to screen for genes certain to cause childhood diseases that are severe and largely untreatable.

Now a growing number of couples like the Kingsburys are crossing a new threshold for parental intervention in the genetic makeup of their offspring: They are using P.G.D. to detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life, and are often treatable if they do.

For most parents who have used preimplantation diagnosis, the burden of playing God has been trumped by the near certainty that diseases like cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia will afflict the children who carry the genetic mutation that causes them.

[syriacus]

Glad to see you read my post :-)

[syriacus]

Or, an alternative view is that they might develop into a treasure that should not be destroyed, but until they do, they are not yet worthy of moral or legal protection.

That could be seen as a convoluted view.

[jas3]

Unless you think a Doctor implanting an embryo in the uterine wall is a supernatural process you are once again digging ever deeper.

Implanting an embryo is neither "natural" nor "supernatural", and those words are not antonyms.

[jwalsh07]

The answer which I've resolved for myself is that I don't consider a colletion of 7 cells to be a human.

Then you have to answer the question of what exactly those cells are. The answer is not up for debate, it is based on reason and science. Those cells are a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum. There is no other answer. Truth is truth.

[jwalsh07]

Do you know what alchemy means?

Certainly and more to the point one could not have been reading this thread and asked such a fatuous question.

[syriacus]

What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?

[jas3]

Or, an alternative view is that they might develop into a treasure that should not be destroyed, but until they do, they are not yet worthy of moral or legal protection.

That could be seen as a convoluted view.

It is the view shared by the majority of the population and a super majority of scientists. Those who hold such a view consider your view to be convoluted.

jas3

[jas3]

What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?

That they had a human soul.

jas3

[syriacus]

Those who hold such a view consider your view to be convoluted.

That's odd...I thought they considered my view to be simple-minded.

[syriacus]

Are persons protected by the constitution because they have a soul?

[jas3]

Do you know what alchemy means?

Certainly and more to the point one could not have been reading this thread and asked such a fatuous question.

Let me be more specific. What do you think alchemy means?

jas3

[jas3]

Are persons protected by the constitution because they have a soul?

No.

jas3

[syriacus]

Let me be more specific. What do you think alchemy means?

It's easy to get lost in insignificant details during a discussion.

You've seen Dems use that ploy, I'm sure.

[jas3]

Those who hold such a view consider your view to be convoluted.

That's odd...I thought they considered my view to be simple-minded.

Probably some people do.

jas3

[jas3]

The answer which I've resolved for myself is that I don't consider a colletion of 7 cells to be a human.

Then you have to answer the question of what exactly those cells are. The answer is not up for debate, it is based on reason and science. Those cells are a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum. There is no other answer. Truth is truth.

Then so is an unfertilized human egg "a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum. There is no other answer. Truth is truth."

jas3

[syriacus]

If a person doesn't need a soul to be protected, then why does a blastosphere need a soul to be protected?

[orionblamblam]

> you're a clown.

Ad hominem.

> There are no artificial embryo's extant that I'm aware of.

Non sequitur.

> Did you make a breakthrough in the field of alchemy?

Non sequitur *and* ad hominem.

> Synonyms for artificial are words like synthetic and simulated.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source

ar‧ti‧fi‧cial /ˌɑrtəˈfɪʃəl/

Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-tuh-fish-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective 1. made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)

> So is the ensuing pregancy synthetic or simulated?

Many major stages in the pregnancy are artificial. However, we're not discussing pregnancy. A blastosphere in a test tube does *not* imply pregnancy. Pregnancy will *only* occur if further non-natural actions are taken via medical technology.

> Thanks for playing? LOL, you're not even in the game pal.

Ad hominem.

Since you seem to be capable, or at least willing, of little more than childish insults, I've no more to say to you until you demonstrate an interest in reasoned debate.

[jwalsh07]

Implanting an embryo is neither "natural" nor "supernatural", and those words are not antonyms.

???? What's the point? The argument you and bambam are making is a stupid one. Open heart surgery isn't a "natural" process in your book either. And yet the patient on entry to the OR is both viable and in need of a heart transplant to retain that viability. Is the patient not viable or the victim of artificial, unnatural or supernatural practices?

[jas3]

If a person doesn't need a soul to be protected, then why does a blastosphere need a soul to be protected?

It doesn't. It could be protected without a soul. Piping Plovers are proteted, and they don't have souls. The question we are debating is not whether a blastosphere CAN be protected. It is whether a blastosphere SHOULD be protected.

jas3

[orionblamblam]

>>Let me be more specific. What do you think alchemy means?

> It's easy to get lost in insignificant details during a discussion.

It's easier to get lost in petty insults. Those who use them in lieu of reasoned arguements need to be called out on that.