Posted on 10/27/2005 7:20:09 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
HOUSTON, October 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An experiment has been underway for a month in a Houston Texas where parents are permitted to ask scientists for a child with the gender of their choice. The procedure involves preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) which is able to detect the sex of embryos created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) prior to their implantation in their mothers' wombs.
While sex selection via PGD has been allowed in some cases where sex-linked diseases are concerned, the clinical trial is seeking to gage the impact of sex selection at the whim of the parents. According to the journal Nature, the researchers, led by Sandra Carlson of Baylor College of Medicine, will be studying the long term health effect to the children born after PGD and also the social impact on the families.
The fundamental ethical problems behind PGD lie in its origin of IVF which creates children outside of the loving union of a man and a woman. Moreover, the lives of the embryonic children conceived by the IVF procedure are under severe threat since the latest statistics have revealed that over 85% of embryos transferred in the procedure die in the process.
However, with those arguments ignored, and IVF accepted as a moral procedure in most of the world, researchers are left looking at PGD as perhaps problematic since it may cause sex discrimination as is the case in China and India. Both countries have seen a discrepancy in the ratio of boys and girls born since one-child policies and discrimination against female children have resulted in abortion being used to eliminate female babies in utero.
PGD sex selection is banned in Canada, Britain and several other countries for that reason. However the researchers are suggesting sex selection may be ethical for 'family balancing'. The researchers have said they will only accept couples into the trial who have a child and want another child of the opposite sex.
PGD is already routinely used to screen out embryos with genetic defects. Thus those embryonic children with disabilities are disposed of (read killed) prior to being given a chance to be born, a fact which has been of serious concern to groups advocating for the disabled.
Ping!
""85% of embryos transferred in the procedure die in the process.""
""However, with those [above argument] ignored, and IVF accepted as a moral procedure in most of the world,""
Go, run now and throw away all your kitchen knives!!!! People use them to kill!!!!
There's a $10,360 tax credit for adoption, and a $5,000 tax-deductable subsidy available through an employer via some corporate tax incentives. Other adoption expenses are not tax deductable, though, so the remaining $15,000+ we'll be paying with after-tax dollars.
IVF has blessed countless millions, including Christians, who are infertile. Just because it can be used to murder, doesn't make the technology evil. Do you own a gun? They're used to murder, y'know. But we shouldn't go outlawing guns.
So what about a man who marries a woman who has her tubes tied during a previous marriage.. a marriage that didnt even end on her accord.
Should her husband only have to be someone who's had children or doesn't care about children?
Should that man select surgery for his wife that could endanger her?
Or do you think it would be ok with God after much prayer and thought that God would say it's ok to have a child this way.
Remember man can do great evil with technology.. but not all technology is used for evil.
Don't be blanket in all your statements. God is loving.. and he does command that we not all be as judgemental as you currently are.
He can't help judging. God has sent him to judge. Oh wait, Jesus said, judge not, lest you be judged. I guess he doesn't really know the true heart of Jesus...
My my, you do babble don'tchaknow. You appear quite learned in the lieberal art of twisting and dissembling (you even contradict yourself from sentence to sentence; astounding deceitful dexterity that). You won't be happy here at FR. We tend to be pro-life. Need an explanation of what that means?
Care to write another adjective-filled dissertation?
Typicasl lieberal lickspittle, taking a sentence from Scripture out of context and twisting it to fit the lieberal way: "Oh wait, Jesus said, judge not, lest you be judged. I guess he doesn't really know the true heart of Jesus..." And you assume to know? Bwahahahahaha
The words of Jesus upset the Pharisees then. So they do now.
You offered, "I am pro-life." Is embryo an age you passed through in your lifetime?
You sound like a Fred Phelps-type. Do you attend his cult?
Please write clearly. Who are "they" in your first sentence? And what is it "they" have chosen to do? "What" is not an excuse to eliminate technology? (A technology, I might point out, that has killed hundreds of thousands of human beings, if not millions). Perhaps if you would use nouns instead of pronouns you might even see the lack of logic in your statements.
The news in this article is that the United States of America has gone another step further in promoting the death of innocents. That is horrendous. How can you defend such "technology." I am sure that the wonderous technologies used in Germany in the 40's were touted as beneficial "technologies" too.
Of course I realize it's a sinful world. I hate the idea that my country has made it legal to kill innocents. Obviously that concept is beyond others.
Same with automobiles. Leading cause of death for many people groups, auto accidents. You should be Amish. Maybe you are.
Any technology can be used to kill.
What do you think happens to most embryos which are not implanted? They most often linger in deep freeze for years and years, until they are finally discarded.
The fatality rate for thawing embryos is about 50%, and implantation fatality rate is about 70%.
There is work underway to allow for a form of adoption of these tiny human forms, but the courts treat them as property, not individuals, so the transfer of the frozen embryos is a contract over property, not an "adoption" per se.
That's still not a reason to eradicate the entire technology that has conceived children for countless infertile couples, including Christians. What the general population does, follows in line with a sinful humanity. But educating them is the answer, not blindly destroying technology that does good.
The Lord hears all our prayers and will answer them. You may not like or agree with the answer, but you must trust his Will that it is for the greater good of your soul.
I don't need nor want your help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.