Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer
NY Times ^ | 09.03.06 | AMY HARMON

Posted on 09/03/2006 1:55:46 PM PDT by 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.


(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; babies; babyfarms; babykillers; cafeteriacatholic; cancer; dna; embryo; embryos; geneticdefects; genetics; ivf; moralrelativism; murder; nytreasontimes; pickandchoose; playinggod; selectivereduction; selfcentered; selfishness; slipperyslope; treasonmedia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-460 next last
To: Hildy
That's the most sane post I've read on one of these threads in a long time. Good for you.

Hildy, you forgot to say how glad you are that all those nasty embryos were killed good and dead, just like Terry Schiavo. (Oh, and tell us you're pro-life too.)

21 posted on 09/03/2006 2:34:00 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

Maybe the problem is that we let them be in the petri dish at all. I know that is not what people want to hear. But one wrong may not justify leading to another wrong. Just something to ponder.


22 posted on 09/03/2006 2:34:17 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

-Zager & Evans, "In The Year 2525"


23 posted on 09/03/2006 2:35:51 PM PDT by CharlesI (They're not liberals, they're leftists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

Ha. I don't believe there have been any clones.

My fingernails do not have a soul.


24 posted on 09/03/2006 2:36:16 PM PDT by sine_nomine (American is a great country: 20 million illegals can't be wrong. So build that wall, Mr. Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
There's an excellent analysis of this Times article on the Mere Comments blog for Touchstone magazine today: "Baby's Got Her New Genes On."
25 posted on 09/03/2006 2:36:52 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

> They choose the kids they want, and kills those that they don't.

The number of children produced, however, remains more or less constant. Whether embryos composed only of a few cells can be considered "kids" is something that can be reasonable and rationally debated.

The other side of the coin, using the same rhetoric you seem to be using, is this: "So you *want* children to die horribly of cancer."


26 posted on 09/03/2006 2:38:04 PM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: therut
Yes, exactly. I was trying to say this but it did not come out clearly. Once you start experimenting with human procreation as is being done here, you start to slide down a slippery slope where eventually life becomes a commodity. For this couple, this is a good alternative to either having a sick child, or having no children. When these techniques are employed to select gender (as is already being done) or other characteristics, then I start to have a problem with it.
27 posted on 09/03/2006 2:38:56 PM PDT by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah

ping


28 posted on 09/03/2006 2:40:13 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

> Life begins at conception.

Life beings *before* conception. Sperm and eggs are alive, after all. The question is not when does "life" begins (about 2 billion years ago...) but when "human life worthy of legal protection" begins.


29 posted on 09/03/2006 2:40:57 PM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sine_nomine

> My fingernails do not have a soul.

Does an embryo?

If you wish to base laws on such a belief, stand ready to demonstrate the factual nature of your belief, in objective, reproducible scientific terms.


30 posted on 09/03/2006 2:42:48 PM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Yes, I just love death..I'm wearing my black robe right now. You're an idiot.


31 posted on 09/03/2006 2:44:24 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
The other side of the coin, using the same rhetoric you seem to be using, is this: "So you *want* children to die horribly of cancer."

Since we are all going to die someday, having any kids means you want more people to die.

32 posted on 09/03/2006 2:44:38 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com
If a couple agrees to destroy 8 cells in a petri dish, it's far different from having an abortion.

Not really. It's the same baby, just at a different time in it's development. Why should age be the determining factor in whether it's OK to end a life or not? It's murder when it's any other stage of someone's existance. When age is the determining factor in deciding someone's humanness, the slippery slope has begun, like it is now.

33 posted on 09/03/2006 2:45:18 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
Well said. Carrying an extreme argument to it's ridiculous conclusion. Congratulations.
34 posted on 09/03/2006 2:46:27 PM PDT by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

> Since we are all going to die someday

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever.


35 posted on 09/03/2006 2:51:14 PM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

Just for the record, I disagree with you based on my study of human development and embryology. Post #32 was sarcasm. I am unsure if your post is sarcasm as well.

I do not believe that just because someone may die of cancer someday is a good reason to prevent them from reaching that stage.

I think this practice of screening embryos is just to ease the minds of parents who just couldn't stand the thought that "their perfect baby" could have a genetic "defect".

People need to grow up. Maybe their "perfect" baby will become an alcoholic.


36 posted on 09/03/2006 2:52:12 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Are you planning on downloading your consciousness into a computer? What's your plan?


37 posted on 09/03/2006 2:53:07 PM PDT by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: leda

I think I am going to be ill. Crohn's, anyone? ADHD?


38 posted on 09/03/2006 2:55:54 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

The Nazi's called it "Lebensunwertsleben," the life not worth living.


39 posted on 09/03/2006 2:58:12 PM PDT by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

Conception = Conception, not conceived in a womb, not conceived while wanted, etc.


40 posted on 09/03/2006 2:59:16 PM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-460 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson