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]

So would you then agree that if a 7 celled blastosphere lived for 75 years and then died naturally (but without further cell division) that it's death would not be through neglect?

For the sake of clarity, let's name the 7-celled blastosphere, Melissa.

Melissa didn't bring herself into existence. Someone else's actions brought Melissa's tiny life into existence.

If someone deliberately stops supplying whatever is necessary to support Melissa's life, they are guilty of neglect.

[metmom]

They become human because they ARE human. The DNA makes them so. Any full grown adult who dies eventually disintigrates. It doesn't mean they weren't human.

[jas3]

"Yes, but the triggering of the growth by the union of egg and sperm results in a live birth less than half the time, even excluding intentional abortion by the mother."

Irrelevant.

You've stated that because an embryo will be a human it is murder to destroy it. I am stating that very few embryos actually become human. It is quite relevant that MOST embryos and very few implanted IVF embryos every become human. The reason it is significant is that the question of whether or not moral consequence attaches to the destruction of a small ball of cells is very much illuminated by the fact that few of those small balls ever become humans.

Some posters on this thread think that the ball of cells has a soul and is thus deserving of protection. Most of those people are unaware of how few of those balls of cells ever grow into babies. And, in fact, if it were correct that those balls of cells had souls, then Heaven would have more than a majority of souls of "people" who not only never lived, but who never got past the first week of development. When confronted with that fact, many people revise their thinking on whether or not a blastosphere has a soul or not.

So since your point is that destroying a 7 celled blastosphere is morally equivalent to killing a fully grown human, it is quite relevant to note that blastospheres which develop into babies which are then born are the exception rather than the rule.

"I am pointing out that eggs no longer need to be fertilized to create humans. And in fact you've tipped your hand by stating that the real issue is not fertilization, but when human life should or should not be protected. I think everyone on this thread agrees that human life should be protected, but there are various definitions of what counts as human life.

No, the real issue is whether or not a fetus is human, at whatever stage of development it's in. I say it is.

Right, but that is a matter of opinion. YOU say it is. OTHERS say it is not. Simply stating something doesn't make it true. If that were the case, I could just as likely listen to the opinions of others who state that a blastosphere is not yet human, but it very well might become one, at which point it would then become deserving of protection morally and legally.

"Catholics might want to protect sperm, others might want to protect a fertilzed egg, others might want to protect a developed fetus, and others might want to protect a baby only after it has been born. I'm told that Peter Singer thinks a baby deserves protection only well after it is born.

I think you need to study the Catholic position a bit more. You are wrong. The Catholic church's position is exactly mine, and for the same reason. Nothing whatsover in the Catholic position about wanting to "protect sperm".

Please note that I wrote "might want to" not DO want to. I was not stating church doctrine.

"I think that murder is defensible in some cases. For example in self-defense, I would argue that murder is morally justified. Quakers would disagree with me. I also think that capital punishment is morally justified in certain cases."

Neither self-defense nor capital punishment qualify as "murder". Abortion does.

Once again you have stated your opinion. Many people, including many Christians, believe that capital punishment is murder. Simply stating that it is not murder does not make it so.

And while most people would agree that infanticide is murder and that late term abortion is murder, I would wager that only a small minority of Americans think that destroying a blastosphere is equivalent to late term abortion.

Regards,

jas3

[jas3]

"That is most certainly NOT correct, Warthog. Very few implanted IVF embryos ever result in a baby. I think the current number is less than 10%, which is why doctors tend to implant so many of them in the hopes that just one will result in a live birth. Once the fertilization process is initiated, there is still only the potential (not the inevitable) that the blastosphere will become a human, even if the parents do everything possible to try to bring that blastosphere to full term."

I should have correctly said "if not interfered with". A "natural" failure of the fetus is not the question, it is whether the ARTIFICIAL intervention by humans is immoral.

No, that is exactly the question. You argument is that a blastosphere is equivalent to a human. It is a *potential* human with a bit of luck. But it is most certainly not YET a human anymore than an unfertilized egg is a human.

"I wonder if this is where the misunderstanding arises. Does knowing that very few IVFs work and that in nature, less than half of fertilized eggs result in a live birth change your view that a blastosphere must inevitably become a human?

If it lives it'll be human. It won't be a dog, nor a horse, nor anything else. And no, it doesn't change my position in the slightest.

The same is true of an unfertilzed egg or a sperm. If they live they will be human. They won't be dogs, horses, nor anything else. Are unfertilized eggs and sperm worthy of the same protection as a 7 celled blastosphere? If so why? If not, why not?

jas3

[jas3]

Of course, we have to remember that Logically speaking, one side is really incorrect.

There is also the possibility that both sides are incorrect.

jas3

[jas3]

"Actually, I know a great deal about both the history of the Catholic Church specifically and Christianity in general as well as about the history of science. The history of science is one of my favorite topics."

Then you can't have been studying it very long.

Only if you don't consider 35 years to be very long.

"And on balance the Catholic Church has been historically and continues to be TODAY a great impediment to science. I would be happy to debate that point with you on another thread at a later date."

Malarkey. The ONLY area where the Catholic Church is any impediment AT ALL to any part science is in the area of abortion (in all its flavors).

Saying "Marlarkey" doesn't make something that true untrue. Allow me to quote from the Catholic Encylclopedia: "When a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be revised."

jas3

[jas3]

So would you then agree that if a 7 celled blastosphere lived for 75 years and then died naturally (but without further cell division) that it's death would not be through neglect?

For the sake of clarity, let's name the 7-celled blastosphere, Melissa.

Melissa didn't bring herself into existence. Someone else's actions brought Melissa's tiny life into existence.

If someone deliberately stops supplying whatever is necessary to support Melissa's life, they are guilty of neglect.

Let's call the blastosphere P.H. for Potential Human (since we can't identify a gender at the blastosphere stage). So if P.H. lives as a blastosphere for 75 years and then the last of the 7 cells dies of old age, then nobody is guilty of neglect, correct?

jas3

[syriacus]

There is also the possibility that both sides are incorrect

What's the third option to

Human
or
Not-human
??

[syriacus]

we can't identify a gender at the blastosphere stage.

Really?

[jas3]

They become human because they ARE human. The DNA makes them so. Any full grown adult who dies eventually disintigrates. It doesn't mean they weren't human.

That is like arguing that a spore is a mushroom or that caviar is sturgeon or that a maple seed is a maple tree. In all cases the former came from the later and can eventually become another of the latter. But in no cases is the former actually EQUAL to the latter on the basis of their DNA.

jas3

[jas3]

There is also the possibility that both sides are incorrect What's the third option to

Human or Not-human ?

The both sides that can be wrong are:
a). blastosphere deserves protection because it is is equivalent to a human.
b). blastosphere does not deserve protection because it is not a human.

Possible alternatives include:
c). blastosphere deserves protection even though it is not equivalent to a human.
d). blastosphere does not deserve protection even though it is equivalent to human.

I am leaning towards c). right now.

jas3

[jas3]

we can't identify a gender at the blastosphere stage.

Really?

Not unless you want to kill one of the cells, which I thought you had ruled out as murder. Of course we can type even a fertilized egg that is one cell if we decide to destroy it.

jas3

[jas3]

May I suggest the following book to you? I think you will find much of the information in it to be enlightening to you.

Regards,

jas3

[syriacus]

Not unless you want to kill one of the cells, which I thought you had ruled out as murder. Of course we can type even a fertilized egg that is one cell if we decide to destroy it.

Yes, it is no surprise that the gender of a blastophere can be determined.

So couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) also can take advantage of genetic screening. While the embryo is in culture, a cell or two can safely be removed and tested for its genotype. For example:

* The sex of the embryo can be determined with a probe for Y-specific DNA. This permits prospective mothers carrying a severe X-linked trait like hemophilia A to choose a female rather than a male embryo for attempted implantation.

I'm not interested in determining the gender of embryos.

[syriacus]

The blastosphere is either fully human or not fully human, unless it is a chimera.

And parents looking for perfect human children probably aren't interested in giving birth to chimera children.

[jas3]

The blastosphere is either fully human or not fully human, unless it is a chimera.
And parents looking for perfect human children probably aren't interested in giving birth to chimera children.

Well, we can agree that a blastosphere has the potential to become a human in the same sense that an acorn can become an oak tree (but is not yet an oak tree), caviar can become a sturgeon (but is not yet a fish), and a spore can become a mushroom (but is not yet a mushroom).

A blastosphere shares characteristics of human and may contain all the information required to become a human, but it is not yet a human any more than a blueprint plus a roof shingle is a house. That doesn't mean that a blastosphere is not deserving of legal protection or that there is no moral consequence to the destruction of same, but a blastosphere is not "a" human....at least not yet, and more likely than not, not ever.

I disagree with you and expect that chimeras will become the norm this century for parents who accept the promise and perils of genetically engineering their children. Parents will eventually be given the option of having children with many genes that are either plucked from existing animal genomes (see in the infrared! hear ultrasonic frequencies! etc.) or are specifically engineered from scratch and did not previously exist. It wouldn't surprise me at all if parents identifying themselves as "goth" choose to have bioluminescent children.

Speaking of chimeras, are you familiar with the concept of fraternal twins merging to create a single human chimera, i.e. one person with two distinct cell lines? It is amazing that one's immune system permits such a situation to arise, but there are several documented cases of this happening with the adults only recognizing this condition when they type tissue for organ transplant or attepmt to identify offspring of questionable origin.

I wonder from a theological point of view what various various churches which believe a soul attaches to an ovum at conception might suggest has happened to the "extra" soul. The existance of such human chimeras strongly suggests that human souls are not attached at conception (or alternatively that some people have two souls).

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"The same is true of an unfertilzed egg or a sperm. If they live they will be human. They won't be dogs, horses, nor anything else. Are unfertilized eggs and sperm worthy of the same protection as a 7 celled blastosphere? If so why? If not, why not?"

Not unless they "get together" and make that blastosphere. Unless that happens, they'll be just be "eggs and sperm".

By YOUR definition, it's perfectly OK to kill a just-born infant. Not fully mature, y'know. But then, the same can be said for any teen-ager.

The development of human life is a BIOCHEMICAL PROCESS, and that process starts with the event that initiates the cellular division. There is no other scientifically definable point.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Right, but that is a matter of opinion. YOU say it is. OTHERS say it is not. Simply stating something doesn't make it true. If that were the case, I could just as likely listen to the opinions of others who state that a blastosphere is not yet human, but it very well might become one, at which point it would then become deserving of protection morally and legally."

No, dear. SCIENCE says it is human. You know--things like biology and biochemistry. It may only be a few cells, but it is damned well human.

"Many people, including many Christians, believe that capital punishment is murder. Simply stating that it is not murder does not make it so."

Sorry, but the dictionary says you (and they) are wrong.

"1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. "

"The unlawful killing of a human being with deliberate intent to kill: (1) murder in the first degree is characterized by premeditation."

Since capital punishment is, by definition, lawfully done, it is not murder.

[Wonder Warthog]

"May I suggest the following book to you? I think you will find much of the information in it to be enlightening to you."

Your "source" is grossly out of date. I suggest you instead read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods---copyright 2006 instead of sometime in the 1800's

It has the LATEST research on the subject.

[jas3]

"The same is true of an unfertilzed egg or a sperm. If they live they will be human. They won't be dogs, horses, nor anything else. Are unfertilized eggs and sperm worthy of the same protection as a 7 celled blastosphere? If so why? If not, why not?"

Not unless they "get together" and make that blastosphere. Unless that happens, they'll be just be "eggs and sperm".

And some would argue that after that happens they are just a fertilized egg, not a human, not worthy of legal protection, and of no moral consequence.

By YOUR definition, it's perfectly OK to kill a just-born infant. Not fully mature, y'know. But then, the same can be said for any teen-ager.

I have not provided any definition yet, nor do I condone killing just-born infants nor "teen-agers".

The development of human life is a BIOCHEMICAL PROCESS, and that process starts with the event that initiates the cellular division. There is no other scientifically definable point.

Yes, I am quite acquainted with biochemistry and genetics although not in a professional setting. But it is a large step to state that the potential for human life in a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a newborn. And there are dozens of scientifically definable points at which one might define life as being legally or morally at a beginning including the first heartbeat, the third trimester, the start of neural development, the development of an alimentary canal, etc.

I can see your argument, but I can see other arguments that eggs and sperm deserve protection too, since they can each become a human too, although not without each other. But neither can a blastosphere become a human without dozens of other requirements too.

jas3