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]

an acorn can become an oak tree (but is not yet an oak tree),

An acorn is a seed and has the oak tree within it.

A seed contains an embryonic plant in a resting condition, and germination is its resumption of growth.

[jas3]

"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.

There is no such entity as "SCIENCE" which makes statements on whether a blastosphere has the moral equivalence as a human or not. "SCIENCE" doesn't say anything. Scientists however do have opinions on the topic. Most scientists with whom I have discussed this issue consider blastospheres to be not morally equivalent to newborns. But I suspect that you would not consider a poll of biochemists to be the defining word on this matter. Likewise neither scientists in general nor biochemists specifically speak with a unified voice on this topic. There are many different opinions. To suggest that SCIENCE has concluded that blastospheres are equivalent to humans is incorrect. To suggest that scientists view blastospheres as having the same genetic fingerprint as developed humans is correct. But it is not necessarily relevant if one entity has the same genes as another. An acorn is not an oak.

"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.

You are ascribing to me views which I have not stated are my own. I noted that many Christians believe capital punishment is murder. I did not state that I believe that proposition. I also did not state that I do not believe that proposition.

"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.

If the dictionary were the final word on the matter, then you and I would both have to accept that abortion is not murder, since it is legally performed in the United States, whereas we both know that it is, in fact, murder.

There are also dozens of dictionaries with dozens of differing definitions. It is hardly relevant to the moral question of whether a blastosphere is equivalent to a human that a dictionary does not consider capital punishment to be murder. It is quite relevant to this discussion that many people of conscience do consider abortion and capital punishment and euthanasia all to be murder, despite their omission from your dictionary.

jas3

[jas3]

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.

I will read the book you suggest if you read the one I have suggested to you. But having studied Western Civilization for the better part of four decades, I doubt that I will find Thomas E. Wood's thesis to be very convincing.

How much time does he spend on the Dark Ages?

jas3

[jas3]

"An acorn is a seed and has the oak tree within it."

That is quite wrong. An acorn is a seed that has a seed within it.

An acorn contains a small amount of energy and the information required to convert energy CO2 and H2O into a actual tree. But it is most certainly NOT a tree yet. And very likely it will never become a tree.

You've confused the term "embryonic plant" with the term "tree".

jas3

[syriacus]

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).

I am not interested in counting souls.

Here's another way to look at the situation.

You would not feel free to destroy a building if you knew a small child was inside.

Would you feel more free to destroy that building if you thought 2 or more children might possibly be inside the building, instead of only one child?

Likewise, it doesn't really matter how many humans are in the blastula.

What really matters is that at least one human is present.

[syriacus]

The embryonic plant is the tree

[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."

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.

Having read the Amazon reviews of the book you suggested to me and looked at the table of contents, it appears the author has devoted a paltry 48 pages to the topic of the Catholic Church and science.

I would hardly consider 48 pages to be the definitive work on over 1,500 years of history.

jas3

[syriacus]

An acorn is a seed that has a seed within it.

Not if it is germinating...and you are comparing the acorn to a blastosphere, so your acorn must be germinating.

jas3 wrote

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),

[jas3]

"The embryonic plant is the tree"

No it isn't. Nor is a tulip bulb the flower, nor a spore the mushroom, nor is a catepillar the butterfly, nor is a robin's egg the bird. A seed is not "a" tree nor is it "the" tree. Repeatedly stating that a seed is a tree does not make it so.

You could potentially argue that a seed deserves the same moral or legal protection as a tree. And I might agree with you. But you cannot pretend an acorn is an oak tree, or a blueprint is a building, or a glacier is a lake, or a large mass of gas is a star (prior to it actually condensing into a star and igniting under fusion), or that a star is a supernova (until it actually explodes).

Someday with good luck, water, and sunshine a seed may become a tree. But until that happens, it is still a seed and not a tree.

jas3

[metmom]

I began contributing to this thread with the hope that others would share their reasoning on this topic, but, alas, there has been very little in the way of reasoning and very much in the way of name calling.

I read this thread beginning to end and found ONE instance of what might be considered name calling. ONE is *very much*? Where's the rest of it?

[jas3]

Not if it is germinating...and you are comparing the acorn to a blastosphere, so your acorn must be germinating.

Prior to an acorn putting out a single shoot, it undergoes multiple cell divisions, much like a blastosphere. But it is still just a lonely acorn. Even if we define the cracking of the acorn husk as the earliest point at which an acorn becomes a "tree"(which is too early in my opinion), the acorn has undergone far more cell divisions that the THREE cell divisions that were the subject of the article that began this thread. And I would argue that for an acorn to transform into a tree it needs a to have a single proto-root and a single stem eminating from the acorn. One might equate that to a several week old fetus.

jas3

[metmom]

That's no excuse for justifying murder, though, which is what you're all about.

You know, that's what this whole discussion about when a fertilized egg becomes human is all about. If it's not human, it's not murder. Then people can *dispose* of it with a clear conscience. They can try to deny the guilt because, after all, it wasn't human. I see no other reason in the world why there would be any need to even qestion the humanity of that fertilized egg, unless it's so that one can do to it as one pleases with out fear of moral, ethical or legal consequences or judgment.

[syriacus]

Someday with good luck, water, and sunshine a seed may become a tree. But until that happens, it is still a seed and not a tree.

You wanted me to accept your comparison of acorns and blastospheres, so I did.

Now you tell me your acorns are only seeds and haven't germinated, the way that blastospheres have.

Which is it?

Do you want to compare acorns to blastospheres, or not?

[syriacus]

Prior to an acorn putting out a single shoot, it undergoes multiple cell divisions, much like a blastosphere. But it is still just a lonely acorn. Even if we define the cracking of the acorn husk as the earliest point at which an acorn becomes a "tree"(which is too early in my opinion), the acorn has undergone far more cell divisions that the THREE cell divisions that were the subject of the article that began this thread. And I would argue that for an acorn to transform into a tree it needs a to have a single proto-root and a single stem eminating from the acorn. One might equate that to a several week old fetus.

Maybe botany doesn't provide good comparisons to human blastospheres.

Human embryos are so special that scientists are eager to experiment with as many of them as possible, and seem dissatisfied with animal models.

But, at the same time, human embryos are not special enough to deserve to live.

I'm glad I'm not that "special."

[linda_22003]

You said you had a "responsibility to destroy" the system. What actions are you taking?

[syriacus]

You could potentially argue that a seed deserves the same moral or legal protection as a tree.

Why would I want to?

[jwalsh07]

There was no ad hominem involved Ace, just simple truth. Anybody claiming that an embryo is not viable life is practicing alchemy. Like you. Your dandruff isn't viable but an embryo certainly is. Such is life.

[jas3]

I read this thread beginning to end and found ONE instance of what might be considered name calling. ONE is *very much*? Where's the rest of it?

Post 31: madprof98 called Hildy an idiot.
Post 61: jwalsh07 called orionblamblam an alchemist.
Post 70: orionblamblam called jwalsh07 Ace.
Post 109: lentulusgracchus called toroise tough guy.
Post 135: MichaganConservative calle jas3 a moral relativist.
Post 217: MichiganConservative told orionblamblam to go suck on his bong some more.
Post 218: syriacus called jas3 a pro-abort.
Post 229: Wonder Warthog libelled orionblamblam by stating he was all about murder.
Post 254: MichiganConservative (now a three time offender) referred to me as like a little child.
Post 278: Wonder Warthog called jas3 dear.

All of the above were intended as pejoratives by the author to another thread contributor. It's not a matter of having thick skin, people are free to write what they like within limits. But in general, it is not helpful to advance the discussion for posters to be baiting or insulting each other.

jas3

[Wonder Warthog]

"How much time does he spend on the Dark Ages?"

A VERY large part. In fact, that time frame is where most of the NEW research has changed points of view.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Having read the Amazon reviews of the book you suggested to me and looked at the table of contents, it appears the author has devoted a paltry 48 pages to the topic of the Catholic Church and science."

Read the book. There's a lot about science that shows up in other places than the chapter specifically devoted to it.