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]

Then so is an unfertilized human egg "a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum.

Not really.

Put an ordinary unfertilized egg in a petri dish and it will not grow and divide.

An unfertilized egg is on the road to "Nowheresville" unless an outside force gives it a "kick start."

[syriacus]

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.

True.

[jwalsh07]

You're scientifically illiterate. I'm trying to help you out here but you're an unwilling participant. Such is life. You may continue to go through life believing that a human egg is a human organism. No dandruff off my skull.

[jas3]

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

???? What's the point?

The point is that you claimed that a IVF is a natural process BECAUSE it is not "supernatural". And I noted that just because something is not supernatural does not make it natural. Artificial strawberry flavoring is not supernatural; it is also not natural. Do you understand why your reasoning is flawed that IVF is "natural" because it is not "supernatural" ?

The argument you and bambam are making is a stupid one. Open heart surgery isn't a "natural" process in your book either.

But in the case of open heart surgery, the operation is being performed on a human being. That open heart surgery is not "natural" does not make embryo implantation "natural".

jas3

[jas3]

You're scientifically illiterate. I'm trying to help you out here but you're an unwilling participant. Such is life. You may continue to go through life believing that a human egg is a human organism. No dandruff off my skull.

Actually I am a subjet matter expert on bioinformatics, genetics, and astronomy. I intend to pursue a PhD in bioinformatics in a few years. So your claim that I am "scientifically illiterate" is wide of the mark.

I don't understand your dandruff comment.

jas3

[jwalsh07]

You're not really qualified to question me on the meaning of words I use. But alchemy is a philosophy based in the transmutation of elements using chemical processes mixed in with a touch of magic. If you look up the thread a bit you'll see I have already made that clear. In your case the magic is the transformation of a non human embryo of some unknown species to a human fetus through the magic of some chemical mechanism heretofore unknown to science. Alchemy!

[jwalsh07]

I don't care what you are, what you've studied or what you plan to be. Your erroneous comparison of a human organism to a human organ belies your claims of literacy in this scientific topic.

[syriacus]

t 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.

Please bear with me as I try to restate your position---

If someone can prove to you that a blastosphere has a soul, you will agree that it should be protected.

But you do not demand that "persons" should have souls, in order to be protected.

And you recognize that plovers are protected, even though they don't have souls.

Am I "hearing" you correctly?

[jas3]

Then so is an unfertilized human egg "a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum.

Not really.

Put an ordinary unfertilized egg in a petri dish and it will not grow and divide.

An unfertilized egg is on the road to "Nowheresville" unless an outside force gives it a "kick start."

And therefore because an unimplanted egg is also on the road to "Nowheresville" by the same logic, since it will not grow into a child unless it is actually implanted, it requires an outside force to "kick start" it. And therefore it is not worthy of protection by your definition? I don't think you really want to use the "kick start" definition.

jas3

[jas3]

Please bear with me as I try to restate your position---

If someone can prove to you that a blastosphere has a soul, you will agree that it should be protected.

But you do not demand that "persons" should have souls, in order to be protected.

And you recognize that plovers are protected, even though they don't have souls.

Am I "hearing" you correctly?

No you are not. You correctly stated that my position is that plovers are protected even though they have no souls. You correctly stated that I believe that if blastospheres have souls, then they should be protected. You incorrectly stated that I do not demand that persons should have souls to be protected.

jas3 jas3

[jas3]

I don't care what you are, what you've studied or what you plan to be. Your erroneous comparison of a human organism to a human organ belies your claims of literacy in this scientific topic

My belief that a blastosphere is not a human is shared by the great majority of scientists in the Life Sciences. Ad hominem attacks against my scientific literacy does not change that fact. You have allowed your frustration at your inability to convince your opponent of your position to devolve into personal insult, which does harm to your cause.

jas3

[jas3]

You're not really qualified to question me on the meaning of words I use. But alchemy is a philosophy based in the transmutation of elements using chemical processes mixed in with a touch of magic. If you look up the thread a bit you'll see I have already made that clear. In your case the magic is the transformation of a non human embryo of some unknown species to a human fetus through the magic of some chemical mechanism heretofore unknown to science. Alchemy!

I have read all of your posts, and it was quite unclear what you meant by alchemy.

I am very much qualified to question you on the meaning of the words you use and also on the meaning of any words that anyone uses on this thread.

Use of the word alchemy suggests that your opponents differ from you as to the chemical composition of a blastosphere, which is quite incorrect. Everyone on this thread will agree that the carbon based cells are just that. The disagreement comes over whether a ball of 7 cells is considered a human or not.

Nobody claims the use of "magic", and to suggest otherwise is to falsely represent your opponents' views.

jas3

[jas3]

Can we all agree that jwalsh07 has descended below the threshold for discussion via his repeated use of personal insult?

jas3

[jas3]

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.

I ask about why you use the word alchemy not to distract from the main point, but because you either don't understand what the word means or you don't understand your opponents' views. I was guessing it is the latter, but based on your later posts, I think you do understand what alchemy means and are misusing it. I'm not sure if you are doing so intentionally or not.

jas3

[syriacus]

You incorrectly stated that I do not demand that persons should have souls to be protected.

I know I won't word the following question correctly, but I'll take a stab at it.

Can you explain your position that persons do not need souls in order to deserve protection, but blastospheres do?

I noticed you are an informatician. Here's a little bit of history about Tom Van Vleck's early days in computers

Cool. Huh?

[jas3]

Can you explain your position that persons do not need souls in order to deserve protection, but blastospheres do?

That is not my position. That's twice you've mistakenly ascribed that same position to me.

jas3

[jwalsh07]

The fact remains that you don't understand the difference between organisms and organs which means you have descended belwo the level of any scientific discussion involving same.

Can we all agree that jas doesn't know what hell he/she is talking about?

[jwalsh07]

Nobody claims the use of "magic", and to suggest otherwise is to falsely represent your opponents' views.

Nonsense, your claim is that multicelled human organisms are not part of the human species. It is utter and complete nonsense. The only question remaining is the mechanism you claim transmutates the non human organism from some unknown species to the species Homo Sapiens.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you embrace alchemy!

[jas3]

The fact remains that you don't understand the difference between organisms and organs which means you have descended belwo the level of any scientific discussion involving same.

Can we all agree that jas doesn't know what hell he/she is talking about?

In fact I understand quite well the difference between an organ and an organelle and an organism. What you have missed is wether something is part human, human, human-like, has some characteristics of a human, etc. You've missed the nuances of what makes someone or something a human or not. Your claim that a blastosphere *IS* a human is not accepted by the majority of scientists. To state that those who disagree with you are therefore idiots, as you have done on previous threads, indicates your unwillingness to actually discuss the issue.

jas3

[jas3]

Nobody claims the use of "magic", and to suggest otherwise is to falsely represent your opponents' views.

Nonsense, your claim is that multicelled human organisms are not part of the human species. It is utter and complete nonsense. The only question remaining is the mechanism you claim transmutates the non human organism from some unknown species to the species Homo Sapiens.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you embrace alchemy

But you know full well that nobody on this thread claims that there is any transmutation or magic from one species to another. And for you to pretend that those who disagree with you do indicates that you are not willing to actually discuss the issue in good faith.

Your term "multicelled human organisms" is new to this thread and is quite distinct from your earlier claim that a blastosphere is "a" human and therefore deserves the same moral and legal protections as an actual human being.

It would be fruitful if you could post without insulting your opponents or misrepresenting your opponents' views.

jas3