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 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-460 last
To: jas3
That is not my position. That's twice you've mistakenly ascribed that same position to me.

Perhaps I need more information.

You'll notice that I'm willing to hear your clear explanation of your position.

If you convince me that blastospheres aren't human beings, I could "go with the flow" of the Brave New World

I don't like being considered a radical right-wing, old fogey, stick-in-the-mud, research obstructionist.

1. I asked, "What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?" and you answered, "That they had a human soul."

2. I asked if "Persons" are protected by the constitution because they have souls. You said, "No."

I'm having a hard time resolving your two answers, with the amount of information you have given me. You could help by explaining away the discrepancy that is hindering my understanding. I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent you.

Think of my old mind as the 'core' of an IBM 360-30, that requires the data from few more punch cards before processing begins.

441 posted on 09/05/2006 9:43:34 AM PDT by syriacus (Why wasn't each home in New Orleans required to have an inflatable life boat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: jas3
You've missed the nuances of what makes someone or something a human or not.

Perhaps the nuances are artificial.

442 posted on 09/05/2006 9:45:52 AM PDT by syriacus (Why wasn't each home in New Orleans required to have an inflatable life boat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I think you do understand what alchemy means and are misusing it

Moi?

The only time I used the word "alchemy" was to say a discussion of the definition of alchemy is sidetracking this thread.

I was right, it seems.

443 posted on 09/05/2006 9:48:55 AM PDT by syriacus (Why wasn't each home in New Orleans required to have an inflatable life boat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
You've missed the nuances of what makes someone or something a human or not.

Perhaps the nuances are artificial.

Perhaps any definition is artificial or (to use a better word) arbitrary....which is the main thrust of this entire thread.

jas3
444 posted on 09/05/2006 9:51:10 AM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

Apologies...not you. I think you are actually interested quite interested in intellectual discourse.

jas3


445 posted on 09/05/2006 9:52:26 AM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: jas3
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 even more fruitful if you stopped dissembling. My claim is as it ever was. Embryo's are human beings at that stage of human beinghood. Don't attribute your inadequacies to me pal. You obviously don't understand the difference between organs and organisms because you persist in making flase analogies between the two.

Oh, and one other thing. You wrote above that I should not be responded to and yet here you are responding. LOL.

You're a sophist and a poor one at that. I have to go earn some sheckels now but I look forward to illuminating your brand of sophistry at every chance I get. Adios!

446 posted on 09/05/2006 9:55:20 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
1. I asked, "What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?" and you answered, "That they had a human soul."

2. I asked if "Persons" are protected by the constitution because they have souls. You said, "No."

I'm having a hard time resolving your two answers, with the amount of information you have given me.


I don't understand why these answers are at all inconsistent with each other. If a blastosphere had a soul I would consider it worthy of legal and moral protection. The Constitution protects people without reference to their souls. I didn't write the Constitution, so a statement on why this document does or does not protect individuals shouldn't imply my agreement with why it was writen with certain protection and without others. If you asked me if the Constitution protected slavery, and I said YES, you would not then assume that I was pro-slavery.

jas3
447 posted on 09/05/2006 10:02:33 AM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
It would be even more fruitful if you stopped dissembling. My claim is as it ever was. Embryo's are human beings at that stage of human beinghood. Don't attribute your inadequacies to me pal. You obviously don't understand the difference between organs and organisms because you persist in making flase analogies between the two.

Oh, and one other thing. You wrote above that I should not be responded to and yet here you are responding. LOL.

You're a sophist and a poor one at that. I have to go earn some sheckels now but I look forward to illuminating your brand of sophistry at every chance I get. Adios!


Your reply is again confusing and less than illuminating.

Embryo's may be human beings at that stage of human beinghood, but so is an egg and so is a sperm, and for that matter if you believe in evolution, so is whatever came before human beings. My point is that you are arbitrary in your temporal definition of what is and what is not a human

I have no idea at all what you mean by "attribute [my] inadequacies to [you] pal."

Was that intended as another insult, or did you have some specific point to make there?

Oh, and one other thing. You wrote above that I should not be responded to and yet here you are responding. LOL.

You're a sophist and a poor one at that. I have to go earn some sheckels now but I look forward to illuminating your brand of sophistry at every chance I get. Adios!


Perhaps you are also confused by what I have posted? Or perhaps you have me confused with another poster? In which post do you claim that I said you should not be responded to?

jas3
448 posted on 09/05/2006 10:15:10 AM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

I love how stupid some of these people are: "Chloe will never be sick." Great! Glad that's settled. Amoral morons.


449 posted on 09/05/2006 11:42:22 AM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com

You wrote, "If a couple agrees to destroy 8 cells in a petri dish, it's far different from having an abortion". And if someone murders a one day old baby, that's "far different" than murdering a 30 year old. But so what? Human life is human life, in all its forms, at all stages of development.


450 posted on 09/05/2006 11:44:07 AM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

They are trained to think that way, they most likely don't know better.


451 posted on 09/05/2006 4:12:38 PM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

Yes, I wrote those things. There are lots of philosophical issues to explore here and I haven't done much thinking about them. Here are some questions for anyone who's interested in trying to tackle them:
1) How is human life different from any other kind?
2) Does a newly fertilized (human) egg have a soul?
3) Is there a moral equivalence to letting some fertilized eggs in a petri dish die through inaction, and having an abortion?
4) Why is human life sacred?

I would be interested in any and all answers from any perspective.


452 posted on 09/05/2006 8:58:17 PM PDT by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I see now.

You are being consistent within your own world view.

You are more demanding than the constitution.

In order for you to feel that human beings should be protected, you demand they have a soul.

453 posted on 09/06/2006 7:02:16 AM PDT by syriacus (Why wasn't each home in New Orleans required to have an inflatable life boat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

correct.

jas3


454 posted on 09/06/2006 7:08:44 AM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I think you are actually interested quite interested in intellectual discourse.

You are right. I have my own biases of course. I won't hide the fact that I try to defend my point of view and that I "probe" other people's points of views.

But if my beliefs are incorrect, I'd like to know. Why should I stumble about in the dark?

And discussions on Free Republic help me to determine the ins and outs of what I believe. For example, I was a pacifist for 30 years. After mulling over a discussion with someone here, I changed my mind.

You are doing me a favor by telling me what is on your mind.

455 posted on 09/06/2006 7:12:20 AM PDT by syriacus (Why wasn't each home in New Orleans required to have an inflatable life boat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: free_at_jsl.com; The Cuban; AliVeritas

THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE We were all once a fertilized egg, a blast, once an embryo, once a fetus, human, with our very own Human DNA since conception.  We were once microscopic-Americans. Once we have our own human genetic code; we are metabolizing as a single-cell entity, we are a living human being, therefore; we are a human be-ing that is biologically and scientifically testable.   At that moment we have that inalienable right to: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property.   

The right to life is considered the most fundamental inalienable right there is.  Therefore, no one can determine when that right begins and no one can give that to you.  You have it when you become a human at conception.  When you get your full human genetic code.  Unmistakable to be matched to any other species, you’re human. 

Because of the intrinsic dignity of each and every person, each individual has certain rights and obligations, which every other individual would have to respect.   This is what’s required in order to live as a human, as the Lord Himself wanted it to be lived. (CCC) Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.  

Inalienable rights belong to us by our very nature and existence; we are human and have that intrinsic dignity of a human being; we automatically have these intrinsic rights. No human being gave us these rights; they came from God.   So, we humans all owe each other certain inalienable rights which belong to us by our very nature and existence, by the fact that we are human and that we exist.  By the fact that we have the intrinsic dignity of a human being and that we exist, we automatically have these rights because of that intrinsic dignity, period. 


456 posted on 09/14/2006 8:55:05 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, geese, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. ... Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death" (CCC-2273).

"Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being" (2274).


457 posted on 09/14/2006 8:55:31 AM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, geese, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

Many U.S. Couples Seek Embryo Screening (designing the dream child Alert!)

458 posted on 09/21/2006 3:27:21 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, geese, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
It's only eight cells in a petri dish. It's only a small "fetus" (ie unborn human baby). It's only a defective baby who won't live anyway. It's only a sick child who will have no quality of life. It's only a mentally ill person who has no enjoyment of life. It's only a retarded person who can't care for himself. It's only an elderly person who has no future ahead anyway. It's only a sick elderly person who can't care for herself.

It's only a Jew. It's only a Christian. It's only a native. It's only a (fill in the blank).


Well said, thank you, little jeremiah.

I just wonder if God's testing us to see if we can use all this new scientific knowledge for good, for life, or for evil, for death. Guess we know for this couple and others like them.

Life is created when two incomplete DNA strands merge {And the two shall become one flesh}. Death cannot be created. Life can be killed, though.

Perhaps in the grand scheme does anyone suppose there are some couples who just aren't 'supposed' to procreate? Perhaps they're to adopt? But even then, they risk the "imperfect child."

God help us all.
459 posted on 12/02/2006 4:38:36 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (Muhammad Lied; Jesus Died (For Your Sins) and Rose Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Not everyone gets to have everything he/she wants. We all are filled with all manner of desires. We don't always get them fulfilled. And the funny thing is, sometimes we get them fulfilled and we find they aren't what we REALLY wanted after all.

What will make a person happy? Having the "perfect" child, the "perfect" spouse, the "perfect" house or job? Or a heart filled with love for God, love for all His children, and compassion for others' suffering?

A hard hearted person is willing to cause suffering to others in order to attain his goal. A kind hearted person is willing to suffer so that others are not hurt or are protected. What kind of person does our culture glorify?

What is life for? Making a laundry list of "I want this, i want that" and handing to God to fulfill? Or if we're an atheist, shoving others out of the way so we can have it all? What fills an empty heart?


460 posted on 12/02/2006 6:05:33 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-460 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