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 ...
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.
Perhaps the nuances are artificial.
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.
Apologies...not you. I think you are actually interested quite interested in intellectual discourse.
jas3
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!
I love how stupid some of these people are: "Chloe will never be sick." Great! Glad that's settled. Amoral morons.
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.
They are trained to think that way, they most likely don't know better.
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.
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.
correct.
jas3
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.
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.
"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).
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?
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.