Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 95
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is not going away. In Vitro is not going away, genetic engineering is not going away, pre-screening for dibilitating diseases in the first trimester is not going away.

    Those who believe that God sends down a tiny spirit that lives inside fertilized eggs the moment they touch sperm, are going to have some discomfort in the next decades. More than likely however, there will be less and less of those who hold to that view.
    Clearly, the question "When does 'life' begin?" is related, but this is more than that. This also poses the question, "who deserves to live?"
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Clearly, the question "When does 'life' begin?" is related, but this is more than that. This also poses the question, "who deserves to live?"
    Then I would assume you feel choosing the most viable embryo with invitro, or fertility drugs also means deciding "who deservers to live".
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by leardvr
    My son (again).

    When my wife was 4 months pregnent her OB found a cyst forming in his brain. He sent us to a specialist for a more through ultrasound. After :45 minutes of not saying a single word she promptly stopped and said, "he has trisomy 18, it's incompadable with life. Everyone would understand if you had an abortion." I asked her what the chances were that he did not have this wrong with him? 10% was her reply. I then asked what were that chances that an abortion would be fatal? 100%. "OK there is a 10% chance he'll live if we do nothing, or a 100% he'll die if we follow your guidance." No thank you. She then insisted that we have an amnio done. (they stick a needle into the womb and draw out fluid for testing) I said I thought that there was a chance of miscarrage with amnio. There is a <1% chance she said. No thanks, I mean we won't get an abortion and if there is something wrong are supposed to spend the next 5mo planning a funeral. And what if she does miscarry and the baby was fine?

    At this point I should stop and tell you we are a very religious family so maybe that skews my point of view.

    We prayed everyday for that baby. Every 2 weeks we had an ultrasound. Every ultra sound should the cyst growing bigger and bigger, and all the other markers were present for trisomy 18. We kept praying, we never called a funeral home, we DID decorate the nusery. 3 hours before my wives next scheduled ultra sound she went into labor. Our pastors wife was there, so was my mother inlaw. Our Dr. prepared us the best he could, if your son survives birth it's likely he'll only live about 20 minutes or so. We'll make him comfortable and you can hold him if you'ld like. We wanted to. He warned us that he will be grossly deformed and would most likly not resemble a baby. With that it was time for my wife to push. In the room were; 2 ob's from my wives practice, 3 OB nurses, my mother inlaw, my pastors wife, a neo natal team of at least 5, and myself. My wife pushed twice and out came Samuel (What's in a name? I Sam. 1:20), everyone in the room gasped at what they saw, he was 10lbs 4ozs and he was perfect. NOTHING was wrong with him. I believe that my son was sick until the very moment he appeared into this world and God tested my faith to see if I was faithful. Had I not been we would have lost Samuel, because He knew we would never have been able to handle what was to come.

    I send a letter to that Dr. every year on Samuels birthday. She wrote back asking us to stop, she even said she would contact an atorney. I wrote again on Samuel's birthday and the letter was returned with no forwarding address. I told my wives OB this and he said she moved to Boston, and that he had her address. I wrote again. She will recieve a letter every year until one of us dies.

    So, was the 5 months hard? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes. Would I consider an abortion? No. Do I think we should screen fetus's? Why are we doing it? Is it so we can prepare parents to best care for their child, or so we can give them the option of abortion? I will gladly take your imperfect child and raise him as my own. I'm not a saint, I'm not supper human, I'm not special. I just know right from wrong.

    Flame away.
    Sincerely, thank god your decision turned out well.

    It could have gone very badly, I read about such cases often, and personally I don't think it is because the families failed to pray properly.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Understood.

    In considering my response, I recalled the experience dear friends of mine just endured. Their son suffered and died after only hours. They were immensely grateful for that time. And, their story has already encouraged others facing much less daunting circumstances.
    This brings up a good point. What the parents want makes all the difference between your example and my hypothetical example. I think the parents should be allowed to decide in matters like this, not us.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    This brings up a good point. What the parents want makes all the difference between your example and my hypothetical example. I think the parents should be allowed to decide in matters like this, not us.
    Or John Ashcroft.
  6. #26  
    Clearly in this uncaring universe, no-one "deserves" to live.

    Surur
  7. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #27  
    Why not give separate shots? Thimerisol job is to be a preservative and hold together 3 different vaccines (the M.M.R.).
    Thimerisol is not in the MMR anymore I thought. My pediatrician offers non-thimerisol versions of all vaccines if asked by the parents.

    Who knows whats true about the MMR. A lady I work with that has an autistic child swears he was fine before the MMR. I do think they should break up the 3 vaccines that are given in the MMR into different shots that can be given at different times. The only reason they are combined is to save insurance companies money.
  8. #28  
    @shopharim (sorry can't quote on the Treo)

    I do not require the same number of resources an autistic person does. However, if I were to become ill or have to depend on others to take care of me at this age (being a baby is different, the care is reciprocated when the parents become older), I would gladly remove the burden from society. Think about what Lear said for a second... 100k a year for a moderate to severely autistic person. I certainly don't get that kind of check from the government...


  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is not going away. In Vitro is not going away, genetic engineering is not going away, pre-screening for dibilitating diseases in the first trimester is not going away.

    Those who believe that God sends down a tiny spirit that lives inside fertilized eggs the moment they touch sperm, are going to have some discomfort in the next decades. More than likely however, there will be less and less of those who hold to that view.
    That's a pretty simplistic interpretation of a lot of folks' views. But, hey, if it makes you feel better.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    How many resources (monetary or otherwise) will the handycapped person require to live? How many to "screen him out" or in essence, kill him or her? If the former is smaller than the latter, then you have your answer. Yes, you can put a value on a human life, regardless of what they say.
    So it would be okay to euthanize an autistic child of, say, five years old if it had become evident that the parents couldn't afford to care for him/her?
  11. #31  
    Yes.


  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    how would you answer my question above?
    That's a complex issue. They'd have to have an extremely high degree of certainty about the diagnosis. But the bottom line is that it is a contrived scenario. Not contrived because its not possible, but contrived because it wouldn't be possible except for the fact that the current practice of IVF results in the wastage of a large number of embryos. If a mother had the choice between four embryos and one had the "chance" of having a debilitating disease or handicap then certainly the mother would not choose that embryo--but there was never going to be a chance for three of those embryos in the first place. Does this make sense?
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    That's a pretty simplistic interpretation of a lot of folks' views. But, hey, if it makes you feel better.
    Fertilized eggs having a spirit is not a complicated idea. Simplistic explanation of a pretty simple idea.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    That's a complex issue. They'd have to have an extremely high degree of certainty about the diagnosis. But the bottom line is that it is a contrived scenario. Not contrived because its not possible, but contrived because it wouldn't be possible except for the fact that the current practice of IVF results in the wastage of a large number of embryos. If a mother had the choice between four embryos and one had the "chance" of having a debilitating disease or handicap then certainly the mother would not choose that embryo--but there was never going to be a chance for three of those embryos in the first place. Does this make sense?
    What if these DNA results were arrived at through prenatal testing at 9 weeks gestation (chorioamniotic-villous biopsy) and the specificity (certainty) was extremely high? Should the mother be forced to deliver a baby who will suffer for 6 months then die?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Fertilized eggs having a spirit is not a complicated idea. Simplistic explanation of a pretty simple idea.
    The real point, which you ignore in favor of this "spirit" argument, is the value and dignity of human life.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    Yes.
    Okay, at least you're consistent. I think its horrible, but consistent nonetheless.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    What if these DNA results were arrived at through prenatal testing at 9 weeks gestation (chorioamniotic-villous biopsy) and the specificity (certainty) was extremely high? Should the mother be forced to deliver a baby who will suffer for 6 months then die?
    I think a case for abortion can be made at that point. I don't want to see people needlessly suffer. But I fear the level of "certainty" tends to be over-rated.
  18. #38  
    @hoovs

    I know, I'm a horrible person. It's a gift really


  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think a case for abortion can be made at that point. I don't want to see people needlessly suffer. But I fear the level of "certainty" tends to be over-rated.
    Good for you hoovs, its a tragic situation either way, but I think that is the right choice.

    btw: Level of certainty is greater than 99% for many single gene analyses (most of what is done now), but less for linkage analysis, which is less often done becuase it is less reliable.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    The real point, which you ignore in favor of this "spirit" argument, is the value and dignity of human life.
    Yes with respect to egg cells, but not with respect to bunker busters.

    And how can you possibly have a discussion about "the dignity of human life" without first having a discussion about whether or not there are any lives present?

    And what possible reason would you have to feel there is a life present apart from God sending down a spirit when the sperm gets to the egg?

    Lastly, lets take a poll of persons who made a choice similar to that of leardvr, and ask them if they think the eggs had a spirit.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions