I disagree with the doctor and Danny, but in an agreeable way.The
question of 'playing God' isn't new. But I think people will
treat this as exactly that either way. The question that doesn't get asked
is if we should.God has given us power and intellect so that we can
make choices. He doesn't make our choices for us. God can build a boat or
command a man to build a boat. Either has the function of us acting according to
the powers he has allowed us to have. The proper question then is whether we are
using our abilities to serve Him or not. We were instructed to multiply and
replenish the Earth. This couple's actions are simply allowing them to
answer that. They aren't building an Ayran society. They are removing a bad
gene the way you remove a bad tumor.The birth of a child isn't
wrong. I think most people know that. We're a bit off-put by the Hollywood
freak-show films we see. But that bares no resemblance to the children being
born and the families that love them.
The wrong or right of this is difficult to decide. Personally I see a lot of
right. I can't imagine taking the chance of losing another baby if the
possibilities are high. At least this way babies were brought into the world
with loving parents who would not have had the same chance without the help.
This is the future, and it's a miracle. This enables life and families--and
This is science in the service of man. Events like this convince me things are
not hopeless and that mankind has a future.
Let us call it as it is. This couple aborted embryos. This is a gross sin in
the eyes of those who oppose abortion, since it is alleged that life begins at
conception. To be honest, fundamentalist religionists should condemn these
people.Personally, given what this couple knows about their genetic
predisposition, I think they followed the reasonable course of action. No child
should be brought into the world who we know will not survive, much less thrive.
However, the harsh truth that must be faced is this. Abortion is sometimes the
only viable option that parents have to make. And people of good faith can use
whatever rationalizations available, but it is sometimes necessary. In this
case, it was the only viable option.
"After biopsies screen out eggs with genetic or chromosomal abnormalities,
at least two healthy eggs are returned to the mother."I
completely understand and support what this family has done in an attempt to
have more healthy children.But, we are talking about "screening
out" fertilized eggs. Or, in other words, embryos.This
certainly constitutes a woman's (family's) right to choose.For the abortion purists, this would be a conundrum. And it occurs frequently
in fertility clinics.
It sounds like they screen the eggs before making making an embryo just to
destroy it if it shows the condition. That part seems fine. The morally
questionable part is what do they do with the remaining embryos if they stop
before using all that were created. And the mistakes the medical place makes. A
case with the wrong kids implanted had the mothers having to give the children
to their bio parents and her using a surrogate. She could have terminated which
would have been awful for the parents. The parents also suffered with their
children in the hands of strangers for months during the pregnancy. They had
healthy children at home. Was it that important to have more than 2?
I think most people's squeamishness comes from the obvious slippery slope.
My wife and I have talked about this to possibly screen out some genetic issues
that cause her severe migraines and severe seizures for several of her cousins.
I think everyone can agree with taking something like that. Similarly my family
has a history of heart problems that I'd like to avoid passing on.I can't get cavities, my wife can. Would it be too much to make sure the
kids have my teeth shape? It'll probably save me a lot of money through the
years. Probably a grey area.Taller people do better in business,
would it be wrong to make sure our kids get the tallest combinations of genes? I
think the last option most people would call too much, It's not
always clear cut and I can definitely see why some people are uncomfortable with
the idea of screening. Congrats to the family in the article though, great to
see this tech used for a great purpose.
They wanted to have children, raise them, love them.They did not
want to prevent children, kill them, throw them away.They did not
abort live fetuses as a convenience, which happens 2 million times a year in
this country."Viable embryos" are only viable if implanted
in a mother's womb, which the others were not. To call them aborted
children is wrong.Those with judgement issues should be talking to
@J-TX;Contraceptive simply prevent an embryo from implanting in the
womb. Why should Hobby Lobby, then, get to call them abortifacients if your
comment is correct? Double standard?"I don't think
it's a function of playing God," Foulk said. "I think it's a
function of using the tools God has given us."Same way LGBT
couples can have kids, yet the DN opposes LGBT couples rights. Hypocrites.This couple got a new set of babies; good for them. I do wonder, like K
why they needed more than two kids though. Two is plenty.
Interesting how many people are pro-choice when they consider it the
To equate the procedure that produced the healthy twins with abortion is far
fetched. The same thinking would label a woman's physiology that chooses
and rejects sperm killing the unwanted and a woman who has an ovary removed
after several life threatening cysts as forms of abortion. Kudos to the Doctor
and his staff who made this family dream possible and affordable.
@I know it. I Live it. I Love it. – “They are removing a bad gene
the way you remove a bad tumor.”And how is this different than
what Richard Dawkins opined about a few days ago with respect to downs syndrome?
If we understand Dawkins to have meant the gene that causes downs
syndrome is a genetic mistake or “bad gene” and if technology can
screen out the gene prior to implantation in the womb (Dawkins admittedly was
talking about abortion), how would that be any different than what these parents
are doing?Personally I see nothing wrong with it but I have no idea
how the pro-life purists can square the apparent contradictions here.@J-TX – “"Viable embryos" are only viable if implanted in
a mother's womb,”Haven’t we been lectured for the
last two years on this very issue and how it is “abhorrent” and
“destroying life” and how the Obama Administration is the moral
equivalent of the Nazis for forcing religious employers to include drugs that do
this in their health plans?
Ranch: As always, your arguments are disingenuous.A) There is a
difference between destroying a fertilized egg in a test tube where it has no
chance to progress, and destroying a fertilized egg in a uterus.B)
Hobby Lobby's issue was not with contraception - keeping an egg from being
fertilized - something the LDS Church by the way has no issue with - as you well
know, but with having to provide morning after drugs that destroy a viable
embryo within a uterus. The latter were lumped in with the former under
Obamacare, and the US Supreme Court saw fit to make a distinction. Obviously,
you are smarter than they.C) Who are you to say two is plenty?
This is a question to be settled between a couple and God.
This article is misleadingly written to support the view of its author,
something his editor should have caught. I have no objection to the procedure. I
object to the poor journalistic practice to support a bias.Though
the article is inexcusably vague about it, it appears the procedure described is
the conventional one in which fertilized eggs are screened, and some are
destroyed. As any doctor should know, the proper medical term for a fertilized
egg is zygote or embryo, not just egg. It's no longer just an egg after
it's been fertilized, no more than it would be just the sperm that
fertilized it.The article not only fails to call the embryo what it
is, and to be clear that embryos are destroyed, but it fails to clearly explain
why the procedure is controversial. "Playing God" doesn't specify
the particular objection to the procedure, that it terminates a form of life
regarded by many, with some reason, as a human or person.The article
is written in a way to build sympathy for the couple who made this choice
without due clarity about and attention to the important issues their actions
raise. Poorly done.
This reminds me in a way of the movie GATTACA. Soon we will advance enough to
choose to eliminate genetic diseases making sure they have the correct amount of
chromosomes. Choose height and eye color and many other things.
A part of me truly goes out to these parents who just wanted a healthy child,
but it still seems like playing God. And every time I see people spend so much
energy and money on in vitro fertilization I think, "Why aren't they
adopting?" Maybe God is trying to tell them that children don't have
to be biological to make a family. Why do people keep trying to have their own
when there are so many children out there who need homes? Adoption is also
difficult and expensive, but it makes a huge difference to a child who needs a
home. And if people keep pursuing these alternatives, especially to the extreme
as some do, that's just one more child left in an orphanage.
I'm not comfortable judging this couple for wanting more children. I had
two miscarriages, and it was devastating, so I can't even imagine losing a
baby at 41 days after birth. They may have felt their family was incomplete
after the loss - something that can't be understood without having
experienced it.Is it a slippery slope? Yes, but as long as science
hasn't started sliding, good for the doctors involved and congratulations
to the family.
I see a potential "slippery slope" here--and I speak as someone with a
birth defedct that can get you aborted these days. Thank goodness I was born
before people thought they had a right to do that.
I have no qualms at all about using medicine to help bring about the birth of a
child in a healthy body. If I can use medicine to determine that an
embryo, etc has a destructive/maladaptive gene and then also use that same
science to correct it, I would do that in an instant.Yes, I know
that life is supposed to be full of struggles, and I believe in the wisdom of
God in making life that way. However, there are PLENTLY of struggles to be
had/much learning to experience even in a healthy body.I say that
with confidence in part because of what the Book of Mormon says Jesus did when
He appeared to the Nephites. It says that Jesus healed their sick, their lame,
those that were infirm and ill. It specifically said He healed them ALL. Not
one that was ill or sick or weak or deformed or somehow struggling with a weak
and wounded body was ignored or left to themselves. He had compassion on them
and healed them ALL. Go read the account for yourself.Modern
medicine in and of itself is one of the true miracles of God.
Yes, science in the service of "man," and in this case with good
intentions and to a good end.The problem comes from two other aspects of
this technology. First is the question of whether this science in the service
of "God?" I don't pretend to know, but I am sure that it is a good
question to be asking one's self and discussing as a society. The
second is that this same technology can be perverted to evil. By that I mean
eugenics. Selecting for gender, hair color, or any number of other physical
aspects of a human that really are best left to God (or chance, or natural
selection). I am thankful for modern obstetrics that allows for the lives
of some mothers and/or children to be saved in some circumstances. Conversely,
I am saddened by the fairly routine use of some of those same techniques to end
pregnancies that should have either been carried to term or prevented by prudent
family planing practices and/or chaste behavior. The techniques discussed in
this article come with the same double edged sword regarding their application.
I'd suggest there is no slippery slope here at all. We've jumped down
the well. We talk about screening like we can fix the defect and help a child
grow healthy and happily. That's not what is happening. This is
specifically fertilizing an egg, evaluating the resulting embryo to see if there
are any defects, and then killing (or at least letting die) the embryo. The only
difference is this is in the test tube rather than in the womb. Why stop
at birth defects? Why not ensure you only have blue eyes? and maybe blond hair?
THat fact that scientists do it doesn't change the ethics. Can we
This story and the resulting comments suggest that having a good PR department
behind you can do wonders for how your actions are viewed.