Jump to content
Paulding.com

Reproduction roulette ... if you had a devastating genetic disease ...


Recommended Posts

Happened to watch a Sci channel show last night that detailed the ability of scientists to do a lot of wild things in terms of genetic engineering. This is actually a pretty obvious advancement we have given the proliferation of GMO grains, etc.

 

Anyway, I happened upon a story in today's NYTimes that is a bit more accessible that talked about a couple - hubby's a doctor and wife's a nurse - and the wife has a genetic mutation that promises to kill her in about 20 years ... she'll become bumbling, lose her ability to walk, etc. and suffer dementia and die at about age 55. Her father is dying as we speak and her grandparents, aunts and uncles have all died from this disease.

 

The woman found out about having the genetic flaw about four years ago while she was dating her doctor to be hubby and he stood by her knowing the issue. She, however, was adamant she wouldn't have children that would be destined to die with this disease.

 

Instead, the couple had eggs removed from her ovaries and they were fertilized ... about a dozen of them. All the embryos were tested and half, had they been implanted normally, would have developed the genetic condition.

 

They chose to implant two (initially) and later another embryo, all of which were certain not to develop the disease literally ending the genetic disease in her family.

 

Using this scientific process to identify the healthy embryos is pretty much a slam-dunk decision on the part of this mother; or at least that seems to be the reading but it does raise some questions regarding ethics, particularly since the disease is not an issue for the kids (or her) until late middle age (approx. age 50-55).

 

The question is should we as humans take advantage of this kind of treatment to avoid the inevitable genetic failure of a known mutation and if it is okay to do that, can we use it to eliminate embryos, say that have a higher risk of breast cancer or some other genetic predisposition?

 

And if we can do that, where do we draw the line? The sex of the child? Their hair color?

 

Or as the program on the Science channel suggested, should we find and determine that we can tweak the intelligence of our children or their physical prowess through genetic engineering - say give them the muscle tone or quickness of a big cat? How about if we genetically alter them to be able to hibernate for extended periods so they might be more fitted to interstellar space travel? Should we do such things?

 

I might add that Aldous Huxley's book 'Brave New World' is rapidly moving from the realm of science fiction as we speak. With the advances in genetic engineering and the notion of boutique babies made to order, comes a diminution of the role of family as a genetic relation.

 

This is heady territory in which we're headed in the present.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is the article in today's NYTIMES.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's ethical to some, like myself, but I don't impose my ethical belief's on other people, Pubby!

 

The ethics come into play in each individual mind, and their own principles are what they used to make decisions.

 

There are many things that other people's ethics has stopped development on. Look how long it took Charles Darwin to show the science of evolution, because people refused to accept the facts.

 

Like you understand, too, about Thomas Edison and Nekola Tesla, some people will use, abuse, and kill dogs in an electric chair type device to disprove the value of Alternating Electrical Current.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to keep in mind in most cases about genetic testing and gene mutations is there is no guarantee that a person will have the condition linked to the genes.

 

 

There is no guarantee for some, but in many cases it is still a very higher number twhich is why people take action to protect themselves. It is amazing what these tests can help of prevent. I know it potentially saved my life and many family members taking the brca testing.

 

As for my friends (siblings) who took the early alzheimers genetic testing. They will get it. 100% and nothing they can do to stop it.

 

As For Pubbys post. I see nothing wrong with it. Sound like a mother doing eerything to protect their child and has the funds for that.

Edited by CarolineElizabeth
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to keep in mind in most cases about genetic testing and gene mutations is there is no guarantee that a person will have the condition linked to the genes.

 

 

You're right, because some people will hold onto the < (less than)1% that DNA is not enough, with its > (more than) 99% effectiveness, to prove the facts, S & D's N!

Edited by The Postman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's ethical to some, like myself, but I don't impose my ethical belief's on other people, Pubby!

 

The ethics come into play in each individual mind, and their own principles are what they used to make decisions.

 

There are many things that other people's ethics has stopped development on. Look how long it took Charles Darwin to show the science of evolution, because people refused to accept the facts.

 

Like you understand, too, about Thomas Edison and Nekola Tesla, some people will use, abuse, and kill dogs in an electric chair type device to disprove the value of Alternating Electrical Current.

 

Except instead of electrocuting an elephant (as Edison did to illustrate the dangers of AC power) the genetic engineer will create monsters and freaks that may look like this:

 

mythological-movie-beasts-20120328011847927-000.jpg

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this different from the prenatal testing that shows birth defects? The tests are done early enough in the pregnancy so the mother can choose to legally kill the baby if it has a defect.

 

 

Imposing ones ethics on other people is exactly like Edison did by killing an elephant with Alternating Currant. He knew the elephant would die, and is still the hero of Electricity, to a lot of people. It was his choice to kill the elephant, because there must have been no law against it, back then.

 

Now day's you can kill people simply because you refuse to back away, and claim you were standing your ground.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except instead of electrocuting an elephant (as Edison did to illustrate the dangers of AC power) the genetic engineer will create monsters and freaks that may look like this:

 

mythological-movie-beasts-20120328011847927-000.jpg

 

pubby

 

 

Thanks for the help on what kind of animal was killed, Pubby! I don't remember where I heard about the dogs. There is no record of it on the Net.

 

That is the way I look to some people, who have never seen me, because of my label, which was attached by someone that I don't know.

 

I was really embarrassed when some guys labeled me with a kick my a$$ on my back, once, while I thought they were my friends. I actually got kicked by a few boys before I realized I had a label on my back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very true. The number can be high for some. It still is no guarantee. There are no guarantees when it comes to the human body and health. Some genetic conditions are affected by environmental factors, many of which can be controlled.

 

 

 

There is no guarantee for some, but in many cases it is still a very higher number twhich is why people take action to protect themselves. It is amazing what these tests can help of prevent. I know it potentially saved my life and many family members taking the brca testing.

 

As for my friends (siblings) who took the early alzheimers genetic testing. They will get it. 100% and nothing they can do to stop it.

 

As For Pubbys post. I see nothing wrong with it. Sound like a mother doing eerything to protect their child and has the funds for that.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very true. The number can be high for some. It still is no guarantee. There are no guarantees when it comes to the human body and health. Some genetic conditions are affected by environmental factors, many of which can be controlled.

 

 

 

<br /><br /><br />

 

You're right about environmental factors. That is how Cornell University scientists have grown human ears from cow cells with the help of a 3D printer.

 

Also, scientist are growing livers, and kidneys in a lab.

 

Click Here: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fscientists-growing-livers-kidneys-ears-in-labs-amidst-organ-shortage%2F&ei=NGvxUojJNsmrkQfHr4GwAg&usg=AFQjCNGtuMkdQHJYlN9mpin9jfrfo_8uuQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.eW0

 

Forgive them Lord; I don't know why they would do such things. In Jesus Name, I Pray!

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to watch a Sci channel show last night that detailed the ability of scientists to do a lot of wild things in terms of genetic engineering. This is actually a pretty obvious advancement we have given the proliferation of GMO grains, etc.

 

Anyway, I happened upon a story in today's NYTimes that is a bit more accessible that talked about a couple - hubby's a doctor and wife's a nurse - and the wife has a genetic mutation that promises to kill her in about 20 years ... she'll become bumbling, lose her ability to walk, etc. and suffer dementia and die at about age 55. Her father is dying as we speak and her grandparents, aunts and uncles have all died from this disease.

 

The woman found out about having the genetic flaw about four years ago while she was dating her doctor to be hubby and he stood by her knowing the issue. She, however, was adamant she wouldn't have children that would be destined to die with this disease.

 

Instead, the couple had eggs removed from her ovaries and they were fertilized ... about a dozen of them. All the embryos were tested and half, had they been implanted normally, would have developed the genetic condition.

 

They chose to implant two (initially) and later another embryo, all of which were certain not to develop the disease literally ending the genetic disease in her family.

 

Using this scientific process to identify the healthy embryos is pretty much a slam-dunk decision on the part of this mother; or at least that seems to be the reading but it does raise some questions regarding ethics, particularly since the disease is not an issue for the kids (or her) until late middle age (approx. age 50-55).

 

The question is should we as humans take advantage of this kind of treatment to avoid the inevitable genetic failure of a known mutation and if it is okay to do that, can we use it to eliminate embryos, say that have a higher risk of breast cancer or some other genetic predisposition?

 

And if we can do that, where do we draw the line? The sex of the child? Their hair color?

 

Or as the program on the Science channel suggested, should we find and determine that we can tweak the intelligence of our children or their physical prowess through genetic engineering - say give them the muscle tone or quickness of a big cat? How about if we genetically alter them to be able to hibernate for extended periods so they might be more fitted to interstellar space travel? Should we do such things?

 

I might add that Aldous Huxley's book 'Brave New World' is rapidly moving from the realm of science fiction as we speak. With the advances in genetic engineering and the notion of boutique babies made to order, comes a diminution of the role of family as a genetic relation.

 

This is heady territory in which we're headed in the present.

 

pubby

 

PS: Here is the article in today's NYTIMES.

I have often thought that before a couple get married they should have testing done to see what they may pass on to children they may have . that way they could choose to marry someone else or to maybe not have children, Lol I often tell my son he got all his dirty genes from me. But its just my thought

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often thought that before a couple get married they should have testing done to see what they may pass on to children they may have . that way they could choose to marry someone else or to maybe not have children, Lol I often tell my son he got all his dirty genes from me. But its just my thought

I have a friend who has a history of Cystic Fibrosis in his family and before he and his wife had children, they went for genetic counseling. I think it makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often thought that before a couple get married they should have testing done to see what they may pass on to children they may have . that way they could choose to marry someone else or to maybe not have children, Lol I often tell my son he got all his dirty genes from me. But its just my thought

 

There is the premarital blood test but that does little I think except to rul we out STDs and being blood relatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no!! As a family member with several cases of autism from severe to mild I cannot imagine my life without any of those people in it. This is selective reproduction and SHOULD NOT be allowed. I would much rather see those genetic research dollars and time being spent curing those with genetic afflictions instead of selection. This is wrong on so many levels. So very wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />There is the premarital blood test but that does little I think except to rul we out STDs and being blood relatives.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

They eliminated the premarital blood testing years ago.

 

So many people have said they wouldn't trade their special needs child/sibling/other relative for the world. A friend of mine has a Down's Syndrome child and loves that son just as much as the 5 non-Down's children she has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no!! As a family member with several cases of autism from severe to mild I cannot imagine my life without any of those people in it. This is selective reproduction and SHOULD NOT be allowed. I would much rather see those genetic research dollars and time being spent curing those with genetic afflictions instead of selection. This is wrong on so many levels. So very wrong.

 

While I do understand your view, I will take the opposite stance. My son is not autistic but he is all over the Aspergers spectrum. And with his ADHD, ODD and now bi-polar diagnosis I will say life is going to be a very hard road for him. You say that you can not imagine life without them. The bigger question is can they imagine a normal life where they are not "disabled". If it was not their specific egg that was born it would likely have been another so there would likely have been a person in that spot only different. I would strive for the healthist of children. You can not miss someone you never knew. But woth that said we can not predict what the futire of any one child will be. But it is much easier to expect a non challanged child will succeed on there own while another will need life long support and care. Further what you propose is much more in tune with playing God than selective reproduction. You actually want to alter someone's DNA in order to elliminate the issue. There is a huge difference between identifying and selecting based off DNA versus altering DNA.

 

JMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />They eliminated the premarital blood testing years ago.  <br /><br />So many people have said they wouldn't trade their special needs  child/sibling/other relative for the world.  A friend of mine has a Down's Syndrome child and loves that son just as much as the 5 non-Down's children she has.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

I think scientists, as well as prospective parents, are taking the long-view when it comes to genetic testing/modification.....scientists because the idea of a more perfectly evolved human is more easily attainable and, for prospective parents, the idea of a special needs child is overwhelming. For scientists, especially, it's the continued evolution and procreation of the human race and genetic defects are just that, defects. On a strictly emotional, short-term, view, I agree with you...I've seen the same thing with parents of special needs children....there's something about caring for the most vulnerable that seems to create a very special connection.

 

 

mrnn

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am an advocate of science and technology, all the way to growing livers, and kidneys, in a lab. My ethics to that only stops at the Hitler type scientist, who knows no limits, and will support taking over the planet Earth. I'm so glad the Nazi's didn't win WWII.

 

Race/hate is no reason for using 3D printers to help grow human ears. Nor is race/hate a reason for growing livers and kidneys in a lab.

 

All the brilliant scientist who came here, after WWII, was not race/hating Nazi's. Many of them have helped this country the best they could, and then they took Dale Carnegie's advice. They "put up their umbrella's to keep the rain of criticism from running down the back of their necks."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians realized that Christian leadership had no business in the affairs of State laws.

 

It's only the haroin, crack, and meth, babies that I worry about. The others are more likely to be adapted. Married Gay people help the baby adaption thing.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

This: > http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72672000/jpg/_72672817_p4200333-eye-spl.jpg is really good news, because the ability to see is such an important thing.

 

The article speaks for itself, so Click Here: > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fhealth-25977215&ei=IF_yUoTJEIKiyAGyyIHoAw&usg=AFQjCNF1_Dp3OrNpuEsSCOUa8Fy2ksG-Gg

 

I would even give the ability for one of my loved ones to see, with one of the stem cells from the back of my own eye.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

They eliminated the premarital blood testing years ago.

 

So many people have said they wouldn't trade their special needs child/sibling/other relative for the world. A friend of mine has a Down's Syndrome child and loves that son just as much as the 5 non-Down's children she has.

 

But the question is not one of if you love your special needs child it is would you choose to have a special needs child to love if you could choose a nornal child. There is a difference between choosing and loving that child or just loving the child from luck of the genetic draw. The point is which life would you choose for your child to have?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the question is not one of if you love your special needs child it is would you choose to have a special needs child to love if you could choose a nornal child. There is a difference between choosing and loving that child or just loving the child from luck of the genetic draw. The point is which life would you choose for your child to have?

 

 

Right, Mr.Dis!

 

That is the very point.

 

I'm pro choice, and don't need no professed Christian, who is not much like the main Christian (Jesus) much at all, telling me what to chose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most brilliant minds have or have had "genetic defects".

I'd hate to think of what the world may have been without them.

I submit to the court, Albert Eistein, Stephen Hawking, John Nash, and there are many many more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Blondiega1
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most brilliant minds have or have had "genetic defects".

I'd hate to think of what the world may have been without them.

I submit to the court, Albert Eistein, Stephen Hawking, John Nash, and there are many many more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Absolutely!! That is where you jave to wonder if we should be doing things like that. Where do you draw the line. What "defects" do we allow to be culled out. I have no problem with the concept but we just do not know all the repercussions of our actions. I do know that in my son's case, his prognosis for a normal productive life is low. His chances of alcohol or drug abuse are very high. His ability to get a stable well paying job is low. And financial aspects will never be his strong area. Would I choose this for my child? No. But he is my child as he is and I just do what I can to help him. When I'm gone, then who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had the ability to get pregnant, being pro choice would mean more. You don't, so it doesn't. Women don't need you or anyone else to tell them what they should do. That is their CHOICE, not yours.

 

 

 

Right, Mr.Dis!

 

That is the very point.

 

I'm pro choice, and don't need no professed Christian, who is not much like the main Christian (Jesus) much at all, telling me what to chose.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think where Tundra is coming from is the movement among some to define human life at conception.

 

If that is the case, the six fertilized eggs that were discarded by the woman because they carried the genetic disease were 'human lives' and discarding them was murder.

 

Beyond that, the notion they are live human beings with a right to life implies that once they were fertilized there is an obligation to at least attempt to bring them to full term ... or the lot of the doctors and parents involved would be guilty of either murder or unlawful imprisonment by keeping them frozen.

 

For those, like me, who haven't gazed at the prose of Huxley's Brave New World for a while, let me offer this bit from chapter 1.

 

"But why do you want to keep the embryo below par?" asked an ingenuous student.

 

"Ass!" said the Director, breaking a long silence. "Hasn't it occurred to you that an Epsilon embryo must have an Epsilon environment as well as an Epsilon heredity?"

 

It evidently hadn't occurred to him. He was covered with confusion.

 

"The lower the caste," said Mr. Foster, "the shorter the oxygen." The first organ affected was the brain. After that the skeleton. At seventy per cent of normal oxygen you got dwarfs. At less than seventy eyeless monsters.

 

"Who are no use at all," concluded Mr. Foster.

 

Whereas (his voice became confidential and eager), if they could discover a technique for shortening the period of maturation what a triumph, what a benefaction to Society!

 

"Consider the horse."

 

They considered it.

 

Mature at six; the elephant at ten. While at thirteen a man is not yet sexually mature; and is only full-grown at twenty. Hence, of course, that fruit of delayed development, the human intelligence.

 

"But in Epsilons," said Mr. Foster very justly, "we don't need human intelligence."

 

Didn't need and didn't get it. But though the Epsilon mind was mature at ten, the Epsilon body was not fit to work till eighteen. Long years of superfluous and wasted immaturity. If the physical development could be speeded up till it was as quick, say, as a cow's, what an enormous saving to the Community!

 

"Enormous!" murmured the students. Mr. Foster's enthusiasm was infectious.

 

He became rather technical; spoke of the abnormal endocrine co-ordination which made men grow so slowly; postulated a germinal mutation to account for it. Could the effects of this germinal mutation be undone? Could the individual Epsilon embryo be made a revert, by a suitable technique, to the normality of dogs and cows? That was the problem. And it was all but solved.

 

Pilkington, at Mombasa, had produced individuals who were sexually mature at four and full-grown at six and a half. A scientific triumph. But socially useless. Six-year-old men and women were too stupid to do even Epsilon work. And the process was an all-or-nothing one; either you failed to modify at all, or else you modified the whole way. They were still trying to find the ideal compromise between adults of twenty and adults of six. So far without success. Mr. Foster sighed and shook his head.

 

Their wanderings through the crimson twilight had brought them to the neighborhood of Metre 170 on Rack 9. From this point onwards Rack 9 was enclosed and the bottles performed the remainder of their journey in a kind of tunnel, interrupted here and there by openings two or three metres wide.

 

"Heat conditioning," said Mr. Foster.

 

Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels. Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays. By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miners and acetate silk spinners and steel workers. Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies. "We condition them to thrive on heat," concluded Mr. Foster. "Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it."

 

"And that," put in the Director sententiously, "that is the secret of happiness and virtue-liking what you've got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny."

 

In a gap between two tunnels, a nurse was delicately probing with a long fine syringe into the gelatinous contents of a passing bottle. The students and their guides stood watching her for a few moments in silence.

 

"Well, Lenina," said Mr. Foster, when at last she withdrew the syringe and straightened herself up.

 

The girl turned with a start. One could see that, for all the lupus and the purple eyes, she was uncommonly pretty.

 

"Henry!" Her smile flashed redly at him-a row of coral teeth.

 

"Charming, charming," murmured the Director and, giving her two or three little pats, received in exchange a rather deferential smile for himself.

 

"What are you giving them?" asked Mr. Foster, making his tone very professional.

 

"Oh, the usual typhoid and sleeping sickness."

 

"Tropical workers start being inoculated at Metre 150," Mr. Foster explained to the students. "The embryos still have gills. We immunize the fish against the future man's diseases." Then, turning back to Lenina, "Ten to five on the roof this afternoon," he said, "as usual."

 

"Charming," said the Director once more, and, with a final pat, moved away after the others.

 

On Rack 10 rows of next generation's chemical workers were being trained in the toleration of lead, caustic soda, tar, chlorine.

 

One thing to remember when reading Brave New World is that DNA was not discovered until 20 years or so after this book was written and hence, Huxley dealing with the scientific understanding at the time ascribed the engineering of embryos to modifications of the chemicals used during the 'hatching' process. But the point isn't the science, but the motive behind what was being done in that London hatchery.

 

The notion that we might engineer humans to run faster, run farther, think better, etc. ... all promises of genetic engineering ... and the implications of that activity on society is explored, at least in one fashion in this book.

 

You can read the book Brave New World online here.

 

Before I close this post, one of the things that struck me is several posts I saw when I was exploring this one suggested that this book, often referenced as a dystopia in literary criticism, is not seen that way by numerous posters around the net; rather some see it as a form of utopia.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely!! That is where you jave to wonder if we should be doing things like that. Where do you draw the line. What "defects" do we allow to be culled out. I have no problem with the concept but we just do not know all the repercussions of our actions. I do know that in my son's case, his prognosis for a normal productive life is low. His chances of alcohol or drug abuse are very high. His ability to get a stable well paying job is low. And financial aspects will never be his strong area. Would I choose this for my child? No. But he is my child as he is and I just do what I can to help him. When I'm gone, then who?

 

 

Where the line is drawn is according to who's drawing it. Charles Darwin, or I, would draw it in a different place than most Devout Cristian's would, Mr.Dis!

 

Christians would draw the line to suit themselves, while Darwin would draw it to suit people as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I would choose to adopt. The world is full of special needs, normal, not normal, hungry, fat, angry, smart, stupid, nice, not nice....you name it. There are kids that have been born that need people to love them and raise them, defects and all. I personally would not want to intentionally bring another soul into this mucked up place....JMHO.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I would adopt as well. That way the genetic mutation is effectively killed, at least in my family and provided none of my siblings had children of their own. We already have genetic mutation going on anyway, naturally and scientifically. Another thing, some of you may think I'm crazy and I really don't care, but I firmly believe that Autism and/or Asberger's is a form of evolution, we just see it as different and instinctively want to make them like us...to fix them. Also, you can go to your doctor's office and ask for a series of vaccines to prevent something such as Hepatitis B, after which you have been genetically altered and it's legal. However, there is "potentially" a cure for HIV and/or AIDS, yet because it would require genetically altering a person, it is not allowed. Hopefully, somewhere in some European country, development is underway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetic imperfections can serve a purpose. Such as sickle-cell disease giving the person afflicted resistance to malaria. The irony is the sorting of defects will probably lead to our own self-extinction.

 

And thinking of all of the exceptional people who might not have been born had a genetic defect been found in advance. Isn't this akin to the forbidden "A" word on PCom?

 

So if you can afford it, the future of your lineage can be refined to become a member of an "Aryan Race"? Where children are bred and raised for superior intelligence or to be the perfect soldier?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU

Edited by Domestic Violency by Proxy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the most brilliant minds have or have had "genetic defects".

I'd hate to think of what the world may have been without them.

I submit to the court, Albert Eistein, Stephen Hawking, John Nash, and there are many many more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

I love you.

 

Aspergers IS part if the autism spectrum. For every delay my son has, he has a strength. I expect this is true with many people who have special needs. My life would be soooo much less without a person like him in it. If someone said to me you can go back three years and choose to have a "normal" child or the child you have now, I wouldn't hesitate for a second, I would choose my boy just the way he is. Might he have struggles in the future? Of course he will. But who doesn't? Is that not what makes us stronger? Also, I don't consider autism to be devastating, it's not a tragedy. I just had to say that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I love you.<br /><br />Aspergers IS part if the autism spectrum. For every delay my son has, he has a strength. I expect this is true with many people who have special needs. My life would be soooo much less without a person like him in it. If someone said to me you can go back three years and choose to have a &quot;normal&quot; child or the child you have now, I wouldn't hesitate for a second, I would choose my boy just the way he is. Might he have struggles in the future? Of course he will. But who doesn't? Is that not what makes us stronger? Also, I don't consider autism to be devastating, it's not a tragedy. I just had to say that.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I agree. My niece has six children, her four oldest are quadruplets. One of her daughters from the quads is mentally challenged. Honestly, I don't know exactly how she is defined, but children like her at one time were called retarded. She is a sweet beautiful 17 year old girl who no one ever thought she would be able to do anything overly significant. Well, she did just that in August of 2011. The family was having a big get together of friends of and family and had a fire going in the fire pit, one three year old boy fell face first into the fire pit and could not get out, Carly saw him and pulled him out saving his life. He was burned, but only on his hands and part of his arms. His limbs are okay and intact, but he is still wearing the skin material burn victims have to wear. Carly's mother, My niece, never thought she would be capable of doing what she did, her disability is that bad...she was  wrong fortunately. Carly was recognized and awarded by Shriners Hospital in her hometown of Cincinnati, OH. The point being, never underestimate the powers and abilities of another simply because of a disability. In the case of the fire, Carly was able to get to the boy before any of the adults.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Genetic imperfections can serve a purpose. Such as sickle-cell disease giving the person afflicted resistance to malaria. The irony is the sorting of defects will probably lead to our own self-extinction.

 

And thinking of all of the exceptional people who might not have been born had a genetic defect been found in advance. Isn't this akin to the forbidden "A" word on PCom?

 

So if you can afford it, the future of your lineage can be refined to become a member of an "Aryan Race"? Where children are bred and raised for superior intelligence or to be the perfect soldier?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU

 

 

I'm not deliberately following you around, D V b P, but it's your intellect that gets me interested in what you think.

 

Even though I somewhat disagree with you, you know what you are talking about, with the use of more head knowledge than acts of behavior, or emotion.

 

When dealing with people we are dealing with individuals who do not understand logic, to a great degree, but individuals who's emotions and/or behaviors out weigh logic.

 

So trusting those individuals with DNA, would create monsters, NO DOUBT. But, people with Head knowledge, and ETHICS along with their head knowledge, could handle their own emotions, and behaviors, to a degree that all science and technology would improve upon the universe, without creating monsters.

 

Monster corporations have already been created by humans, at the expense of the majority of other humans.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some genetic disorders are painful, some cause the deterioration of health over the years.

I believe that many mutations are caused by our environment.

It should be up to us to mitigate as much pain and suffering as possible.

Many people don't know they carry a gene until after the child is born.

My husband and I did not know we both carried a gene for a very rare genetic disease. It never occurred to us to bring another child into the world that was dependent on man made chemicals to live. He would die within days if he could not get them.

 

We actually heard of a family that chose to have a second child know it would have the disorder. There is no law to stop people from making this decision.

 

They know enough to keep these children alive, they don't know why some don't make it even when treated the same way.

My son is one of the longest living children to have this.

We don't know what his future holds. We know some have died of liver failure.

 

I have never been in the position of desiring a child of my own so much that I would take some of the risk that some do.

 

I am not absolutely sure when a soul enters an embryo but I am sure that when we die the soul does leave.

I never want to make that decision.

Ultimately you are accountable to no one but yourself and your spiritual belief. Emotional pain is the worse pain there is. People need to understand that more so than concerning themselves with the law.

 

We are a society of rules and religion, we ignore the spirit and leave every generation devoid of any true spiritual knowledge, so much of what we do ultimately results in pain and despair.

 

If we were more spiritual we would not worry about people making the immoral decisions that cause us all harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With nearly 70 years seniority on this planet, which is of no use as for keeping a productive job, because of my physical abilities. But, I don't think devout Christians behave anything like the main Christian (Jesus).

 

If Christians had characteristics of Jesus they would certainly be more liberal than conservative, because Jesus was not conservative by today's definition of the word conservative. People who profess Christianity are not Christians if Jesus would have to look at them (if he were alive today) and say, "leave all your worldly goods behind, and follow me."

 

The only way most people who go to Heaven get there, is from forgiveness; not because they have been professing Christian living.

 

A lot of people's spiritual belief's lie in their belief that their ego will get therm to Heaven.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...