tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post466439546648716599..comments2023-10-18T02:49:34.086-07:00Comments on Savior Siblings: The Embryo - Human Life vs. Collection of Cells?Judy and Lilihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07548229815191728394noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-28958227144505065932009-06-27T23:07:26.623-07:002009-06-27T23:07:26.623-07:00Nicely put Pop Startled and thanks for the comment...Nicely put Pop Startled and thanks for the comment! My issue is your stance on “the desire for people to legislate their morality on our society as a whole.” Then stating that our legal system has defined abortion legal. Now, not only is our government inconsistent in the definition of embryonic life (as you said) but they are inconsistent in many other aspects. Let’s take a look at one such case. I’m sure you heard about Daniel Hauser in the news but if not here’s a little run-down of what went down. Daniel is a 13 year-old with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and was treated with chemotherapy initially. Side note, Daniel and his parents are members of the Nemenhah Band, a Native American religion that believes in natural remedies versus modern medical intervention. One day Daniel and his mother allegedly fled to Mexico as they were escaping from having to continue chemotherapy. However, a Minnesota judge not only issued an arrest warrant for Daniel’s mother but also ordered him to continue the chemotherapy against his will. Not only does this ruling break the Hauser families’ constitutional right to freedom of religion but it attacks parental rights and the patients’ right to autonomy. How is it that we respect the rights of other religious beliefs, like Jehovah’s witnesses and their refusal of blood transfusions, but it is justified to legally intervene in followers of a smaller religious sect? Also, the attack of the fundamental rights of Daniel’s parents, by implying that the government is able to make better decisions for the children than their parents. Lastly, this ruling nullifies Daniel’s right to autonomy, informed consent. Adults, individuals 18yoa and older, are able to refuse/decline medical procedures/treatments and can even sign DNRs (do not resuscitate). However, the precedent of this ruling states that those younger than 18, are not able to make medical decisions that the individual and their parents deem appropriate. I learned in my medical training that our responsibility as healthcare providers is to provide the patient the risks/benefits of a treatment and the complications of the lack thereof. In which the patient then makes an informed decision as they see appropriate. Totally not the case here huh? Anyhow, let me use your words from your comment to ask this next question, why is our legal system attacking Daniel and his parent’s right to choose the best course of action in their pursuit of happiness? Concluding thought, you stated to quit attacking an individual’s legal right to abortion but that same legal system just passed a ruling that is attacking the legal rights of the Hausers…Judynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-15695157479151621902009-06-21T16:26:36.715-07:002009-06-21T16:26:36.715-07:00I had a hard time answering this weeks "poll ...I had a hard time answering this weeks "poll question" and having been thinking about what life means to me all weekend. I am still figuring out my stance, but do feel like defining an embryo as either a "collection of cells" or a "human being" are two of the extremes. I guess my answer is somewhere in between, I am just not sure where yet. I did enjoy reading everyones thoughts and will comment more next week!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-86335929727442541362009-06-19T19:29:47.935-07:002009-06-19T19:29:47.935-07:00Alright...here we go. Lots to say.
Before readin...Alright...here we go. Lots to say.<br /><br />Before reading this post, I believed that life begins when a baby becomes aware and is capable of using it's senses to experience "life." This view coincides with the fella in the video who believes that life begins when the central nervous system and hence brain "begins" to develop.<br /><br />But then I thought...well, that may be life according to a human being's perspective. What about all the other "life" that shares this world with us. Are plants and trees not life? Are jellyfish not life? They don't have a brain and they've lived on this planet long before the dinosaurs. I understand that this is the most basic and fundamental definition of life, but thanks to this blog post, my new definition of life is any organism made up of cells that function. Rocks, elements and molecules do not fall under this category. Everything else does, including bacteria. Thus, life begins at conception.<br /><br />Furthermore, based on this concept of life, how can life be determined on a developmental stage basis, as they are all connected. When you kill a catepillar, are you not killing a butterfly? When you crack an egg and watch while it sizzles on the frying pan (yummy!), do you not feel the guilt of killing a bird/chicken/duck/ostrich. Ok...you get the point.<br /><br />However...what's considered right and wrong is dependent on your situation and standpoint. If you were the parent who needed a savior sibling, or if you were one of the couples that couldn't conceive or discovered your baby is genetically proned to disorder; would right and wrong go out the door and the need to survive and be fit take precedence? I don't believe there is a right and wrong. I believe in the opportunity to do good or bad and the capabilities that modern science has opened up for us to make such choices.<br /><br />Personally, if I was given the option to possibly saving my child and/or prevent my child from living a painful life with disorder, I would absolutely take it...as now we dealing with love and parenthood and no longer with right and wrong. All parents should be entitled to this choice.<br /><br />That's all folks. Great job!...I look forward to your next post. By the way, I also believe that Lili and Judy are outstanding and all-around substantial people :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-22971551897640906072009-06-16T11:13:54.757-07:002009-06-16T11:13:54.757-07:00I agree...great job. I have to be someone who &quo...I agree...great job. I have to be someone who "believes" that the concept of applying life on some stage of cellular existence is disingenuous. Obviously, it is a "living" thing as it is consistent with the conditions of life. However, the ethical question is whether we have the right to destroy something that is living. Do we feel that individuals have the right to destory something that has the potential to develop into a human being? This is a difficult question to answer, especially for those who have religious views, and it is completely alright to abstain from abortion or experimentation with frozen embryos. My issue is with the desire for people to legislate their morality on our society as a whole. The fact of the matter is our legal system has defined abortion legal. Sure, our government isn't consistent in the definition of embryonic life, with the assinine protection of frozen embryos from use toward critical research. However, to outright ban any manipulation of embryos is a dangerous concept that needs to be stopped. First off, you'll see a rise in black market procedures that will endanger countless women. Second, you'll have to rethink the idea of amniotic testing/genetic testing in the womb, since this kind of manipulating of a living thing might cause an accidental termination of pregnancy, which would be medicinal murder. Third, could we have fetal surgery to correct severe problems while the fetus in the womb? Fourth, what of all those wasted embryos, suffering the death of incineration, what about their right to life? Finally, the concept of forcing citizens to stop doing something that is legal is wrong. Sure, go out and cajole individuals to save a baby, like you can advise someone to stop smoking, but to pass a law to outlaw it is an attack on an individual's right to choose the best courses of action in the pursuit of happiness.Pop Startledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11008272363926865321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-46900322963289366832009-06-15T22:35:19.790-07:002009-06-15T22:35:19.790-07:00I'm not sure how I would define an embryo betw...I'm not sure how I would define an embryo between the choices of "human being" and "collection of cells" because I think those are two extremes and I wouldn't necessarily classify an embryo at conception as either. However, I think the main issue I have with the PGD process is the part where human beings are dictating the outcome of human reproduction. That means that they are deciding which embryos are stronger, better and superior and therefore which genetic traits embody these traits is subject to human interpretation. I'm not saying that this is ultimately where PGD technology will lead, but I think it's definitely a possible "slippery slope" scenario which could potentially do more harm than good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8085659330691283773.post-1621761697030759452009-06-15T20:05:22.306-07:002009-06-15T20:05:22.306-07:00This is really informative! Great job Lili and Jud...This is really informative! Great job Lili and Judy...<br /><br />I believe that life begins at conception. While one can go back and forth about when life begins, I think an equally important question is...when does life end?<br /><br />If the only option to save someone's life was to conveive another sibling, I would be open to the idea!Joshnoreply@blogger.com