Here

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Terri

Terri, I'm going to transfer this to the Morality and Theology forum. Good topic!

- - -

Ultimately, this issue seems very closely related to euthanasia and eugenics. I mean, why spend money on the abortion? Just go ahead and have the baby to be sure the pre-natal diagnosis was correct (it sometimes isn't), then kill the baby after it's born if it's defective. I know . . . few would consider doing that humane or even morally justifiable, but doing it while the fetus is in the womb makes is more acceptable.

- - -

Not to diminish the fact that this one is a tough issue, especially for parents facing the prospect of years of expensive care for a severely disabled child.

Thanks Phil. I wasn't exactly sure where it belonged.

I agree with your sentiments, and there's an underlying potential here that is both frightening and disgusting to me.

I hope others will comment .

God bless,
Terri

What a very sad view that America has on life. You would think that liberals would be on the side of the baby but they are not.

The article reminds me of Hitler's ideas of creating a master race. If we weed out all of the defects we will have a gene pool of healthy people.

While that may sound great and it may eliminate birth defects down the road it destroys compassion and it lowers the value of human life.

Once again it boils down to Doctors with a God complex.

Humans are full of such wonderful potential yet we tend to shift more towards the diabolical spectrum. As time goes by, I find myself more disgusted with the way things are in this world.

I wish Christ would return already and wipe this type of filth from existence. There will be a day of reckoning and all of these athiest scum will have to answer up.

quote:

Because there is a minor possibility of miscarriage and other problems caused by the tests, prenatal tests should only be used if other factors, such as the age of the mother or a family history of genetic diseases, outweigh the risks, say doctors and bioethicists. Kilner said that when he and his wife had trouble conceiving their second child, doctors offered prenatal tests. "It was just offered to us as obvious in the normal course of things," Kilner said. "It was only in response to our questions that we discovered there was any risk at all. And then when we realized that we would only be getting information that would lead us to abort, it was like, wait a minute."

Often, doctors feel they must offer prenatal tests in order to avoid malpractice lawsuits. "There's a great deal of fear on the part of obstetricians that if they don't offer genetic testing and the baby does have one of these conditions and it's recognized after birth, that the obstetrician can be sued for wrongful birth," says Nelson.

A parent files a wrongful birth suit if she says that had she known her baby would have a genetic disease, she would have aborted. Doctors have been successfully sued for the costs of raising a disabled child if they didn't offer tests that would have discovered the disability, or if they didn't discover a disability even with prenatal testing.

It's all a question of when selection for healthy kids takes place, not if. The earlier in the process of development that weeding-out decisions are made, the more ethical. Quite literally the selection process starts when we are but a gleam in our parents eyes. Partners choose each other based on some instinctive components we are often not aware of. We are attracted to healthy women, and women to healthy men, and partly in the hope of creating genetically healthy children. On the other end of the spectrum are those cultures (existing or extinct) who do the weeding out after the child has been born, when malformed children are left out in the elements in order to dispose of them. Somewhere along this continuum (probably exactly matching the ethics of abortion) we will find we are either on ethically shaky ground or ethically sound ground. Few, if any, would think it is unethical for parents to do genetic testing of themselves before conception to see if there are significant risk factors that might produce severely malformed kids. But when we start aborting babies because they are of the wrong sex, then we are surely facing big ethical trouble. If we do this testing in the first day or two after conception, and only for severe handicaps, we might find ethical ground that, while shaky, isn't totally without foundation. There are some really, really nasty birth defects possibilities, and I would find it difficult to damn those who made a choice to abort in that instance.

But I think there can be little doubt that we will create an absolutely crazy society if every child is made-to-order as if we were in the showroom of our local Ford dealer. To choose against some unhealthy trait is automatically to choose for some trait that is considered healthy. And it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. That is, it all depends on how you define healthy. That word will eventually come to mean "competitive". As soon as everyone is playing Dr. Frankenstein and is able to choose the attributes of their kid it will be the start of a genetics arms race. You will see such ruthless competition as to make the rivalry we already see from sideline parents at football, soccer or baseball games look almost sane by comparison. And we will have run headlong into the theme of a number of science fiction books I have read (not to mention the movie, Logan's Run). Those who are imperfect (or who can't afford perfection) could become second class citizens. Our society will become even more calloused and less compassionate, for we will have written into our very behavior that the things that really count are not love, compassion, sacrifice or loyalty, but being without flaw. And I doubt there is a person reading this who wouldn't acknowledge just how compassionate their own flaws have often helped to make them. And we know how arrogant, selfish and just downright nasty the "beautiful" people who face no hard obstacles can be.

quote:

Our culture's image of the nuclear family encourages people to abort children that don't fit the model, says Hall, who is working on a book on the rise of medically enhanced children and scientifically standardized families. "We have the model of family life with two kids who look like their parents. We have our kids appropriately spaced to fit the model of the ideal family. This has contributed to the abortion culture."

No. Uh-uh. Wrong. Abortion is not about failed attempts at living up to high ideals. It is about having no particularly grand ideals in the first place.

What if the parents of Stephen Hawking did a genetic test and found out he was going to get ALS? Then they scraped him out.

What if the actor who played Corkey on "Life Goes On" was scraped out beacause he had Down Syndrome?

What if Michael J Fox's parents scraped him out because a genetic test showed he would have Parkinson's?

These "defected" people became successful adults. I am sure if they were asked before they were born they would have chosen life.

Abortion was/is/always will be murder. No matter how much society tries to soften it up. God has a purpose for everyone. God did not create life just for some athiest abortion clinic doctor to puncture a hole in it's head and suck out it's brain with a hose.

quote:

What if the parents of Stephen Hawking did a genetic test and found out he was going to get ALS? Then they scraped him out.

What if the actor who played Corkey on "Life Goes On" was scraped out beacause he had Down Syndrome?

What if Michael J Fox's parents scraped him out because a genetic test showed he would have Parkinson's?

And I might name an even greater number of cases where some kids lived some truly horrible few months or years in pain and then died. Is that worth the few Hawkings and Corkeys of the world? Well, of course, to even get into this sort of bargaining for life is to already have moved beyond propriety and into the kind of eugenics that had Hitler killing the mental disabled instead of treating them. But at some point we're going to have to fess up to the fact that, as humans, we prefer healthy over unhealthy if we can achieve that in a moral way. Evolution has been selecting for health long before we ever imagined we could. What if corrective genetic therapy could be applied to fetuses? I can't imagine anyone objecting to, say, diagnosing and curing spina bifida in utero. Most people, I think, would recognize in these cases that a cure is better than not curing�and that would probably include Down's Syndrome, as much as the Corkeys of the world charm us. And if we have the means to cure and to improve the quality of life for kids, are we not bound to do so within reason?

As humans we put moral value into alleviating suffering. Some, rightly or wrongly (and with no thought of creating a master race), see the lesser of two evils as aborting a severely deformed baby, especially when we do not yet have the ability to alleviate or compensate for the baby's malformations. It's a value judgment, a sometimes rather cruel one at that, but a judgment no worse than nature often makes. We are saving babies now that just a few years ago would have died on their own. And now we're looking into wombs and can diagnose severe problems long before birth. Our technology gives us possibilities and, as always, our ethics have to catch up. I don't believe in using abortion as a sloppy means of birth control, but I can't fault someone for aborting a two-headed baby if this can be diagnosed very early on. But we surely will then have to deal with a "designer babies" problem where parents will not have the health of their baby foremost in their mind.

Just an aside about gene therapy . . . its promise is actually pretty limited. We've had the carrot dangled in front of us by the media, Hollywood, and scientists who've bascially not been honest about what makes gene therapy so limited, and its safety margins. Now that the human genome has been mapped, the whole business of epigenetics has to be dealt with, which is the relationship of genes to their immediate and surrounding cellular environments. This isn't a static, snap-shot biology, but dynamic and complex interactive systems that are far beyond science's ability to control and manipulate safely. That's why there's been deaths as a result of gene therapy, and why the whole project has been slowed down over the past few years, at least in its attempts to make human applications.

http://www.genetics-and-societ.../newsdisp.asp?id=726


"What is happening here today � the big picture � is that it shows the difficulty in developing any new class of therapy," said Dr. Daniel Salomon, a member of the panel and a professor at the Scripps Research Institute.


"There was a period of time that there was a tendency to say gene therapy ... had been safe. What's clear now is that (problems can develop in) some gene therapy for some diseases," Salomon said.


The panel recommended that gene therapy trials go forward for a similar ailment called ADA-SCID, finding it is a different issue and no reason to limit those.


Ten children suffering with X-SCID were basically cured in the French study, at first greeted with great excitement as a breakthrough in gene therapy, said Dr. Warren Leonard, a panel member from the National Institutes of Health. But three later developed leukemia, and one of them died.


"The landscape has changed," Salomon said.


He and others said the research needs continued close monitoring but that the setbacks should be kept in context. "The key principle is that all new treatments in medicine go forward through periods where you make a significant advance and you also find that there are setbacks," Salomon said.

Just an aside about gene therapy . . . its promise is actually pretty limited. We've had the carrot dangled in front of us by the media, Hollywood, and scientists who've bascially not been honest about what makes gene therapy so limited, and its safety margins. Now that the human genome has been mapped, the whole business of epigenetics has to be dealt with, which is the relationship of genes to their immediate and surrounding cellular environments. This isn't a static, snap-shot biology, but dynamic and complex interactive systems that are far beyond science's ability to control and manipulate safely. That's why there's been deaths as a result of gene therapy, and why the whole project has been slowed down over the past few years, at least in its attempts to make human applications.

We probably ought to separate the self-serving and not-so-realistic hype from the reality. But what new scientific therapy was ever achieved without a significant amount of stumbling �round in the dark? I would expect gene therapy to be no different. And yes, perhaps we run into some almost insurmountable limits and, yes, perhaps we find out that DNA is just part of a much wider story, but it does seem that DNA alone can account for a great many birth defects.

Implicit in this issue is the proposition that life is of value because it is. That characterizes the huge gulf between pro-lifers and pro-abortioners. When we have to justify our existence to some intelligentsia committee (in whatever form it comes, whether dictatorial or democratic) then we are in danger of cheapening life and, in fact, turning over the entire power of life and death to those who are perhaps least qualified to handle such a charge. The other extreme is that we can never see the taking of life as merciful, even though this is built into the very fabric of our existence, of how God forms us through evolution.

" . . . but it does seem that DNA alone can account for a great many birth defects."

This is actually not the case, Brad, and illustrates the difference between popular science and what you would be told in talking to a cell or molecular biologist. Science is a highly politicized affair, and funding via pharmaceutical alliances accounts for much of this incongruity. DNA actually does little in and of itself. Cellular environments are necessary to turn whole gene networks off and on, and so individual genes, while being the subject of the Human Genome Project, are not actually viable targets of research in any practical sense. Cellular environments operate according to internal and external signalling which isn't under the control of genes; hence the need for the field of epigenetics. Failing to account for this complexity often explains the high risks, and loss of life, in gene therapy treatments so far.

I'll keep the rest of my comments on this aspect of the thread topic to another thread. But you can familiarize yourself with the bibliography offered there to get a clearer sense of hype vs. science.

A good book to read as a sort of primer for us lay folks is "The Dependent Gene" by David Moore.

Cellular environments are necessary to turn whole gene networks off and on, and so individual genes, while being the subject of the Human Genome Project, are not actually viable targets of research in any practical sense.

But aren�t those same cellular environments coded for in DNA? Perhaps "gene therapy" as practiced now is not so practical. I don�t know. I don�t know all that that term entails. Perhaps you�re objecting to just the one technique that relies on false assumptions and which is what is referred to as "gene therapy". But it seem to me to be self-evident that by changing our DNA we can affect the expression of that DNA and thus, ultimately, disease and malformation. We might do it eventually via nanobots or viruses, but it seems quite probable we will do it.

Cellular environments are most certainly not coded for within DNA. Genes are organized/expressed in response to cellular signals to produce proteins, and that's about it for DNA. How those proteins are managed, folded, etc . . . has to do with processes quite beyond the cell necleus. Vector therapy, where whole genes are introduced is a crap shoot, since how those genes will be interpreted by the cellular environment is far too complex to control/manipulate.

If you read David Moore's book you'll have a basic grasp of these distinctions.

Brad, I am not sure whether we agree or disagree. Or if we are even on the same topic.

The article was about aborting the disabled. I think there is a big difference in corrective genetic therapy and abortion.

I can find no reason to say that correcting a birth defect prior to birth is morally or ethically wrong. I would have to say just the opposite. If anything can be done to better the situation than by all means it would be the desirable approach.

I would, however, have to object to a mother aborting a child because it had Down Syndrome or any other abnormal traits. I just don't see how one could justify that.

If a baby is going to be born without a head or some other abnormality; making it apparent death is imminent upon birth...well I can understand that.

As far as aborting a baby just because it has two heads. Can that be justified? How can we know for sure that person is not going to lead a productive life?

I would, however, have to object to a mother aborting a child because it had Down Syndrome or any other abnormal traits. I just don't see how one could justify that.

Probably our best ethical shot is to pre-screen prospective sperm and eggs for defects, correcting where possible. Killing living fetuses is always going to be problematic.

Let's face it. We're killing thousands (millions?) of fetuses each year via abortion�and aren't most of these done for the poorest of poor reasons? But aborting because of an egregious birth defect, if done extremely early, is tolerable to by moral sense.

As far as aborting a baby just because it has two heads. Can that be justified? How can we know for sure that person is not going to lead a productive life?

I�m going to look at this in the context of legally forcing a young couple to have this baby. I couldn't do that.

"Probably our best ethical shot is to pre-screen prospective sperm and eggs for defects, correcting where possible. Killing living fetuses is always going to be problematic."


Good point. That is the most hopeful scenario. Maybe in the future that will become more common place.


"Let's face it. We're killing thousands (millions?) of fetuses each year via abortion�and aren't most of these done for the poorest of poor reasons? But aborting because of an egregious birth defect, if done extremely early, is tolerable to by moral sense."


If judging by that standard�I guess I can see your point. The problem being that abortion has become such a common place solution when it reality it should not be a solution at all.

Still it sounds like one is softening up the idea because it does not appear as evil on the surface as the mainstream idea does.


"I�m going to look at this in the context of legally forcing a young couple to have this baby. I couldn't do that."


God has dealt many people a tough hand to follow suit with. If there was not a purpose for that life to begin with, then I imagine God would not have given it life in the first place.

I guess it just boils down to believing in God and not believing. If you believe in God then there comes a level of acceptance that all things have a purpose; no matter how hard it is to bear.

Then on the other hand I guess if you don't believe in God� then scrape away.

The problem is that there have been many, many erroneous intra-uterine diagnoses. We probably all know parents who had been told to expect the worse, but the child turned out to be normal and a blessing.

At any rate, the first point of clarity must concern what's actually going on with abortions, for this sets the context for moral decision-making. As you all know, in Catholicism, where it is held that life begins at conception, this leads to the moral imperative to protect and nurture that life in all circumstances to the extent that abortion is never considered justifiable under any circumstances (except the double-effect situation where it happens in the course of saving the mother's life or treating a serious disease she may have). It is also considered a concession to a "morality of expedience" to make exceptions to this rule.

The real challenge, here, is to the human community and especially the Church to provide extraordinary support for parents who will be faithful to this moral principle and bring forth into the world a disabled child. It is almost always beyond their financial and emotional means to care for such children and have anything of a "life" after doing so; caring for other healthy children they might have is also a consideration. And, happily, there already are institutions and resources for such parents, though many cases fall through the cracks. Nevertheless, the challenges presented by disabled people should not provide an easy excuse for abortion.

I don't know how much experience some of you have with disabled children and adults. Mine is limited, I'll grant you. But where I have visited institutions and families where severely disabled people are cared for, there is an amazing spirit of gentleness and love that seems to pervade such environments. It's almost as though, in some strange way, the disabled are gift to us in calling forth depths of love and compassion that healthy people don't awaken. And the truly amazing thing is that they seem to be able to love in return -- more surely and steadily than any creature I've ever seen except, perhaps, dogs.

Have any of you had experiences working and relating with the disabled?

"Have any of you had experiences working and relating with the disabled?"

When I first moved to Baltimore I was about 15. I met my first real girlfriend (Jenna)next door. She was a foster child and had 3 foster brothers. They were all being cared for by an elderly lady named "Alice".

Alice was in her late 80's and had been caring for foster children since she was in her 40's. She also was caring for her own grandchild (Michelle) who was about 10 when I moved there.

One of the children she was taking care of was not a child at all. He was a man named Mark Heart. He was about 35 when I met him. She had raised him from birth.

Apparently, Marky was suffering from severe fetal alcohol syndrome and could barely move. He had to be fed and bathed and was limited to a wheel chair.

I asked Miss Alice how he got the name, Mark Heart. She said when she went to the hospital to meet this child he was abandoned by his mother. She said, "That will leave a Mark on her heart, for the rest of her life" and the name stuck.

Marky was an extremely intelligent man. You wouldn't guess that from a first appearance. Somehow he managed to graduate high school.

Marky, used to wait outside on the porch and wish me off to school in the morning. He was the friendliest guy I ever met in my life. It was hard to understand what he said most of the time but I would try my best.

He always told me jokes and when he would laugh it was the most sincere laugh that would warm your heart.

Sometimes he would get mad at Alice and would run from her in his wheel chair. It was so funny. I would laugh at the sight of an 80 year old woman chasing this wheel chair around the parking lot.

Michelle, Alice's real granddaughter, was also an angel. She had been battling cancer most of her life. She was an adorable child. I never once heard her complain about her situation.

Michelle always had a crush on me. She would smile at me and try to get me to talk to her. She was always asking me to take her for a ride in my mustang, but her father would not hear of it. I always tried to be as nice to her as I could.

Miss Alice died of cancer herself some years ago. I remember that day clearly because I was leaving for the Army the next day. It was a very sad week.

Marky was placed in a nursing home because there was no one left to care for him. Michelle was placed in the hospital because her cancer was spreading fast.

About three weeks into boot camp I got a letter from my mother. It was Christmas time and I was already depressed. The letter said that Michelle had died on Christmas Eve. She was 13 years old. Nobody will ever know the grief I felt when I read that letter.

After completing basic training I was allowed two weeks leave and I went home. During my leave I went to the place that was caring for Marky. They said he had passed away the day before. It was truly a sad year for me.

Somehow I know these people are all together again. They all had so much love for each other. I have learned so many things from them. Yet, I am only now starting to understand what they had to teach. I have learned what love really means and to never turn your back on compassion.

The house was demolished next door to my mothers a few years ago. It is now an extension to the parking lot for the shopping center that is there.

It is so hard to forget that house. In the back yard was a swing where my girlfriend and I would talk. Also I remember how Marky used to sit on the porch and say hi to me every morning. I can also still picture Michelle's smile. It would light up a room.

They were a special family and I will never forget them.

Those are special memories, I'm sure, Eric. Kind of reminds me of the Biblical notion of the anawim -- those simple people on the fringes whom Jesus loved so much, and they, Him. Thanks for your wonderful sharing.