| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:48 pm Creating babies to cure sick siblings OK: British court |
|
Mmm, this will create/has created/is creating some controversy.
| CBC.ca wrote: | Creating babies to cure sick siblings OK: British court
Last Updated Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:38:33 EDT
CBC News
LONDON - Using in vitro fertilization to create a baby that might cure sick siblings was ruled legally acceptable by Britain's highest appeal court on Thursday.
The Law Lords upheld a Court of Appeal ruling in 2003 that said some couples using fertility treatment could get their embryos screened for tissue matches for gravely ill children.
Anti-abortion groups had challenged the ruling, alleging it would encourage the creation of human beings "to provide spare parts for another."
Supporters say the ruling may help save desperately ill children.
The case stems from Raj and Shahana Hashmi's desire to conceive a child whose tissue is a match for their six-year-old son Zain, who has a rare blood disorder.
The couple conceived twice naturally after Zain's birth. One fetus was discovered to be carrying the same blood disorder and the couple aborted it. Shahana gave birth to another child, who was not a match for Zain.
After the 2003 ruling, the couple went through fertility treatments to create a child whose tissue matched Zain's, but Shahana had a miscarriage.
Copyright �2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved |
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:00 pm |
|
One of the TV shows did an episode about this, Without a Trace, or something. It was kinda scary. The parents had started thinking of the child as less of a child, and more of a donor.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:09 pm |
|
This is a very difficult issue, and one I am torn with. My official position for now is this: if organs can be grown independently for use as replacements in sick people, it should be done. However, full, sentient humans should not be created simply to be organ donors. Cloning is a grey area for me in the sense that I think it's dangerous, but should be allowed for experimental purposes. If cloning and genetics continues to move forward, I sincerely hope we never lose sight of the fact that our creations are also human, with free will.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:10 pm |
|
^Wow. This is horrible. Life was NOT meant for this! Do not degrade life even further than it already has been!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:04 am |
|
| Quote: |
The couple conceived twice naturally after Zain's birth. One fetus was discovered to be carrying the same blood disorder and the couple aborted it. Shahana gave birth to another child, who was not a match for Zain. |
That is just disgusting. Am ashamed of the British Courts for legalizing this.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:25 am |
|
I can imagine that the parents of kids who are ill like that want for this. Also don't think that people are capable of seeing a child that they made just as a donor (at least most of them), I think it's just an extra benefit. This should be controlled however because you don't want something like a trade in this to excist.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:25 am |
|
I would not want a sick child to die if it could be helped in some way. but I could NOT ask someone to be born just to be a donor
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:37 am |
|
Well, there is a process where you can take embryonic stem cells and turn on certain genes so that they become a certain organ.
But I don't know how I feel about this.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:02 pm |
|
If you wanted another child anyway, and it was possible that they could be a donor, especially if it wasn't going to harm the new child (such as taking cells from the umbilical cord) then I might agree with it, on a case by case basis. It is a very difficult area, and would depend a lot on the individual case.
Aborting a child because it would be ill is another grey area, where a lot of things have to be taken into consideration. Without knowing more it is hard to form an opinion.
|
|
|
Ithildin
Junior Cadet
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:15 pm |
|
I consider myself a liberal, but this is one thing that stumps me. It reminds me a little of frankenstein. I'm one for scientific progression and I know it sounds hypocritical, but the sheer destruction of life to augment another is horrible. If the cellular matter is taken from the umbilical cord or the placenta, I would condone that. But if killing one life for another is involved, i think that's unjust.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:44 pm |
|
Don't forget that the other little human being isn't dieing, just being a donor and then living on too.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:32 pm |
|
I suppose I can live with aborting a child if you know it's going to have a disorder. It would help compensate for humanity's weakened natural selection.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:13 pm |
|
You just don't kill an innocent baby just because it might have a disorder. Just plain out mean and cruel. It is human just like you and me.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:21 pm |
|
Bah. We kill humans all the time in this society. As long as there's adequate reason and those being killed are killed painlessly I don't care so much. Still, unless it's as punishment for a severe crime or habitual offenses, I think that the third trimester should be where the line is drawn for killing a person for biological defects.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:31 pm |
|
Has anyone here ever seen a 12 week old fetus?
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:34 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Bah. We kill humans all the time in this society. As long as there's adequate reason and those being killed are killed painlessly I don't care so much. Still, unless it's as punishment for a severe crime or habitual offenses, I think that the third trimester should be where the line is drawn for killing a person for biological defects. |
"Bah"? That is perhaps the scariest thing that I have heard in a very long while. I don't know, but don't include me as part of your "we" that you say as society. I have never killed anyone, and that holds true for the majority of the people in the world. I don't know whom you speak of by "we", but that is a huge generalization, and it is simply wrong.
As far as, having an adequate reason, there is no, "adequate reason". This government guarantees all people who live under it, "life" as the primary, among three other unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. One of America's core beliefs is that no one, or groups of people, has the right to take away this right. This is what makes us American, and more importantly, gives us moral. There is NEVER any reason to kill anyone. We are all made in the image of our creator, which is enough of a reason to keep anyone alive, because all life is sacred.
Concerning fetuses. I have never seen one, except in a science book. And I am not pointing this at your either Caite, but since it is a part of the discussion, I am putting my beliefs with it in this post. From the moment of conception, the child is just that, a human child. From that moment, it is it's own, and no one has the right to take away the life of it. For those of you who say it is not really a person yet, I ask you this: How could a person, ever be something besides a person? We, all start as a "cluster of cells". We never reach a magical point that makes us human. Once something is alive, it can never be something that it was not before.
|
|
|
Ithildin
Junior Cadet
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:18 pm |
|
| Dirt wrote: | | Don't forget that the other little human being isn't dieing, just being a donor and then living on too. |
Oh. I seem to have misinterpreded it then.  I'm fine with it then.  As long as it's not killing one for another.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:20 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Bah. We kill humans all the time in this society. As long as there's adequate reason and those being killed are killed painlessly I don't care so much. Still, unless it's as punishment for a severe crime or habitual offenses, I think that the third trimester should be where the line is drawn for killing a person for biological defects. |
"Bah"? That is perhaps the scariest thing that I have heard in a very long while. I don't know, but don't include me as part of your "we" that you say as society. I have never killed anyone, and that holds true for the majority of the people in the world. I don't know whom you speak of by "we", but that is a huge generalization, and it is simply wrong.
As far as, having an adequate reason, there is no, "adequate reason". This government guarantees all people who live under it, "life" as the primary, among three other unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. One of America's core beliefs is that no one, or groups of people, has the right to take away this right. This is what makes us American, and more importantly, gives us moral. There is NEVER any reason to kill anyone. We are all made in the image of our creator, which is enough of a reason to keep anyone alive, because all life is sacred.
Concerning fetuses. I have never seen one, except in a science book. And I am not pointing this at your either Caite, but since it is a part of the discussion, I am putting my beliefs with it in this post. From the moment of conception, the child is just that, a human child. From that moment, it is it's own, and no one has the right to take away the life of it. For those of you who say it is not really a person yet, I ask you this: How could a person, ever be something besides a person? We, all start as a "cluster of cells". We never reach a magical point that makes us human. Once something is alive, it can never be something that it was not before. |
I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but that 12 week old fetus looks a lot like me. ten fingers, ten toes, two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth.... To kill that to me, is like to kill myself.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
Zeke hit it square on the head: Clone organs, not organisms. Don't own a clone.
Most of the ethical "dilemas" currently being agonized over will eventually fall by the wayside. If you follow the research, the most likely long-term solution will be replicating (not cloning, but hastening the natural cell division process) a person's own stem cells. These can be used to grow new organs or repair tissues in vivo. The use of fetal tissue is an unnecessary short-cut being pushed by the fat-cat med-vultures.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 12:17 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Bah. We kill humans all the time in this society. As long as there's adequate reason and those being killed are killed painlessly I don't care so much. Still, unless it's as punishment for a severe crime or habitual offenses, I think that the third trimester should be where the line is drawn for killing a person for biological defects. |
"Bah"? That is perhaps the scariest thing that I have heard in a very long while. I don't know, but don't include me as part of your "we" that you say as society. I have never killed anyone, and that holds true for the majority of the people in the world. I don't know whom you speak of by "we", but that is a huge generalization, and it is simply wrong.
As far as, having an adequate reason, there is no, "adequate reason". This government guarantees all people who live under it, "life" as the primary, among three other unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. One of America's core beliefs is that no one, or groups of people, has the right to take away this right. This is what makes us American, and more importantly, gives us moral. There is NEVER any reason to kill anyone. We are all made in the image of our creator, which is enough of a reason to keep anyone alive, because all life is sacred.
Concerning fetuses. I have never seen one, except in a science book. And I am not pointing this at your either Caite, but since it is a part of the discussion, I am putting my beliefs with it in this post. From the moment of conception, the child is just that, a human child. From that moment, it is it's own, and no one has the right to take away the life of it. For those of you who say it is not really a person yet, I ask you this: How could a person, ever be something besides a person? We, all start as a "cluster of cells". We never reach a magical point that makes us human. Once something is alive, it can never be something that it was not before. |
I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but that 12 week old fetus looks a lot like me. ten fingers, ten toes, two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth.... To kill that to me, is like to kill myself. |
Right, both of you. Life is a precious commodity not to be played with. And an abortion is killing a life.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 12:53 pm |
|
Wouldn't the donor child have to go through a lot of pain though for them to take the tissue samples or whatever to give to their sibling? That's unfair.
If a child is born with a serious problem then survival of the fittest dictates that it was meant to die. That's just how nature works. You don't see vets doing this sort of thing to help animals that are born with defects, do you?
Oh, and according to my RE textbook (we've just finished doing abortion) at 12 weeks a fetus has all of it's organs laid out to grow, so in my eyes, by then it has gone halfway to being a full human being.
As for aborting a child with a "disorder", I wouldn't personally do it, I'd rather give it up for adoption so that it could go to a loving home.
And how many kids are this couple planning to have until they find one that can help their other kid?
-------signature-------
Help me. Get Lost.
www.lost.eu/1b3b1
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 1:14 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | Wouldn't the donor child have to go through a lot of pain though for them to take the tissue samples or whatever to give to their sibling? That's unfair.
If a child is born with a serious problem then survival of the fittest dictates that it was meant to die. That's just how nature works. You don't see vets doing this sort of thing to help animals that are born with defects, do you?
There is a DIFFERENCE between animals and people! Killing a dog is different from killing a human. And at my school, you wouldn't BELIEVE how many disabled kids there are, and they should NOT be killed or anything.
Oh, and according to my RE textbook (we've just finished doing abortion) at 12 weeks a fetus has all of it's organs laid out to grow, so in my eyes, by then it has gone halfway to being a full human being.
As for aborting a child with a "disorder", I wouldn't personally do it, I'd rather give it up for adoption so that it could go to a loving home.
And how many kids are this couple planning to have until they find one that can help their other kid? |
Otherwise, I agree with you.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 1:23 pm |
|
 I didn't write that bit in bold... and I don't think you should shoot disabled people unless it's in self defence, in a war or as a pity killing (euthanasia)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 1:24 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | I didn't write that bit in bold... and I don't think you should shoot disabled people unless it's in self defence, in a war or as a pity killing (euthanasia) |
That was my comment 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
Oh, okay then.
And yes, there is a difference between human's and animals, but some people do seem to act as if their dogs are children and I reckon people with more money than sense would pay for this kinda thing to be done to a dog. Or maybe they should do it to animals as a sort of animal testing before they move on to children
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
