The new threesome
by Jill Stanek
From BBC News, February 5:
Scientists believe they have made a potential breakthrough in the treatment of serious disease by creating a human embryo with three separate parents.
The Newcastle University team believe the technique could help to eradicate a whole class of hereditary diseases, including some forms of epilepsy.
The embryos have been created using DNA from a man and two women in lab tests.
Obviously pro-lifers will have a problem with this on many levels. But supporters of human embryo experimentation shouldn’t. Right? The goal is human perfection, after all. Let not the means interfere. Question for supporters, though: What exactly is human perfection?
[Photo courtesy of BBC News]
Feb.08, 2008 10:26 am |
Stem cell |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The goal is human perfection, after all. Let not the means interfere. Question for supporters, though: What exactly is human perfection?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, the goal is NOT human perfection.
The goal is to insure that nobody hits the planet with something like cystic fibrosis, endure a short tortuous life, and drown in their own mucus.
That’s your definition of human perfection, Laura: disease free.
The goal isn’t human perfection. That idea is slightly terrifying, actually. But what’s wrong with eradicating disease?
Oh, and my definition of perfection is not disease-free, just to give you a heads-up.
Greetings again from Three Hills. Gotta love the weather. :)
Hi Leah.
“But what’s wrong with eradicating disease?”
I would certainly say nothing at all, but the MEANS by which we attempt to accomplish this needs to be scrutinized. If we could find a cure for cancer by performing life ending experiments on 100 30 year olds with cancer, I think most people would be against that; not because we would find a cure for cancer, but because the way in which we go about it involves the destruction of intrinsically valuable human persons. God love you.
There’s no such thing as “human perfection.” I don’t know how you come up with this stuff, Jill.
What’s wrong with preventing disease? What’s wrong with taking good DNA out of a bad ovum and putting it in a good ovum, to protect the resulting child from disease? I’m not seeing the problem.
And don’t worry, Jill. If you’ve still got your heart set on a blind, epileptic, deaf, diabetic, liver diseased baby, nobody will stop you. Have as many as you please! That’s what living in a pro-choice nation is all about: freedom.
“If you’ve still got your heart set on a blind, epileptic, deaf, diabetic, liver diseased baby, nobody will stop you.”
Sure because being against research that essentially is creating and destroying human beings totally means that you must want people to be born with diseases/disabilities…
What happened to loving people for who they are? This is another example of ageism in our society…. they aren’t old enough to speak up for themselves so no one sees anything wrong with experimenting on them.
That’s your definition of human perfection, Laura: disease free.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 8, 2008 10:50 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow,
That wasn’t what I said at all.
The goal is to insure
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I meant “ensure.”
“The goal is to insure
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think I meant “ensure.””
I suppose the goal could be to insure as well :)
I don’t know, Bobby. If there were 100 willing participants, then there shouldn’t be a problem. If I had cancer and I knew that by taking my life I could save millions… well, I couldn’t say it would be an easy decision to make, but it’d be up for discussion between the hubby and me.
Sometimes the sacrifice of a few individuals is highly beneficial to mankind–and not in a Nazi let’s-kill-all-Jews way. In a way in which everyone knows what they’re getting into.
Let’s take away how they are doing this. Let’s just talk about the aftermath.
A heriditary disease is a mutated gene. We eliminate/correct that gene and all is well? Wrong. It will never work. All we will be doing is creating new genetic mutations.
The codes in the genes are relational. One gene is mutated, but the other codes are also slightly altered in order to support that mutated gene. Are they correcting all these problems? No – you can’t. That would be taking the entire DNA structure and altering it.
Sure, we are going to cure Cystic Fibrosis, but what disease will result from that? Will the “eliminated” code remain eliminated in future generations? Or will some of the other codes that were slightly altered to support the mutated gene begin to mutate themselves?
It’s almost like the idea behind antibiotics. It used to be the cure all, but the bacteria behind our illness have changed and are becoming immune to the antibiotics. Kinda like the flu – it mutates and changes all the time. Vaccines have to be changed every year because of their mutations.
Evolution is nothing but genes mutating. Most of the time the mutating is life finding a way to survive. Genes are not always stable from person to person, which is how the heriditary diseases began in the first place.
Leah,
“I don’t know, Bobby. If there were 100 willing participants, then there shouldn’t be a problem. If I had cancer and I knew that by taking my life I could save millions… well, I couldn’t say it would be an easy decision to make, but it’d be up for discussion between the hubby and me.”
Sure, one could argue that making that willingly making that sacrifice is acceptable. I guess I was thinking about 100 NON-willing people being experimented upon because that’s the case that is being discussed above. Of course, that begs the real question; is the embryo a human person with dignity? Because if it isn’t a human person, then I think I can speak for all pro-lifers by saying to go right ahead and do the experimentations. But if it is a human person, then experimentation on them is analogous to my situation above with NON-willing participants. God love you, Leah.
God love you, Bobby!
What happened to loving people for who they are?
What’s un-loving about protecting someone from disease? That seems very loving, to me.
This is another example of ageism in our society…. they aren’t old enough to speak up for themselves so no one sees anything wrong with experimenting on them.
The fact that a fertilized egg has no brain and can not possibly have an opinion seems like a perfectly valid point. But if a fertilized egg could have an opinion, why do you assume that it would want to be diseased? That’s crazy.
God love you, Carla!
Reality, 12:52,
If we don’t know, shouldn’t we err on the side of life?
Valerie 12:23:
THAT is the point…perfect explanation. Thank you so much! :)
Gene therapy does NOT mean this technique needs to be performed. There is recent epilepsy research being done and they have been able to identify several genes related to the onset. Somatic cell therapy can surely be developed without the need to create these embryos via experimentation.
It comes down to ethics. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the mass extinction of people deemed not perfect enough. Let’s wait until we find ways to cure disease that doesn’t involve exterminating people.
read an article the other day in which an IVF procedure involves keeping the embryos that don’t have the “bad gene” and flushing the rest down the sink. The person in charge said doing so was the same principle as “using antibiotics on bacteria.”
PIP –
So flushing a developing human being that is not perfect is the equivalent of killing bacteria?
If I’m not mistaken, that person just said people with “bad genes” are bacteria that we need to get rid of.
Also, can you refer me to where I can read up on Somatic Cell Therapy? Something that has terminology that everyone can understand? Everytime I read up on it, I get confused!
;-)
“If I’m not mistaken, that person just said people with “bad genes” are bacteria that we need to get rid of.”
Exactly, sickening isn’t it.
http://www.ndsu.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/students99/wharam.htm
Valerie, this essay is pretty good at explaining what it is. I’m also sure wikipedia has a basic overview.
“Our most pressing problem is to increase the birth rate from the superior and decrease that from the inferior.”
“Not only is it our task to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks; it is also to preserve the well-endowed stocks.”
“Womanhood shakes off its bondage. It asserts its right to be free. In its freedom, its thoughts turn to the race. Like begets like. We gather perfect fruit from perfect trees. The race is but the amplification of its mother body – the multiplication of flesh habitations – beautified and perfected for souls akin to the mother soul.”
Margaret Sanger
PIP –
Thanks! I checked Wikipedia, but not much was verified…..
Hi Leah.
“But what’s wrong with eradicating disease?”
I would certainly say nothing at all, but the MEANS by which we attempt to accomplish this needs to be scrutinized. If we could find a cure for cancer by performing life ending experiments on 100 30 year olds with cancer, I think most people would be against that; not because we would find a cure for cancer, but because the way in which we go about it involves the destruction of intrinsically valuable human persons. God love you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 8, 2008 11:11 AM
………………………………………………………
I’m sorry Bobby, but I would most certainly donate an egg for a cure for cancer. I can’t imagine anyone valuing an embryo over a suffering person.
Sally –
I’m just curious…and I am taking this to a different level, I know.
But how would you feel if you donated your egg and the “cure” only resulted in a more horrible disease? There are no guarentees in science, especially in research.
Bethany –
Great quotes…..If I may add some….
Sally –
I’m just curious…and I am taking this to a different level, I know.
But how would you feel if you donated your egg and the “cure” only resulted in a more horrible disease? There are no guarentees in science, especially in research.
Posted by: valerie at February 8, 2008 9:48 PM
……………………………..
You mean like radiation poisoning? Chemo poisoning? What does a dying person have to lose? i watched my father die of cancer. It’s a horrible death. I would have gladly given as many embryos necessary for him to live.
Bethany –
Great quotes…..If I may add some….
I don’t think Jill is against eradicating disease. I mean her whole life is fighting the greatest epidemic to hit the face of the earth…the killing of innocent children in the womb.
I do think she is trying to imply that the ultimate goal of this type of research is to produce perfect human beings.
It will never happen. It’s a scheme of satan who tempted Eve by saying, “you’ll be like God”. We know where that lie has taken us. More of same. Like King Solomon said, “there’s nothing new under the sun”.
Valerie, did that first essay help?
“I’m sorry Bobby, but I would most certainly donate an egg for a cure for cancer. I can’t imagine anyone valuing an embryo over a suffering person.”
But that’s the question, Sally. Is an egg morally equivalent to an embryo? We would contend that it is not. God love you.
Sally –
Sorry I must not have made myself clear.
What if you donate your egg…they do the research that needs to be done….in trial studies it does fine….then, when used on more and more people it begins to kill more people than it helps. (This has happened many times – the outcome…not the egg donation)
Also, I do know people from Margaret Sangers generation. They are called my Grandparents. My Grandmother came “off the boat” from Poland at the beginning of the depression. My family worked the canals along with the Irish and Blacks. My Grandfather was 100% Irish and had stole a sign that one of my cousins have today – It said “No Black or Irish Allowed!” It was a sign on a resteraunt door.
I think you need to reread my posts. Magaret Sanger wasn’t saying anything about the hard life of women – she wanted contraception to limit the “unwanted”. Which, obviously didn’t work the she wanted. The other post is one of her biggest idea’s that she tried to push many times – I have many statements from her like it – she didn’t think the “lower, working” class should be allowed more than 2 children. In one statement in her magazine she even said that after 2 children women should be sterilized.
Our point is that she only pushed for birth control to lower the reproduction of the lower class and increase the reproduction of the upper class. It has nothing to do with the “hardships” of life back then.
PIP –
Yes! I’m still trying to go through it all – hard with two kids running around!
Val, I understand! Just curious ;)
” But if a fertilized egg could have an opinion, why do you assume that it would want to be diseased? That’s crazy.”
Well, I’m not assuming any person at any stage of their life would want to be diseased. I’m assuming they wouldn’t want to be killed.
There are plenty of diseases, conditions, etc., which involve enough suffering and sadness that I’m all for trying to stop them or reduce them.
Doug –
Maybe you will have the guts to answer my question since everyone else seems to be dodging it.
What happens if we don’t cure anything but create more disease? Would it have been worth it then?
Lets look at cloning as an example. We have no idea of the long term affects of this. The oldest living cloned mammels are all around 7 years old. A Rhesus Macaque Monkey named Tetra – this species has an average lifespan of 25 years. A Goat – who wasn’t named and I cannot find out if living or not so we’ll assume still living – they live to be about 8 – 15 years. And several Pigs – which also weren’t named and I cannot find out if still living – live about 10 – 15 years. Since they are all so young, we have no idea if they are going to be healthy for their lives.
We have no idea if cloning is truly successful! Dolly, the sheep died early of a normal sheep disease, but no one know if she was more at risk for this disease because of the cloning. The only way to know is if we clone more and have the same difficulties. 3 other cloned sheep that I know of have died. One, in Iran died 5 minutes after being born and 2 others, Polly and Molly born in scottland that died but I can’t find out how, when or why.
Other mammels have been cloned, but they are only 1 – 4 years old now.
Just because we can do it, doesn’t mean it is a success. We have to wait for deaths to see if they die of natural causes. We have to wait and see about reproduction – can they and will future generations see any difficulties from it. I’m sure you understand there are about 100 more “what ifs” in this.
Now we are messing with humans whose DNA is a bit more complicated than Sheeps. I know we are not talking about cloning, but it is an aspect of the science of cloning. We are trying to “clone” the good genes and leave out the bad.
We are so hung up on if we “can” do it, we are forgetting if we “should”. (yes, you may recognize that line from Jurassic Park).
This has just as much chance of being a huge disaster as it is a success. We don’t know. We aren’t even done with experiment #1 to know if it is a success, yet we are moving ahead to experiment #2. In medicine and science, you very rarely move to the 2nd aspect of an experiment without knowing the results of the first. This is very dangerous.
So, will it still be worth it if we create more pain, more disease and more death because we were too impatient to wait to see if the science was going to work in the first place?
This could also have unforeseen consequences for men. They really won’t be needed so much for procreation cause they’ll be able to use the hybrid parent from the lab. Judging the sordid anti-family structure of their minds, I would guess they’ll remove the male all together some day and create aesexual humans that repeoduce by themselves. And call it progress for mankind.
People aren’t supposed to be bred and grown like some hybrid crop of wheat or corn. Sounds really dangerous to the identiity of mankind if your geneolgy comes from a lab. I think I’d feel safer taking my chances on epilepsy.
Truthseeker:
“People aren’t supposed to be bred and grown like some hybrid crop of wheat or corn.”
I never thought of it that way….but it would really be putting us on the same level as mold spores isn’t it.
Doug – Maybe you will have the guts to answer my question since everyone else seems to be dodging it. What happens if we don’t cure anything but create more disease? Would it have been worth it then?\
Valerie, who knows? The prospect of curing some of the extant diseases is worth it, come what may, since nothing like what you hypothesize has yet happened, as of now. What – are you going to tell some parent that seeking for the cure for their child’s disease is “not worth it,” because of something that might happen. “Oy Vey,” they’re going to say, “screw that.”
…….
Lets look at cloning as an example. We have no idea of the long term affects of this. The oldest living cloned mammels are all around 7 years old. A Rhesus Macaque Monkey named Tetra – this species has an average lifespan of 25 years. A Goat – who wasn’t named and I cannot find out if living or not so we’ll assume still living – they live to be about 8 – 15 years. And several Pigs – which also weren’t named and I cannot find out if still living – live about 10 – 15 years. Since they are all so young, we have no idea if they are going to be healthy for their lives.
Wait and see. If there are actually well-founded objection, okay, but otherwise this area is esceedngly fertile. Sheep pretty much rule the world, especially if they have mullets.
……
We have no idea if cloning is truly successful! Dolly, the sheep died early of a normal sheep disease, but no one know if she was more at risk for this disease because of the cloning. The only way to know is if we clone more and have the same difficulties. 3 other cloned sheep that I know of have died. One, in Iran died 5 minutes after being born and 2 others, Polly and Molly born in scottland that died but I can’t find out how, when or why.
Sheep are unpredictable.
……
Other mammels have been cloned, but they are only 1 – 4 years old now. Just because we can do it, doesn’t mean it is a success. We have to wait for deaths to see if they die of natural causes. We have to wait and see about reproduction – can they and will future generations see any difficulties from it. I’m sure you understand there are about 100 more “what ifs” in this. Now we are messing with humans whose DNA is a bit more complicated than Sheeps. I know we are not talking about cloning, but it is an aspect of the science of cloning. We are trying to “clone” the good genes and leave out the bad.
Again, who knows? There was no “surety” in advnace of successfully treating heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.
…….
We are so hung up on if we “can” do it, we are forgetting if we “should”. (yes, you may recognize that line from Jurassic Park).
Oh wait a minute, look – just clone me Michelle Rodriguez from ‘Lost,” – that’s all I want.
]…..
This has just as much chance of being a huge disaster as it is a success. We don’t know.
You’re just pretending, there.
……
We aren’t even done with experiment #1 to know if it is a success, yet we are moving ahead to experiment #2. In medicine and science, you very rarely move to the 2nd aspect of an experiment without knowing the results of the first. This is very dangerous. So, will it still be worth it if we create more pain, more disease and more death because we were too impatient to wait to see if the science was going to work in the first place?
In general, the preponderance is “success, ” and/or (if not, then) “well worth it.” Other than that, go ahead and complain to the people doing it… Good grief – if medical technology can safety 1 out of a million pregnancies that are wanted, even though that’s a rather “low” rate of success, what of that?
Doug
Doug –
“if medical technology can safety 1 out of a million pregnancies that are wanted, even though that’s a rather “low” rate of success, what of that?”
HUH?
Just so I am sure on this. You would be okay if we experiment on humans when the animal experiments have not been completed yet?
How far would you be willing to go if the end does not justify the means?
“since nothing like what you hypothesize has yet happened, as of now.”
Think again! In just last year, how many medications were pulled because, oops, studies weren’t done correctly and they ended up hurting people? Medications that were suppose to help, HURT people. And that isn’t even dealing with DNA. How many treatments last year were deamed unhealthy? How many diets that were suppose to be wonder cures ended up being that exact opposite? what do you mean it hasn’t happened yet? It is happening all around you on a daily basis. The number of medical recalls is getting bigger every year because we are in too much of a hurry to “cure” and make money. Just check out the FDA website and you will be amazed at how much “cures” has ended up being the exact opposite. My hypothesis hasn’t happened? Where have you been living, Lala land?
“are you going to tell some parent that seeking for the cure for their child’s disease is “not worth it,” because of something that might happen.”
this happens on a daily basis. Look up “organ transplant” and you will see how many people get denied because something “might” happen. come back from Lala land Doug….come back!
“You’re just pretending, there.”
Is Lala Land a nice place to be?
“if medical technology can safety 1 out of a million pregnancies that are wanted, even though that’s a rather “low” rate of success, what of that?”
HUH?
Sorry, Valerie, I did screw that up something fierce. Um… I think I meant “save 1 out of a million pregnancies that are wanted.” To me, this would be a good thing. If, for example, it took a hundred embryos that were not otherwise wanted to achieve that, it’d be fine in my book.
……
Just so I am sure on this. You would be okay if we experiment on humans when the animal experiments have not been completed yet?
Well, if it was logical to continue a course of experimentation on animals prior to any “human” stuff then okay, but I’m picturing a scenario where achieving something within the human spectrum is the desired end, so it makes sense to work with human DNA, etc.
……
How far would you be willing to go if the end does not justify the means?
If we are talking about altering single cells, then I say rock and roll. Of course, we do not know in advance if “does not justify” applies. Nothing ventured…. This has just as much chance of being a huge disaster as it is a success. — I just gotta disagree with you there. No way to know those odds, really.
……
“since nothing like what you hypothesize has yet happened, as of now.”
Think again! In just last year, how many medications were pulled because, oops, studies weren’t done correctly and they ended up hurting people? Medications that were suppose to help, HURT people. And that isn’t even dealing with DNA. How many treatments last year were deamed unhealthy? How many diets that were suppose to be wonder cures ended up being that exact opposite? what do you mean it hasn’t happened yet? It is happening all around you on a daily basis. The number of medical recalls is getting bigger every year because we are in too much of a hurry to “cure” and make money. Just check out the FDA website and you will be amazed at how much “cures” has ended up being the exact opposite. My hypothesis hasn’t happened? Where have you been living, Lala land?
Well, things happen. People mess up. That does not mean that it’s not worth it to advance medical knowledge and practice. We really haven’t made a “Jurassic Park” deal or formulated a giant, killer cell that likes tomatoes, etc.
Doug