Carryover from another topic

[julie]

It was previously posted in another topic and I wanted an opportunity to discuss it, but didn't want to start a rampage on that post so here we are.....

<i>And as far as the natural form of birth control, you're close, but just slightly off target. Biologically speaking, it's actually a natural form of population control, not birth control. Natural selection, if it were to take place without the intervention of modern science (e.g. IVF), would progress in such a way that certain diseases, particularly those like CF that are caused by a genetic mutation, would have been eradicated due to the inability of people with such a condition to breed. By usurping natural selection, the likelihood of wiping out the disease becomes increasingly small. </i>

I personally believe that even if IVF didn't exist, CF would continue to do so. How did it ever come about? It MUTATED... therefore, I don't think we will ever eradicate it, even if we were to limit the number of people with CF reproducing. Modern technology has given us what we have today and we would be stupid not to use it, in my opinion. I think those who don't believe in IVF and similar things but DO things like antibiotics, the vest, IV's... are borderline hypocritical. Actually, they are hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's all or nothing, at least that's how I feel.

 

[julie]

It was previously posted in another topic and I wanted an opportunity to discuss it, but didn't want to start a rampage on that post so here we are.....

<i>And as far as the natural form of birth control, you're close, but just slightly off target. Biologically speaking, it's actually a natural form of population control, not birth control. Natural selection, if it were to take place without the intervention of modern science (e.g. IVF), would progress in such a way that certain diseases, particularly those like CF that are caused by a genetic mutation, would have been eradicated due to the inability of people with such a condition to breed. By usurping natural selection, the likelihood of wiping out the disease becomes increasingly small. </i>

I personally believe that even if IVF didn't exist, CF would continue to do so. How did it ever come about? It MUTATED... therefore, I don't think we will ever eradicate it, even if we were to limit the number of people with CF reproducing. Modern technology has given us what we have today and we would be stupid not to use it, in my opinion. I think those who don't believe in IVF and similar things but DO things like antibiotics, the vest, IV's... are borderline hypocritical. Actually, they are hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's all or nothing, at least that's how I feel.

 

[julie]

It was previously posted in another topic and I wanted an opportunity to discuss it, but didn't want to start a rampage on that post so here we are.....

<i>And as far as the natural form of birth control, you're close, but just slightly off target. Biologically speaking, it's actually a natural form of population control, not birth control. Natural selection, if it were to take place without the intervention of modern science (e.g. IVF), would progress in such a way that certain diseases, particularly those like CF that are caused by a genetic mutation, would have been eradicated due to the inability of people with such a condition to breed. By usurping natural selection, the likelihood of wiping out the disease becomes increasingly small. </i>

I personally believe that even if IVF didn't exist, CF would continue to do so. How did it ever come about? It MUTATED... therefore, I don't think we will ever eradicate it, even if we were to limit the number of people with CF reproducing. Modern technology has given us what we have today and we would be stupid not to use it, in my opinion. I think those who don't believe in IVF and similar things but DO things like antibiotics, the vest, IV's... are borderline hypocritical. Actually, they are hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's all or nothing, at least that's how I feel.

 

[dyza]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.

 

[dyza]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.

 

[dyza]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.

 

[dyza]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1004/news/cystic.html?1130304103375
">http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com...ic.html?1130304103375
</a>
Typhoid thats the other disease.

 

[dyza]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1004/news/cystic.html?1130304103375
">http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com...ic.html?1130304103375
</a>
Typhoid thats the other disease.

 

[dyza]

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1004/news/cystic.html?1130304103375
">http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com...ic.html?1130304103375
</a>
Typhoid thats the other disease.

 

[lightNlife]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not attacking or judging anyone who feels differently. I just base my point of view on something that others don't. That's my prerogative. I didn't intend to launch into a deeply philosophical discussion on this matter, but since I've been thus baited, I'll rise to the occasion. Feel free to disagree, but don't get personal about it; I haven't. I'm not disparaging anyone's point of view, so please let me have mine peaceably.

I never said I didn't agree with [believe in] IVF, I was only listing it as an example because it had already been mentioned in the post. You present a fallacious argument about being hypocritical. The only hypocritical thing to would if a person were to say "I disagree with IVF" and then to do it anyway. The same would apply to someone who says "I disapprove of transplantation" (for whatever reason, and then goes on to get listed and have a transplant anyway.

True, there is a benefit to using certain aspects of medical technology. But the difference lies in whether medical technology affecting (bringing about) change/mitigation by <i>in situ</i> means or <i>ex situ</i> ones. In situ benefits are those like using antibiotics. They are chemicals and compounds that, when applied to the organisms <i>in</i> the body, restore the body to it's naturally occurring state of function, which is still, a damaged one in the case of a person with CF. By contrast, the very definition of <i>in vitro fertilization</i> requires that the process be carried out <i>ex situ</i>.

One of the most notable differences between <i>in situ</i> and <i>ex situ</i> medical procedures, is that in situ ones, will carry out their designed function without further intervention. For example, finding the right antibiotic to target a particular microbe will work an overwhelmingly large percentage of the time. IVF, on the other hand, does not claim this same success rate. If you have studied the history of the beginnings of IVF research (as I have), you would know that even when all the conditions seemed ideal, still there was an overwhelming degree of failure.

Also, I never said that a disease could be wiped out. I only said that the likelihood of that happening gets increasingly smaller with each propagating generation. It is reasonably probable that the genes would in fact continue, <i>ceteris paribus.</i> Returning to the thought of natural selection, the above mentioned examples further demonstrate that left to their own devices, there are some things that are more likely to occur than others. Another example: certainly a female positive for the CF gene can breed successfully with a non-carrier. It's been done. As we know, this pairing will result in children who are, at the very best carriers of the CF gene.

This is just one of the reasons why CF is unlikely to die out of it's own accord, and why the mutations will become increasingly difficult to understand fully.

My personal thoughts on parenting and pregnancy have little bearing (if any) on what I have just presented to you. I approach the matter from a biological viewpoint, an individual sense of morality, and that of a reasonably minded global citizen.

 

[lightNlife]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not attacking or judging anyone who feels differently. I just base my point of view on something that others don't. That's my prerogative. I didn't intend to launch into a deeply philosophical discussion on this matter, but since I've been thus baited, I'll rise to the occasion. Feel free to disagree, but don't get personal about it; I haven't. I'm not disparaging anyone's point of view, so please let me have mine peaceably.

I never said I didn't agree with [believe in] IVF, I was only listing it as an example because it had already been mentioned in the post. You present a fallacious argument about being hypocritical. The only hypocritical thing to would if a person were to say "I disagree with IVF" and then to do it anyway. The same would apply to someone who says "I disapprove of transplantation" (for whatever reason, and then goes on to get listed and have a transplant anyway.

True, there is a benefit to using certain aspects of medical technology. But the difference lies in whether medical technology affecting (bringing about) change/mitigation by <i>in situ</i> means or <i>ex situ</i> ones. In situ benefits are those like using antibiotics. They are chemicals and compounds that, when applied to the organisms <i>in</i> the body, restore the body to it's naturally occurring state of function, which is still, a damaged one in the case of a person with CF. By contrast, the very definition of <i>in vitro fertilization</i> requires that the process be carried out <i>ex situ</i>.

One of the most notable differences between <i>in situ</i> and <i>ex situ</i> medical procedures, is that in situ ones, will carry out their designed function without further intervention. For example, finding the right antibiotic to target a particular microbe will work an overwhelmingly large percentage of the time. IVF, on the other hand, does not claim this same success rate. If you have studied the history of the beginnings of IVF research (as I have), you would know that even when all the conditions seemed ideal, still there was an overwhelming degree of failure.

Also, I never said that a disease could be wiped out. I only said that the likelihood of that happening gets increasingly smaller with each propagating generation. It is reasonably probable that the genes would in fact continue, <i>ceteris paribus.</i> Returning to the thought of natural selection, the above mentioned examples further demonstrate that left to their own devices, there are some things that are more likely to occur than others. Another example: certainly a female positive for the CF gene can breed successfully with a non-carrier. It's been done. As we know, this pairing will result in children who are, at the very best carriers of the CF gene.

This is just one of the reasons why CF is unlikely to die out of it's own accord, and why the mutations will become increasingly difficult to understand fully.

My personal thoughts on parenting and pregnancy have little bearing (if any) on what I have just presented to you. I approach the matter from a biological viewpoint, an individual sense of morality, and that of a reasonably minded global citizen.

 

[lightNlife]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not attacking or judging anyone who feels differently. I just base my point of view on something that others don't. That's my prerogative. I didn't intend to launch into a deeply philosophical discussion on this matter, but since I've been thus baited, I'll rise to the occasion. Feel free to disagree, but don't get personal about it; I haven't. I'm not disparaging anyone's point of view, so please let me have mine peaceably.

I never said I didn't agree with [believe in] IVF, I was only listing it as an example because it had already been mentioned in the post. You present a fallacious argument about being hypocritical. The only hypocritical thing to would if a person were to say "I disagree with IVF" and then to do it anyway. The same would apply to someone who says "I disapprove of transplantation" (for whatever reason, and then goes on to get listed and have a transplant anyway.

True, there is a benefit to using certain aspects of medical technology. But the difference lies in whether medical technology affecting (bringing about) change/mitigation by <i>in situ</i> means or <i>ex situ</i> ones. In situ benefits are those like using antibiotics. They are chemicals and compounds that, when applied to the organisms <i>in</i> the body, restore the body to it's naturally occurring state of function, which is still, a damaged one in the case of a person with CF. By contrast, the very definition of <i>in vitro fertilization</i> requires that the process be carried out <i>ex situ</i>.

One of the most notable differences between <i>in situ</i> and <i>ex situ</i> medical procedures, is that in situ ones, will carry out their designed function without further intervention. For example, finding the right antibiotic to target a particular microbe will work an overwhelmingly large percentage of the time. IVF, on the other hand, does not claim this same success rate. If you have studied the history of the beginnings of IVF research (as I have), you would know that even when all the conditions seemed ideal, still there was an overwhelming degree of failure.

Also, I never said that a disease could be wiped out. I only said that the likelihood of that happening gets increasingly smaller with each propagating generation. It is reasonably probable that the genes would in fact continue, <i>ceteris paribus.</i> Returning to the thought of natural selection, the above mentioned examples further demonstrate that left to their own devices, there are some things that are more likely to occur than others. Another example: certainly a female positive for the CF gene can breed successfully with a non-carrier. It's been done. As we know, this pairing will result in children who are, at the very best carriers of the CF gene.

This is just one of the reasons why CF is unlikely to die out of it's own accord, and why the mutations will become increasingly difficult to understand fully.

My personal thoughts on parenting and pregnancy have little bearing (if any) on what I have just presented to you. I approach the matter from a biological viewpoint, an individual sense of morality, and that of a reasonably minded global citizen.

 

[lightNlife]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>dyza</b></i>

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.</end quote></div>

And still, people disbelieve evolution. Amazing.

 

[lightNlife]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>dyza</b></i>

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.</end quote></div>

And still, people disbelieve evolution. Amazing.

 

[lightNlife]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>dyza</b></i>

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the mutation first came about as a way for man to be immune from cholera, TB and some other disease. I'll need to find this.</end quote></div>

And still, people disbelieve evolution. Amazing.

 

[Jennifer1981]

Okay, I completely missed this topic the first time but here is my opinion.

CF will always be around. It's just like telling people with HIV, MS, MD, cancer or any other disease that you can think of not to have children. People do what they want. Half don't listen to doctors or anyone/anything else. And there are people (like my parents) who had no idea they were carriers and had me. The door swings both ways. Even if CF patients stopped reproducing, CF will exist. It will manifest one way or another.

I was trying to conceive and have CF. I am a carrier, but thankfully, my husband isn't. Our child would not have had CF but would have been a carrier. I was willing to take those chances. However, if my husband was a carrier, we weren't even going to have a child naturally. We were going to turn straight to adoption. So yes, maybe I was feeding CF by creating a carrier. That is fair judgment. But the idea of patients with CF to completely stop reproducing is naive and ignorant to a degree. It will manifest one way or another!

 

[Jennifer1981]

Okay, I completely missed this topic the first time but here is my opinion.

CF will always be around. It's just like telling people with HIV, MS, MD, cancer or any other disease that you can think of not to have children. People do what they want. Half don't listen to doctors or anyone/anything else. And there are people (like my parents) who had no idea they were carriers and had me. The door swings both ways. Even if CF patients stopped reproducing, CF will exist. It will manifest one way or another.

I was trying to conceive and have CF. I am a carrier, but thankfully, my husband isn't. Our child would not have had CF but would have been a carrier. I was willing to take those chances. However, if my husband was a carrier, we weren't even going to have a child naturally. We were going to turn straight to adoption. So yes, maybe I was feeding CF by creating a carrier. That is fair judgment. But the idea of patients with CF to completely stop reproducing is naive and ignorant to a degree. It will manifest one way or another!

 

[Jennifer1981]

Okay, I completely missed this topic the first time but here is my opinion.

CF will always be around. It's just like telling people with HIV, MS, MD, cancer or any other disease that you can think of not to have children. People do what they want. Half don't listen to doctors or anyone/anything else. And there are people (like my parents) who had no idea they were carriers and had me. The door swings both ways. Even if CF patients stopped reproducing, CF will exist. It will manifest one way or another.

I was trying to conceive and have CF. I am a carrier, but thankfully, my husband isn't. Our child would not have had CF but would have been a carrier. I was willing to take those chances. However, if my husband was a carrier, we weren't even going to have a child naturally. We were going to turn straight to adoption. So yes, maybe I was feeding CF by creating a carrier. That is fair judgment. But the idea of patients with CF to completely stop reproducing is naive and ignorant to a degree. It will manifest one way or another!

 

[JazzysMom]

I think with time, advancement in medicine and education that if its not completely wipe out it will be drastically reduced. I am not saying that CFers will stop having kids, but as more gene mutations are discovered. The more we pass on that knowledge of the family tree, the more carriers have their mates tested etc that we will get closer. CF being such a tricky disease....I cant say that something else within the gene mutation arena wont throw a curve ball. BUT realizing how many families have no known or confirmed CF in their families and realizing how its SLOWLY becoming addressed in another billion years we should be all set LOL! Being that medicine is not an exact science.....well that pretty much says it all!

 

[JazzysMom]

I think with time, advancement in medicine and education that if its not completely wipe out it will be drastically reduced. I am not saying that CFers will stop having kids, but as more gene mutations are discovered. The more we pass on that knowledge of the family tree, the more carriers have their mates tested etc that we will get closer. CF being such a tricky disease....I cant say that something else within the gene mutation arena wont throw a curve ball. BUT realizing how many families have no known or confirmed CF in their families and realizing how its SLOWLY becoming addressed in another billion years we should be all set LOL! Being that medicine is not an exact science.....well that pretty much says it all!