Emily65Roses
New member
Hey, threads tend to slide in one direction or the other. Tis the nature of human conversation.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
This makes me feel very sad
- Thread starter cdale613
- Start date
Emily65Roses
New member
Hey, threads tend to slide in one direction or the other. Tis the nature of human conversation.
Emily65Roses
New member
Hey, threads tend to slide in one direction or the other. Tis the nature of human conversation.
Emily65Roses
New member
Hey, threads tend to slide in one direction or the other. Tis the nature of human conversation.
Emily65Roses
New member
Hey, threads tend to slide in one direction or the other. Tis the nature of human conversation.
coltsfan715
New member
I will probably get blasted for what I am about to say - but I am going to say it anyway.
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
coltsfan715
New member
I will probably get blasted for what I am about to say - but I am going to say it anyway.
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
coltsfan715
New member
I will probably get blasted for what I am about to say - but I am going to say it anyway.
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
coltsfan715
New member
I will probably get blasted for what I am about to say - but I am going to say it anyway.
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
Thank you for posting the article.
Take Care,
Linds
coltsfan715
New member
I will probably get blasted for what I am about to say - but I am going to say it anyway.
<br />
<br />I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
<br />
<br />For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
<br />
<br />Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
<br />
<br />I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
<br />
<br />I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
<br />
<br />I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
<br />
<br />Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
<br />
<br />Thank you for posting the article.
<br />
<br />Take Care,
<br />Linds
<br />
<br />I have had many talks about things like this with family and friends and mere acquaintances. I always feel the same ... I would NOT bring a child into this world if I knew there was even a slight chance it would have CF. I told Kurt from the get go that he would be testing if we EVER thought of having kids and if he was a carrier I would not have biological children with him. That being said ... I am glad I was born. I have not had a horrible life I don't think but that is just my stance.
<br />
<br />For me my opinion -- I will admit -- is completely selfish. I could not handle watching my child go through the things I have had to deal with and knowing the pain I have felt physically, mentally emotionally and all that. I couldn't bear the thought of putting someone through that if it was avoidable.
<br />
<br />Then again I also think that a soul - if meant to come into this world would come within circumstances that fit or are able to be accomodated by the people that will be taking responsibility for that little person in the first part of their life. To me it does no good for a person - CF or not to be brought into the world if the people bringing that person in are not fully capable of caring for the child in the way it will need to be cared for ... I am not right off saying abort abort abort ... I am just saying if people just plain choose not to have kids because of X Y Z reason.
<br />
<br />I may be weird but this doesn't bother me really. I don't know call me heartless or without a soul (though I know that is not true). I just think it is everyone's own choice. If they think they are doing a favor to their would be child by preventing the suffering or not bringing them into the world if they are unable to care for them OR if they are like me and would rather chop off a limb then bring someone into this world that has this shitty disease then so be it.
<br />
<br />I can see how it would be disturbing to some but it is what it is I guess is the way I see it. People are "playing God" by weeding out the sick or diseased but in finding a cure and actually curing people of a disease it is a "god like" act as well. In my mind condemn one condemn the other but no one will because by all appearances you are saving lives with one act and preventing them in another .. but again just my opinion and trying to look at it objectively. Working on finding an actual cure is something I am thankful people are doing and yes it does NOT really involve "weeding" anyone out. At the same time though what if a cure never arrives ... What if the only way to lessen the blow on some families or people is to just avoid the situation completely? For some that may be a huge NO NO but for others they see it as a completely reasonable thing to do.
<br />
<br />I don't know I guess I just don't see this as such an appaling act, but then again that may be because it honestly doesn't really affect me since I am alive already.
<br />
<br />Just to add I am not trying to start anything on this just stating an opinion that differs from the majority of those that have posted.
<br />
<br />Thank you for posting the article.
<br />
<br />Take Care,
<br />Linds
A couple things came to mind as I read this article and the subsequent responses here in this thread. First of all, the article says the researchers hypothesize that prenatal and <i>pre-conception carrier</i> screening may be contributing to the decrease in babies born with CF. This doesn't mean a bunch of people are out there having abortions. Yes, I'm sure there are a number of people who choose to go this route, but if we're talking about carrier screening <i>prior</i> to conception, I would say parents are just being responsible.
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
A couple things came to mind as I read this article and the subsequent responses here in this thread. First of all, the article says the researchers hypothesize that prenatal and <i>pre-conception carrier</i> screening may be contributing to the decrease in babies born with CF. This doesn't mean a bunch of people are out there having abortions. Yes, I'm sure there are a number of people who choose to go this route, but if we're talking about carrier screening <i>prior</i> to conception, I would say parents are just being responsible.
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
A couple things came to mind as I read this article and the subsequent responses here in this thread. First of all, the article says the researchers hypothesize that prenatal and <i>pre-conception carrier</i> screening may be contributing to the decrease in babies born with CF. This doesn't mean a bunch of people are out there having abortions. Yes, I'm sure there are a number of people who choose to go this route, but if we're talking about carrier screening <i>prior</i> to conception, I would say parents are just being responsible.
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
A couple things came to mind as I read this article and the subsequent responses here in this thread. First of all, the article says the researchers hypothesize that prenatal and <i>pre-conception carrier</i> screening may be contributing to the decrease in babies born with CF. This doesn't mean a bunch of people are out there having abortions. Yes, I'm sure there are a number of people who choose to go this route, but if we're talking about carrier screening <i>prior</i> to conception, I would say parents are just being responsible.
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
But it's late and I'm rambling...
(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
A couple things came to mind as I read this article and the subsequent responses here in this thread. First of all, the article says the researchers hypothesize that prenatal and <i>pre-conception carrier</i> screening may be contributing to the decrease in babies born with CF. This doesn't mean a bunch of people are out there having abortions. Yes, I'm sure there are a number of people who choose to go this route, but if we're talking about carrier screening <i>prior</i> to conception, I would say parents are just being responsible.
<br />
<br />Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
<br />
<br />Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
<br />
<br />But it's late and I'm rambling...
<br />
<br />(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
<br />
<br />Secondly, if we're going to talk about the notion of "playing god" in terms of using science to prevent the birth of babies with cf, I think we have to also acknowledge that finding a cure for cf is similarly "playing god." I am not judging anyone for their responses or feelings in any way. I just think that if we're going to say it's wrong to play god, we need to say it's wrong in any circumstance, not just when it's convenient for a particular argument. If it's wrong for mankind to decide who gets to live and who gets to die (assuming you believe that life starts with conception), how can it be right when it means a cure for you?
<br />
<br />Having said that, I do find it upsetting that the general sentiment of society seems to be one of intolerance, meaning in this context, being different somehow makes a person less valuable. But with that, I think we should also consider that if a person chooses not to have a child they know will be born with cf, it is at least feasible that they are making that choice because they don't want to subject their child to the intolerance of society in general, and to the struggles inherent in cf (or any disability for that matter), not necessarily because they themselves would hold a negative view of their child.
<br />
<br />But it's late and I'm rambling...
<br />
<br />(edited to add that I just now realized there was a page 2 to this thread and I've just reiterated basically everything Lindsey just said. oops. )
Hi Linds and wheezie - I agree with TONS of what you're both saying. My wife will be getting screened before we attempt a pregnancy, and if she is a carrier, we will not have biological children.
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
Hi Linds and wheezie - I agree with TONS of what you're both saying. My wife will be getting screened before we attempt a pregnancy, and if she is a carrier, we will not have biological children.
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
Hi Linds and wheezie - I agree with TONS of what you're both saying. My wife will be getting screened before we attempt a pregnancy, and if she is a carrier, we will not have biological children.
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
Hi Linds and wheezie - I agree with TONS of what you're both saying. My wife will be getting screened before we attempt a pregnancy, and if she is a carrier, we will not have biological children.
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
Chris
27 m w/cf
Hi Linds and wheezie - I agree with TONS of what you're both saying. My wife will be getting screened before we attempt a pregnancy, and if she is a carrier, we will not have biological children.
<br />
<br />In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
<br />
<br />I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
<br />
<br />Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
<br />
<br />
<br />Chris
<br />
<br />27 m w/cf
<br />
<br />In terms of the article, newborn screening is universal in several states, and carrier testing is "available"... I don't know what percentage of people are getting tested before they have children, but when I read it it seems like more of the effect is coming from newborn screenings. Of course, it may also be happening that once parents know the results of the newborn screening test they may make the decision not to have any more kids, where in the past there would have been a greater likelihood of multiple siblings with CF... that does seem to be rarer these days. I do agree that some of these cases stem from people being very responsible adults.
<br />
<br />I also don't have a problem with the technology, and I don't think that all medicine equals "playing god". I do think that some ethical issues come into play with this application of the technology that aren't USUALLY present in the treatment of an illness. For example, do you think that this use of the technology passes the Hippocratic oath? I don't have an answer... part of me says yes, part of me says no. We as people can use our knowledge and ability for good or bad.... does this "feel" good or bad to you? To me this "feels" bad.
<br />
<br />Like wheezie, I am most troubled by the social implications of the article. When I read it, I didn't think so much of society as intolerant, but more a reflection of our society's values of instant gratification of our wants, avoiding the difficult or painful, and not appreciating the different, the difficult, or the reward that comes from stepping off the "easy" route.
<br />
<br />
<br />Chris
<br />
<br />27 m w/cf