Professional Smartass
I don't see how being brave is a factor when the choice is between going on your knees all your life or walking with prosthetics. Aces parents made the right call, but I don't think she'd have kept going to the physical therapy for 15 years with no improvement.
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
Yeah, if it had been beyond repair I probably would have considered amputation at some point. But I would have wanted to have some input since it's my body. Even at the age of nine.
Happy New Year!
(I'm nercoing this as they recently finished the marathon[1]
)
Most of us properly would do the same Ace. But few have the luxury of definite prognosis. What it didn't pay off? Would you resent your parents for the years of physiotherapy that were for naught when you could of being going on with your childhood with a metal foot? Or worse had develop complications.
If I could compare Heather Abbott choice to amputate to that of Oscar Canon. A marine who's leg was severely injured in 2004 and who die last year from surgical infection brought on by multiple attempts to save the limb.
edited 29th May '13 12:05:09 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupid
rollin' on dubs
UK may approve creating babies with DNA from 3 people]
ONDON – Britain may allow a controversial technique to create babies using DNA from three people, a move that would help couples avoid passing on rare genetic diseases, the country's top medical officer says.
The new techniques help women with faulty mitochondria, the energy source in a cell, from passing on to their babies defects that can result in such diseases as muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, heart problems and mental retardation. About one in 200 children is born every year in Britain with a mitochondrial disorder.
Ah Fox News, as much as I like how they break out the weasel words. This is the best way to fix genetic defects. And yet there are groups coming out against it.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Happy New Year!
As overblown as a claiming it's a 'triple parent baby' statements are they is a lot of reasonable arguments against open the door to the generic engineering children.
Besides this can not be justified as curing disease as the baby in question it will help haven't even been Conceived yet.
Not to be unsympathetic. But If parents really don't want to risk passing on genetic disorders they can always not have kids.
hashtagsarestupid
rollin' on dubs
True, let's break down the risks:
- this will cost mucho $$$
- risky new tech
vs.
- don't have kids (some people may want kids, others may be on the fence)
- adopt a kid
Now I get that some parents, for religious reasons, may want a "blood relative". In the west, adoption doesn't have the stigma it did in decades past.
edited 28th Jun '13 5:46:36 PM by TairaMai
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
The people who are rich enough to have this procedure will already know that they have adoption options. They won't care.
Biology is a funny thing. A lot of people, not just rich ones, get hung up on DNA sharing and how that denotates ownership or connection with the child.
If we can get past the "DNA=automatic family" bullshit more people may consider adoption.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Professional Smartass
For me I think it would be more about getting to know and raise the kid from the beginning. So a kid I adopted as a baby would be mine, while a 10 year old whose biologically mine but I've never met before... not so much. The problem with that is that the younger adoptees are harder to come by, while the older ones are usually the ones who have trouble finding a permanent home.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with artificially avoiding genetic diseases. However I do think a lot of people get too hung up on biological relation, and if adoption is not an option for some reason getting a donor would be easier.
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
I see nothing wrong with that genetic engineering technique.
There's also the fact that the process for qualifying for adoption takes a very long time. Genetic engineering might be expensive, but in general if you've got the money for it it's probably a lot harder for the state to take your child away later, and thus legally just easier to keep said child.
I mean, not all adopters are lucky enough to run into a pregnant mother who's giving up her baby and is picking the parents herself. A lot of people have to go through CPS.
On the topic, I'm wondering how many people they'd get to be willing to be able to test this. Or do they just use... donor material? There's probably a lot more research required to make this effective at specifically eliminating genetic diseases.
It's true you can often be better at living a 'normal life' with a artificial limb then defected one. I don't think should be the only thing to be consideration however.
As petty as it sounds, It annoys the media loosing the limb it as the 'courageous' decision. Going through the pain in sticking with it takes balls too but it doesn't get the same press.
hashtagsarestupid