Saviour Siblings - Right or Wrong?

[RLENT]

As I said in my opening post - this is a very emotive subject

I would imagine that it very well could be ...... although that doesn't mean that it has to be ...

In your opinion.

Ok - I simply provided a workable definition of what responsibility is - probably one that most individuals could agree to.

Since you saw fit to answer qualify my definition as my opinion, please answer me this:

What is your definition of responsibility ?

Not everything can be or should be controlled.

Let's assume that premise is true. Answer me this:

At what point do you draw the line ... and how do you determine that ..... what criteria do you use ?

If you are so willing "to let nature take it's course" .... would you drive by a wreck and fail to call the authorities ?

Walk by someone on the street who had been attacked and was bleeding out ..... and fail to apply pressure to stop the bleeding ?

How do you decide what merits taking personal responsibility for and controlling, and what doesn't ?

I answered this in my final parargraph

So you did .....

Me, I'd have a real hard time .... looking into those eyes .... and then remembering later, what it was that I saw .....

but answer me this .... What if it didn't work and the sick child died anyway, how would one feel toward the Savior sibling then? This in itself could lead to more family misery.

Ahhhh yes ... the fear of possible additional loss ... the fear of failure .... the fear that, in the end, it was all for naught ...

It is true that the pain and loss that one can incur in the living of life can be very great indeed ... but that does not mean Life is not worth living ......

In order to Live, one must take certain risks .... to tell someone you love them carries with it the risk of rejection, which can be painful .... to actually enter into a loving relationship with another carries with it the risk of betrayal, which can be extremely painful ..... to procreate and have children carries with it the risk that they might predecease one ..... a horrible burden for a parent to bear ....

If fear of the above things caused an individual to not take risks, to not act, they would be very much less alive ....

What is the inherent quality of death ?

No activity.

But the flip side of all the above is what can be gained .... if you aren't rejected, but accepted .... if you aren't betrayed, but loved ..... and if you are able to look, in the autumn of your life, at those you once held in your arms as babes, now mature adults .... perhaps even with children of their own ...

Disagree - to have a baby at that time, in that way, was solely for the purpose of helping the sick child

You can disagree all you want but that doesn't make it true

It could be the sole motivation - but it doesn't have to be ...

You, nor I, really have any way to truly look into the hearts and the minds of these particular parents to know exactly what is actually there to a certainty. You and I can have an opinion about what their motivation or motivations are, based on a whole variety of things - but only they will truly know.

If your real question is: Is it right to conceive a child for the sole purpose of saving another ? ... then I would say that it raises some very real ethical issues ..... there is potentially a very slippery slope there.

In all honesty I do not think, if a family had a very sick child, that they would even be thinking about having another baby at all - all their thoughts and time would be with the sick child

Again, that's your opinion - you are certainly entitled to it, but it may not be true for everyone.

Maybe you jurst have to carry life within you to understand that one

Rather suspect that is not the case - and for what it's worth, men actually do carry Life within them - it's called sperm.

In our species, it takes two to tango.

When a child is born, it is no less the man's, than it is the women's ... when a child dies, it is no less the man's, than it is the women's ......

 

[witness23]

It takes one to know one.

Sticks and stones may break my bones.....blah, blah, blah

Well you don't know what vanity means?

I know very well what vanity means. Relating to the story, it has no relevance at all.

How about putting another way - children as accessories. People having kids only to fit into a crowd that they hang with, a lot like when teenager girls have the urge to think they want kids because the 16 year old got knocked up in school so they think it is all the rage.

Oh thank you greg for explaining to the masses of your thoughts on why women have babies and why you think it is wrong. Not everyone is an episode on MTV's Teen Mom, or Octomom or Kate plus 8 or any other reality show involving kids.

Emotional need?

You serious, you need that one explained ... I guess ... SO here it is (and this may offend others) "I'm not getting any younger so I need a kid" or "My motherly instincts make me want to have a kid" or the one I love is "I'm not complete until I have kids" ... in other words it seems to be the emotional drive that women and a lot of men for some reason have that compels them to have children - THEIR OWN - at any cost.

Talk about playing God. So unless couples take your route of deciding on having kids, they may as well be illegitamate in your eyes. Who are you to say why someone should or should not become pregnant? Who are you to question anyone's motives for having kids? Like it or not, there is an emotional element when deciding to have kids either by natural means, IVF, or adoption. I'm sure there are people that look at having kids for those reasons that you stated, but I would bet it's a small, small number in comparison to the majority that are just wanting to bring a life into this world.

Quote:
We took a different approach to all of this, leaving vanity and the 'emotional' need out of the picture to decide what to do.

See, when you write something like you did above, it sounds like you had "vanity" and or an "emotional" need when making your decision. And anyone making that decision is doing it for selfish reasons. You obviously were thinking about IVF, it sounds like you and your wife took another approach, what approach was that? It sounds like adoption but I am only speculating because you haven't said. Why were you thinking of IVF in the first place. Please tell us what route you took so we can be sure we are doing the right thing.

Look who's talking

Not sure what you mean here???

Well the approach is simple, adoption.

How is adoption going to help a child that needs a bone marrow transplant? If they found a child that matched, and he/she happened to be an orphan should the family adopt him or her for the transplant? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

Look it up ... better yet here is a good link to start with

AdoptUsKids - Children In Foster Care Awaiting Adoption

Oh and another...

National Adoption Center: Adopt a Child

You are so kind greg, I would've never thought about looking up adoption sights on the internet; who would've thunk?

See Greg, you are speaking to someone that has gone through the IVF process, the fertility drugs process and the adoption process. Then, by the very grace of God, having a baby on our own. We didn't have any abnormalities, didn't have any reason's why we shouldn't have conceived, we tried for two years without any luck, the only thing we had against us was our age, 39.

We gave up on the fetility drugs and after two IVF's we gave up on that. We then looked at International adoption, but got turned off by that for a few reasons. So we decided to go the Domestic route. Went through the classes, the background checks, the home studies, and got our certificate. We were ready to adopt. Approximately two weeks after receiving our certificate my wife became pregnant with our first son. Then, four months later she was pregant with our second son, now we have two beautiful, healthy boys that God has blessed us with.

I am a little passionate about the subject to say the least. By you putting people in a "box" who make the decision to go through these techniclogical advances that are at our disposal, is judgemental to say the least. In your writing you make it sound like anyone going through the decision of IVF is doing it for selfish reasons.

 

[greg334]

Hey Witness.

I formed my opinions when I worked at a lab that did testing for IVF, DNA and other things but more importantly the testing of aborted kids. They were tested to see if they were actually children or just tissue so Medicare/Medicaid and insurance would pay for the procedures. I sat in on many shifts when this testing was done and it wasn't something that I would like not to describe but to explain it simply it had to do with actual sifting through the remains.

It has changed my mind about people, their selfishness and greed.

We treat children as a commodity, something that is produced at a whim or without a need of love, we are a sick society. When people must have a kid at any cost, their kid, they are in the same group as those who dispose of kids at a whim. Whether or not it is a right to do doesn't make it right but as irreligious as I am, I am not about to play God with life.

You started bashing me as I didn't know what I was talking about, which is an emotion reaction to your situation. I can understand what you could be going through but don't think for a second that there isn't emotion on my side of the screen. I posted the information you asked for and didn't care to detail anything else about our lives but I go back to the fact that we are a sick society and children are a commodity which was the OP's question - is it right?

Vanity and emotion is was not part of the decision making for us - as you said bringing life into the world is a major factor involved but only if it is done without playing God. Unlike others who need to have kids to stay into the clique, or view life myopically, we looked at other factors in our lives and made decisions based on them. Having kids just to live through your kids is as bad as having them to be emotionally complete.

Adoption is an alternative, it is a serious option that a majority of people who want to have kids but can't refuse to explore - which goes right back to the issue of vanity. For a lot of people, there seems to be a burden and embarrassment attached to the word "adopted' that they can't get past and it proves to many who have made the decision that they are still immature.

Octo****, Kate plus * and all those others are just the same to me, exploiting kids for their own personal gain. Just like the crack dealer using his or her kids to sell drugs, not a bit of difference.

The same goes for this subject, Sue asked if it is right, I say no. IT is playing God. Cheri thinks the kid will be loved but she can't say that for sure and while others would do the same thing, one thing that is missed is the sacrifice of the other children in the selection process that has to take place in order to find the match. Pretty much playing God.

 

[witness23]

but I go back to the fact that we are a sick society and children are a commodity which was the OP's question - is it right?

All I have to say is, that I feel sorry for you greg. If you feel that way about our society then I truly feel sorry that you are going through life thinking that way. It does put a lot of perspective and explain a lot of how and why you post what you post though. Very sad.

 

[greg334]

So coming from a 'learned' religious person, I'm really surprised at the emotion and the point you are trying to bash me with. I enjoy it because you have absolutely no clue what I am getting at and by saying you feel sorry for me, taking pity on what you perceive is a negitive thing makes me wonder what message from your religious learnings have you gathered.

But to irritate those who don't like me, I will reiterate a few key points.

The facts are plain as the sun shining, we treat almost everything as it is something that is disposable and want only when it is on our terms - it is not the individual but society as a whole.

If you feel sorry for any one person, then feel sorry for those who have nothing because of their parents were neither responsible enough to take care of them and now are lost in a system that doesn't allow an easy out to a normal existence or had parents who within themselves didn't have enough to cast aside the needs that society told them they have to have but should instead loved what they brought into this world as they deserved to be loved.

Let me clarify something that I should have in the first place, it is not conceiving the child through natural means that bothers me for the purpose of the OP but rather through an artificial means where there is a selection process taking place. Like many on this board will admit, life begins at conception, not gestation and if taking a course of saving one child at the sacrifice of others who are conceived seems to be right to many, then it proves my point that we live in a sick society. It is akin to what the Germans did with their form of Eugenics.

I am starting to feel sorry for you because you seem to miss the important point that seems to be first a mandate from God but more importantly a mandate of societal ethics; that we must take care of the innocent and not cause harm to them regardless what our lives are like. One sitting in a test tube is the same as one sitting in the crib.

 

[LDB]

OK so the idea is to create a baby that provides the bone marrow or whatever else is needed so no life will be lost. The older living child receives the transplant and lives, hopefully. It's justifiable and reasonable because a living being continues to live and grow and thrive rather than die prematurely. We just won't think about the 3 or 7 or 11 or however many living beings that are killed and not allowed to continue to live and grow and thrive in the process of finding the exact one to provide the transplant material. At what point does the trading of several/many lives to save one life cross the line? Or does the lack of respect for life obliterate that line?

 

[witness23]

Let me clarify something that I should have in the first place, it is not conceiving the child through natural means that bothers me for the purpose of the OP but rather through an artificial means where there is a selection process taking place.

Yes, you should've made that clear in the first place. But instead you rambled on and on about how our society is screwed up, and gave your opinion on IVF and how it is wrong, and how we are playing God, and everything else that you evidentally wanted to get off your chest. Instead we had to endure your opinion on how we are ****ed as a society and listen to your moral education and how we should make decisions like you have. I missed your point about the selection process of the story because you made into something entirely different.

Like many on this board will admit, life begins at conception, not gestation

How would you know greg, you didn't ask. For the record, I am one of those that believe life begins at conception. But you wouldn't know that since you already know what everyone believes or should believe.

at the sacrifice of others who are conceived seems to be right to many, then it proves my point that we live in a sick society.

Who in here has said that is right to sacrifice others is right? Why do you think EnglishLady asked to bring the conversation back to the OP? Because you took it off topic.

I am starting to feel sorry for you because you seem to miss the important point that seems to be first a mandate from God

I fully understand God's first command to man. Unfortunately man rebelled against God's word and here we are. If man had not rebelled against God's word their would not be a need for social ethics, as you say and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Here's the thing, whatever decisions we make in life will be judged by the all might above, not you greg.

but more importantly a mandate of societal ethics; that we must take care of the innocent and not cause harm to them regardless what our lives are like. One sitting in a test tube is the same as one sitting in the crib.

I respect your opinion and have the same regard for human life as you do. I just choose not to cast aspersions on people that may not see things exactly the way I do.

 

[jaminjim]

So, when does life begin? If you can answer that, then you can answer the original question.

 

[LDB]

Life begins at conception no matter what the baby killers want to tell you. Living sperm. Living ovum. Life. No, it isn't viable on it's own until much later but that's not a valid test. If you say that "life" means viable without umbilical then astronauts are not live while in space, scuba divers are not live while diving etc. so viability isn't an acceptable test. There is none. There's only bovine feces shovelled at you by those who want to legitimize killing babies. Nit nit nit nit nit nit. Thought I'd provide the nits for those who like to nit pick posts but that doesn't change the facts and these are the facts and anything else is erroneous.

 

[RLENT]

So, when does life begin? If you can answer that, then you can answer the original question.

Life is unending stream of protoplasm - it is continuously alive - the cells (sperm, egg) are alive before conception ....Life doesn't "begin", except to the extent of when new cells are created, as much as it continues ....

The relevant question is not: "When does Life begin ?" ..... but "When does the soul or spirit (if you happen to believe in such things) occupy or take control of the physical body .... ?"

It is unlikely that medicine will ever answer that question, because the question is (appropriately) one of a religious nature, not one of medical science .......

 

[pjjjjj]

Life is unending stream of protoplasm - it is continuously alive - the cells (sperm, egg) are alive before conception ....Life doesn't "begin", except to the extent of when new cells are created, as much as it continues ....

The relevant question is not: "When does Life begin ?" ..... but "When does the soul or spirit (if you happen to believe in such things) occupy or take control of the physical body .... ?"

It is unlikely that medicine will ever answer that question, because the question is (appropriately) one of a religious nature, not one of medical science .......

Now we's thinkin! That is really profound, thank you, have never thought of it like that before, but you're absolutely right.

 

[aristotle]

Never underestimate the liberals' ability to ascribe noble intent to an heinous act. Creating a new human life to extract spare parts reeks with moral outrage. Likewise, they are perfectly fine with killing babies in the womb as a matter of convenience. At both ends of the spectrum, liberals are consistently wrong on the issue of life. Stripped bare, liberal philosophy is little more than a death cult.

 

[RLENT]

Life begins at conception no matter what the baby killers want to tell you.

I don't think the statement is really accurate as it is phrased, at least according to what I think was intended to be meant. As I pointed out life actually continues at conception ... it doesn't "begin" ..... except to the following extent:

It would be accurate to say at least the following however: The life of a new human body begins at conception.

Beyond that, we get to the point where one has to look at the matter of whether there is something in addition to the physical body, to form that thing which we know as a human being.

Some people believe that there is no soul or spirit, others do. It is actually an area which really does merit dispassionate scientific study.

The inclusion of "baby killers" (as well as the "and these are the facts and anything else is erroneous" comment) is indicative of some pretty extreme emotional baggage in regards to the subject.

Fairly safe to say: " ..... where such high degrees of emotion are present, rationality may, at least to some extent, be absent ...."

Obviously, a zygote is not a "baby" ... a potential baby to be sure .... but not a baby ..... at least within the generally understood meaning of the word.

Unfortunately, the use of such inflammatory rhetoric leaves little room for any type of reasoned discussion .....

There's only bovine feces shovelled at you by those who want to legitimize killing babies.

While it's certainly true that some of those (usually the fanatical zealots) who favor abortion (restricted or completely unrestricted) are capable of, and often do, shovel their share of bovine feces, it's also similarly true that their polar opposites on the other side of the issue are just as capable, and usually, just as inclined to do so.

But then that's fanatical zealotry for you ....

 

[RLENT]

Now we's thinkin! That is really profound, thank you, have never thought of it like that before, but you're absolutely right.

Well, I don't know how profound it is .... but that does seem to be the way that it actually is .... at least from my perspective

 

[RLENT]

Never underestimate the liberals' ability to ascribe noble intent to an heinous act. Creating a new human life to extract spare parts reeks with moral outrage.

I believe the exact issue here in this case, if I understood the situation correctly, is one of needing a bone marrow donor - no spare "parts" necessary ....

It is also my understanding that the couple were considering/intending to have another child anyways.

I would guess that bone marrow donation is largely accepted by most folks as a not immoral act, so I'm curious if you have a specific moral objection to it generally ?

If you have no objection bone marrow donations, then let me pose two scenarios and ask a question:

1. You can make the choice to bring another life into this world to save another existing one, but to do so you will elect to destroy some fertilized eggs (zygotes)

2. You can make the choice not to bring another life into this world which you clearly could have, to save another existing one, because you will have to destroy some fertilized eggs (zygotes)

My question: Which would be the greater sin ?

Likewise, they are perfectly fine with killing babies in the womb as a matter of convenience.

Nice inflammatory rhetoric - but it doesn't really address the issue, now does it ?

At both ends of the spectrum, liberals are consistently wrong on the issue of life. Stripped bare, liberal philosophy is little more than a death cult.

..... sorta like the rampart imperialism and militarism that exists on the (neo) conservative side ?

 

[Turtle]

Never underestimate the religious right's ability to ascribe divine intent to an heinous act. Destroying human life on massive scales to extract religious superiority reeks with moral outrage and hypocrisy. Likewise, abortion is murder while capital punishment is perfectly fine as a matter of convenience. At both ends of the spectrum, religious zealots are consistently wrong on the issue of life. Stripped bare, religious philosophy is little more than a death cult.

See how that works when you live in a glass house?

Whether it is right or wrong for a couple to conceive and bear a child for the purposes of saving another child is not a question for someone else to answer, and then impose that answer onto the couple. It is a question for the couple to answer. It's nobody else's business.

 

[RLENT]

Never underestimate the religious right's ability to ascribe divine intent to an heinous act. Destroying human life on massive scales to extract religious superiority reeks with moral outrage and hypocrisy. Likewise, abortion is murder while capital punishment is perfectly fine as a matter of convenience. At both ends of the spectrum, religious zealots are consistently wrong on the issue of life. Stripped bare, religious philosophy is little more than a death cult.

See how that works when you live in a glass house?

Now that there is pretty funny .... wish I had thought of it.

Whether it is right or wrong for a couple to conceive and bear a child for the purposes of saving another child is not a question for someone else to answer, and then impose that answer onto the couple. It is a question for the couple to answer. It's nobody else's business.

I largely agree - with one additional qualifying provision:

"Where such contemplates doing so by using a generally accepted medical procedure which is acknowledged to pose little to no risk, and no permanent harm or damage, to the donor, a living human being ....."

If it does not meet the above qualification, with respect to risk, harm, or damage, then there are additional ethical issues, and there may well be a legitimate societal interest in the matter.

 

[Turtle]

Yup. You don't want to give birth to a second child just to harvest a liver or heart, which of course would kill the new child. That's both morally and ethically wrong and quite creepy. But for normal, accepted medical procedures for which the new child is a match, same as any other non-relative who is a match, it presents few moral and ethical problems.

I did see a movie recently (My Sister's Keeper (2009) - IMDb) where many facets of this subject is explored. A child is conceived in vitro for the expressed purpose of becoming a kidney donor for her older sister who has leukemia. And the donor takes exception to it all. It's quite good, good story, cast and acting, and good directing. Very thought provoking. Cameron Diaz does a great job in a serious turn as the mother in the drama.

 

[EnglishLady]

Here is another Saviour Sibling story from 2008 without a happy ending.



I had a 'saviour sibling' to cure my desperately ill son - but now I've found out my newborn daughter can't save his life | Mail Online

 

[aristotle]

Never underestimate the religious right's ability to ascribe divine intent to an heinous act. Destroying human life on massive scales to extract religious superiority reeks with moral outrage and hypocrisy. Likewise, abortion is murder while capital punishment is perfectly fine as a matter of convenience. At both ends of the spectrum, religious zealots are consistently wrong on the issue of life. Stripped bare, religious philosophy is little more than a death cult.

See how that works when you live in a glass house?

Whether it is right or wrong for a couple to conceive and bear a child for the purposes of saving another child is not a question for someone else to answer, and then impose that answer onto the couple. It is a question for the couple to answer. It's nobody else's business.

Tend to your own garden, Turtle. There's enough work there to keep you busy for years. Shore up your own glass house. See how that works? As for hypocrisy, the welfare of a child is everybody's business. Do you even have children? From what well do you draw experience? Murphy Brown re-runs?