|
|
The Rolla Daily News - Rolla, MO
  • Spiritual questions and some moral outrage

  • A friend in Alaska shared a story from the Anchorage paper about the creation of embryos with genes from one man and two women.
    • email print
  • A friend in Alaska shared a story from the Anchorage paper about the creation of embryos with genes from one man and two women.
    It’s an Associated Press story, so you may have seen it elsewhere.
    The gist of the report is this: The scientists at Oregon Health and Sciences University want to replace genes found outside the egg cell’s nucleus in the mitochondria. If you don’t remember from biology class what that is, go look it up, because I’m scientifically too stupid to explain it. The genes in the mitochondria are passed along only by mothers, not fathers.
    “About one in every 5,000 children inherits a disease caused by defective mitochondrial genes,” according to the report. “The defects can cause many rare diseases with a host of symptoms, including strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney failure and heart disease.”
    The new technique, if approved someday for routine use, would allow a woman to give birth to a baby who inherits her nucleus DNA but not her mitochondrial DNA. Here's how it would work:
    “Doctors would need unfertilized eggs from the patient and a healthy donor. They would remove the nucleus DNA from the donor eggs and replace it with nucleus DNA from the patient's eggs. So, they would end up with eggs that have the prospective mother's nucleus DNA, but the donor's healthy mitochondrial DNA.”
    The OHSU researchers reported in the scholarly journalNature that they transplanted nucleus DNA into 64 unfertilized eggs from healthy donors. Those eggs were then fertilized and 13 eggs showed normal development, going on “to form early embryos.”
    The report does not say what happened to those man-made fertilized embryos when the experiment was over.
    Do you think this form of research should be allowed?
    Is it a case of man playing God?
    Is it a case of creating life and then killing it?
    Or is it a case of man subduing nature as God told Adam to do in Genesis 1:28?
    If this kind of improvement to life is wrong because it is a manipulation of God’s creation, is it also wrong to vaccinate against diseases? Disease and death were placed by God on the earth because of mankind’s sin, according to the scriptures, so is it wrong to try to stop disease and death by using science?
    I don’t think so, but I’m willing to read what you have to say in rebuttal. Send a letter to my boss, Editor Brennan. She’ll publish it so you can get the truth out to the readers who have been tainted by my errors today.
    I DID NOT WRITE THE FOLLOWING ESSAY:  I wish I could say I did, but I did not. A copy of this essay was given to me by the Puerto Rican Goddess who is my boss at my day job. After listening to my ranting and raving for several years every day at work, she knows me pretty well. When she got this essay in an email, she ran a copy out and gave it to me. It sounds like my constant complaining, although it is stated more eloquently.
    Page 2 of 3 -  
    Obituary of Common Sense!
    Today, we mourn the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense.
    Common Sense lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the Millennium. No one really knows how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He selflessly devoted his life to service in schools; hospitals, homes, factories and offices, helping folks get jobs done without fanfare and foolishness.
    For decades, petty rules, silly laws and frivolous lawsuits held no power over Common Sense. He was credited with cultivating such valued lessons as to know when to come in from rain, the early bird gets the worm and life isn't always fair.
    Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adults are in charge, not the kids), and it's okay to come in second.
    A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, and the Technological Revolution, Common Sense survived cultural and educational trends including feminism, body piercing, whole language and new math.
    But his health declined when he became infected with the "if-it-only-helps-one-person-it's-worth-it" virus. In recent decades, his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal legislation.
    He watched in pain as good people became ruled by self-seeking lawyers and enlightened auditors. His health rapidly deteriorated when schools endlessly implemented zero tolerance policies; when reports were heard of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; when a teen was suspended for taking a swig of mouthwash after lunch; when a teacher was fired for reprimanding an unruly student. It declined even further when schools had to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student but couldn't inform the parent when a female student is pregnant or wants an abortion.
    Finally, Common Sense lost his will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, criminals received better treatment than victims, and federal judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional sports.
    As the end neared, Common Sense drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments, regarding questionable regulations for asbestos, low-flow toilets, smart guns, the nurturing of Prohibition Laws and mandatory air bags.
    Finally, when told that the homeowners association restricted exterior furniture only to that which enhanced property values, he breathed his last.
    Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son Reason. His three stepbrothers survive him: Rights, Tolerance and Whiner.
    Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. —Author Unknown
    QUESTION OF THE WEEK: Out in California state, a 90-year-old man shot a 31-year-old burglar three times. The old man received a gunshot wound to his face. Now the burglar, who is also a drug abuser, has sued the old man for negligence because the burglar, on trial for burglary and attempted murder, has suffered financial hardship; he lost his house and is getting divorced.
    Page 3 of 3 - The question of the week: Am I wrong to think the only negligence was the old man’s failure to kill the intruder?
    Have a relaxing weekend, and work hard at your job next week.

      • calendar