World-First: Woman Becomes Pregnant After Ovarian Tissue Graft 87
brindafella writes "When an Australian woman, Vali, was diagnosed with cancer, and treated, she was not looking at a good outcome. Yet, TWO cancer treatments later, she is pregnant with twin girls. Her ovaries were sectioned and frozen before the cancer treatment. She has had her own flesh implanted outside her pelvis. Eggs were gathered, IVF techniques used later with her male partner, and her uterus is now carrying two viable girls due to be born in about 3 months. Melbourne IVF's Associate Professor Kate Stern has explained the process today."
Re:A Fetus Holocaust (Score:0, Insightful)
I have a problem with it. There are enough children being that we don't need to push for more.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a Star Trek: TNG episode where LaForge gets stranded in a planet with a romulan, which says to him that should he have been born a romulan he would never be allowed to develop/grow up, due to having his genetic defect in his eyes.
The logic behind was very similar to yours. I found it cruel when I watched it, and I still do, but it's hard to deny the benefits to society.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe I'm defending ST:TNG, but the whole point of that episode is that LaForge, despite his birth defect, was still one of the most, if not the most competent non-android on The Enterprise. Sure, his visor allowed him to see, so technology bridged the gap (and then some, frankly I couldn't figure out why everyone in the Federation wasn't using them), but LaForge was a highly intelligent man. His blindness didn't make him less intelligent.
My great-grandmother was totally blind from about the age of nine. She lived to be in her early 90s, lead a pretty amazing life, not to mention being one of my sires (which I'm very grateful for). She didn't super-duper technobabble glasses, but she had ropes strung around her yard to guide her along along with other ingenious aids that allowed her to function, and lived on her own for six or seven years after her second husband died until about six months before she died. She cooked, she cleaned and raised two children. She was also an incredible musician who could play just about any damned instrument; violin, concertina, guitar, piano, recorder. I feel very lucky that I got to know her.
The one thing I learned from all of this is that you cannot tell what a person, even with some fairly substantial disability will be capable of. I don't want to live in the kind of society that would have viewed that woman as a burden.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Acknowledging a fact, and advocating for it are two different things. I hope one day you realize the difference.
I Acknowledge that from 100,000 years ago to roughly 10,000 years ago being born blind or with any such handicap was a death sentence. If not by nature then by fellow tribesmen who can't afford to take on an extra burden of someone who can't do anything.
I Acknowledge that from about 10,000 years ago to only 200 or so years ago, being born with a handicap entitled you to a short life at worst. At best depending on your class, creed, and culture you might live a semi productive life.
We have the tools now to overcome our limitations, but those won't last long. How long is up to debate.
So I Acknowledge the fact that without those tools we will be back to viewing those things as burdens.
Yet with them a handicapped person, baring prevention by class and creed, can live a full productive life.
Do I advocate for those things to happen? No, I do admit that these facts exist.
I admit that while wrong to anthromorphize nature by saying nature doesn't care, but it is the best way to describe it.