Gene Therapy

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy[/url]

[Deb]

Yep. No messing with eggs allowed. If you were born with a disease. Live with it and offer it up.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

I don't think people should be playing God. What you may think is a cure today, may be a disease tomorrow.

[CatherineM]

It's like a lot of things, something that can be used for good, can also be misused. If they could find a gene therapy that didn't involve the destruction of human life, that would repair the arthritis that cripples me, I would certainly take it. I do offer up the pain and disability, but without them, I could do so much more.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've never advocated taking of life or reckless use of it, or sterilzing people or anything like that. maybe a few guinea pigs after monkey use etc etc with all the safeguards but that's it. that's the saem as with any medication etc where they use guinea pigs, and there's not much up and arms there.

i tend to think people knee jerked on what i was mentioning earlier, and hadn't thought about how prevanlent it is even now etc etc.

christians do have a history of resisting anything new in the name of God and then later accepting it as obvious, after all.

Edited April 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507036' date='Apr 22 2008, 07:15 PM']i've never advocated taking of life or reckless use of it. maybe a few guinea pigs after monkey use etc etc with all the safeguards but that's it. that's the saem as with any medication etc.

i tend to think people knee jerked on what i was mentioning earlier, and hadn't thought about how prevanlent it is even now etc etc.

christians do have a history of resisting anything new and then later accepting it, after all.[/quote]

Not this one. If we are discussing such things now, it is a sign that there isn't much time left. I can see God in heaven looking down on us and saying, there is only so much more time before I send my judgment on these men and women who would try to corrupt the very creation I made. They have no right, and now, they have taken their final rebellion against me.

Just to let you all know, witchcraft is stating something that is false as something that is truth, according to a friend of mine. Witches and warlocks make people believe a lie, so then they can manipulate that person. People here, right now, you have people saying all of this is positive, and it is not. It is unholy, and destructive. If I am one who stands against this, is because I don't like people saying, this is of God, when it is clearly not. It sickens me in the spirit to know people would use God to justify playing God, and therefore usurping God's authority over who is born and who is not. All of those for this topic have been bewitched by the minions of the devil, to think evil is actually good!

[Deb]

Well, this might sound weird and it has nothing to do with me being Catholic because I really haven't been Catholic all that long. I have never thought that a lot of medical procedures were natural or should even be performed. My youngest brother has had at least 15 major surgeries and has been a paraplegic since birth. Now, he is alive because of some of those but, when it comes to me, I think I would just opt for death if I was told I needed a heart transplant or be on dialysis for life etc. I find the very thought of being cut open and having parts removed as pretty yucky and unnatural. I could never let someone insert a tube into a major vein in my chest and have it sticking out forever.
I cringe at getting a tooth filled.
Gene therapy and artificial semination and all the other croutons just creeps me out.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, if you cringe at the thought of tooth fillings tubes for surgeries and such, then you're so far out, that your opinion doesn't even count....

[BeenaBobba]

This quote is from the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy"]Wikipedia article[/url] you posted:

[quote]On September 14, 1990 at the U.S. National Institutes of Health W. French Anderson, M.D., and his colleagues R. Michael Blaese, M.D., C. Bouzaid, M.D., and Kenneth Culver, M.D., performed the first approved gene therapy procedure on four-year old Ashanthi DeSilva. Born with a rare genetic disease called severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), she lacked a healthy immune system, and was vulnerable to every passing germ or infection. Children with this illness usually develop overwhelming infections and rarely survive to adulthood; a common childhood illness like chickenpox is life-threatening. Ashanthi led a cloistered existence -- avoiding contact with people outside her family, remaining in the sterile environment of her home, and battling frequent illnesses with massive amounts of antibiotics.

[b]In Ashanthi's gene therapy procedure, doctors removed white blood cells from the child's body, let the cells grow in the lab, inserted the missing gene into the cells, and then infused the genetically modified blood cells back into the patient's bloodstream. [/b]Laboratory tests have shown that the therapy strengthened Ashanthi's immune system by 40%; she no longer has recurrent colds, she has been allowed to attend school, and she was immunized against whooping cough. This procedure was not a cure; the white blood cells treated genetically only work for a few months, after which the process must be repeated (VII, Thompson [First] 1993). As of early 2007, she was still in good health, and she was attending college. However, there is no consensus on what portion of her improvement should be attributed to gene therapy versus other treatments. Some would state that the case is of great importance despite its indefinite results, if only because it demonstrated that gene therapy could be practically attempted without adverse consequences.[/quote]

Honestly, I can't come out as a full supporter of this simply because I can't wholeheartedly support something no one knows all that much about. Part of me thinks that gene therapy (like in the example above) could help save lives, but another part of me wonders if we're playing with fire. Do we really know the long-term effects? Could the risks outweigh the benefits?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know we simply have an inherent difference of opinion, but i'll leave with....

[quote]All of those for this topic have been bewitched by the minions of the devil, to think evil is actually good![/quote]

i know it wasn't intended, but that made me laugh.

people always are using God and getting a weird feeling in their "gut" (think colbert report) to justify things like that. if you asked them, there'd be no doubt about the validity of what they think based on their gut. much like muslims gut think themselves right.
the gut isn't much of a basis for making discisions.
comparing and contrasting with current methodolgy is more sound, for someone against this stuff, rather than gut speak.

so to reiterate, christians do have a history of resisting anything new in the name of God and then later accepting it as obvious, after all.

Edited April 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c