TV Schedule

"America's first 'test tube' twins turn 25"

  2. kaecvtionr
  3. related topics
"Siblings conceived in laboratory dish thankful to parents for never giving up"

"Heather Tilton and her brother, Todd Tilton II, are ordinary siblings with an extraordinary message. The first twins born in America through in vitro fertilization, they want people to know that their parents’ refusal to take “no” for an answer is as relevant today as it was when they were conceived in a laboratory 25 years ago this month."
kaecvtionr

5 responses // "America's first 'test tube' twins turn 25"

  • Creating babies from scratch should be banned. People should NOT choose eye color, hair color, skin shade, or any other attributes and characteristics. There should not be, as my teacher called it, "Build a Baby".

    Other options are adoption and other ways of fertilization, such as inserting a father's sperm into a women's egg.
    kaecvtionr
  • In this case, though, the parents didn't have the ability to pick and chose any specific characteristics. They were simply using technology to help them when they had difficulty becoming pregnant.

    As great as adoption is, it's not for everyone, and for people that have difficulty conceiving or who can't conceive naturally (for example, same-sex couples) it's great that we have these scientific advancements.
    sgwhites
  • Yes, the jump to trouncing customizable attributes and characteristics is a bit of a stretch in this case, and this type of thinking could ultimately do more harm than good.

    Sure, places offer these services, but clamping down on them could also cut out a good segment of people who's only means of conceiving is via en vitro fertilization (as sgwhites mentioned).

    Adoption is something that certainly should not be overlooked as a viable option for some would-be parents, by any means. However, it can be a complicated process, and definitely doesn't scratch that "wish to conceive" bug that often accompanies the desire to become a parent.
    mario_a
  • Banning seems like an extreme measure to be taken, especially when in vitro has given so many people the ability to have children (that otherwise could not have). I feel it should be a personal decision; if you don't like it, don't do it.
    dcuisinot
  • Too bad current and the blogosphere wasn't around 40ish years ago when invitro fertilization was hot in medical ethics. Today, simple invitro fertilization has progressed. We don't just fertilize eggs in a petri dish, we allow the fertilized egg to grow into a few cells (embryonic stem cells), separate them out and implant those individual cells....giving the potential for invitro identical twins.
    But wait, there's more. When these cells are separated, some of them are 'saved' in the freezer in case the implanted stem cells 'don't take' and the potential parents can go to the freezer and try again. But, say the implanted eggs do take and a bouncing baby girl is born. Is there the potential for her to, 25 years later, go back to the freezer and get one of those saved embryos implanted and give birth to herself?
    As for genetically selecting (and now engineering) offspring, we have been doing that for a long time with other plants/animals. There's no reason to believe we won't select (see the movie GATTACA) for our own children in the future and even genetically modify farther down the line. Unless, of course, we decide to declare science against the law.
    anjela3

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.