Re: The Evolution of Saving Sick Foetus's
Posted by Kathleen Eykamp on Feb 27, 2004 at 00:49
(211.29.136.11)Re: The Evolution of Saving Sick Foetus's (Mike Kremer)
And malformations, don't forget. My friend had a clef uterus (heart-shaped), therefore couldn't hold conception. Her mother had the same problem but gave birth to one, healthy girl. Her decision was whether to let her line expire, have it repaired then prepared her daughters, or a surrogate. She elected the first, and they adopted.
I have to wonder how a donor feels should she/he ever run across a mutant, spared at birth, but the law enrolling said donor eventually.
So, what did you see wrong with suggesting a family donor - someone that has a likeness, an emotional attachment and interest in the whole outcome, instead of shooting arrows into the dark? As with stem cell research, as yet, no one can give you all the prognoses possible, especially while crossing species. Like the "Forced Mutation showing Evolution in Action", article, that only supports the basic causes for the initial diseases presenting in the animals - eating fetal mater and animal protein contamination. As for chickens and cattle being so vulnerable, you only need to realize they don't live on meat, so don't have the natural immunities to counter meat and fetal spread diseases when ingested. The fact THESE diseases (MCD and Chicken Flu) are killing most of their hosts in in succession, where, when pigs or cats transmutate, they don't contract the disease, but carry it ... in their flesh and excretions, ie E Coli plays a part.
And I agree that, if a pregnancy seems unstable or a birth so unviable as to be a burden and of no contributing ability whatsoever, don't break the bank trying to save it, as it will most certainly break the bank, your heart and possibly your mental and physical health if you don't fully consider the diagnosis and subsequent possible prognoses.
So we don't disagree on all things, and I thank you for your considerate rebuttal.