Ash Wednesday 2001 
 
If some of you have been looking for me online (AIM or livejournal), sorry 
for the lack of advance warning, but I'm abstaining from Netscape on fast 
days this Lent.  I'm doing that and giving blood for Lent (which reminds 
me, I should make an appointment for next week or something). 
 
So, this being a religious day and all, I thought I might say a few words 
regarding issues dealing with fertility, fetuses, and other life-related 
topics.  Right now I'm reading an article (on Lynx... =not= the evil 
Netscape) on trying to use ultrasound to screen for Down's Syndrome (or 
more specifically to use it as a noninvasive way to decide whether one 
should undergo amniocentesis).  I realize this is just an AP wire, so the 
story is short, but could somebody tell me is there any other reason to 
check for Down's Syndrome ahead of time other than to decide to abort the 
fetus?  I mean, does advance knowledge of Down's Syndrome in one's child 
help in taking care of the child once it's born?  Or is it just pressure 
to not give birth to the child?  I know that people with Down's Syndrome 
tend to have heart troubles, so perhaps prenatal screening might allow 
certain heart conditions to be taken care of prenatally.   
 
Another question, this time regarding embryonic stem cell research or 
fetal cell research -- where are the tissues coming from?  Embryonic stem 
cell research isn't banned in the U.S. (it's just that the federal govt 
won't fund it, which won't stop companies wishing to patent genes and 
medicine resulting from such research), and I'm sure =someone= in the 
world is doing this, so I want to know where the tissue is coming 
from.  The obvious answer is extra embryos created using in vitro 
fertilization, but then I assume the people who provided the sperm & eggs 
had to give permission for the embryos to be used in such a manner.  If 
they didn't give permission, it makes me wonder, but then a reference to 
eggs harvested from fetuses also made me wonder (this was in reference to 
human cloning attempts).  People talk about how many dilemmas have 
sprouted from modern infertility treatments, not considering they wouldn't 
be in this mess in the first place if they didn't think reproduction was a 
commodity to be bought and sold (or, even worse, a right that other people 
must fund).   
 
One thing I was thinking about is what's wrong with using fetuses from 
miscarriages for medical research (if one has the relative's permission, 
of course)?  As far as I know, I may be setting up a straw man - perhaps 
the only groups who think this beyond the pale for research also think 
people donating their bodies for medical research are also beyond the 
pale.  I know that some want to bar fetuses from abortions from being used 
in research, by saying they don't want to encourage people to have 
abortions by making them feel that their act will contribute to medical 
science.  Well, last time I checked, people don't feel better about 
killing someone to provide cadavers to medical students.  If a person 
believes abortion is murder, then saying the corpse will be useful 
shouldn't make them feel any better.  If a person doesn't believe abortion 
is murder, then the research donation isn't going to make them feel better 
because they already don't feel bad.  I wonder if prisoner's bodies, esp. 
from executions, are considered acceptable in medical research.  I know 
sometimes that people who die who have no relatives to come forward to 
claim the body are considered automatic donations to medicine (it depends 
on the state - I believe Texas is the most lenient in this regard).   
 
I know none of this is pretty, but then very few of my posts are 
pretty.  There is so much "unseen" in our society, though much of the ugly 
info is available to be seen.  This pertains to medical research (and, no, 
I've not seen how they use the monkeys, cats, and rats for vision 
research, but I have an idea what is done), trash collection and storage, 
prisons, and even education.   
 
On a different note, here's a quote from another article: 
 
   "The culture focuses on 16-to-19-year-old kids as the ultimate 
expression of who we are.  That's your sexiest time, that's your smartest 
time," Rushkoff said. "The problem with that is it creates a world in 
which teens don't have adulthood to aspire to anymore.  They think of 19 
or 20 as the end and not the beginning." 
                       
 
19 years old as your smartest time?  I don't know if there are any 
19-yr-olds out there reading this, but when I was 19 I felt my 
intellectual peak thus far had occurred when I was 14.  Sure, I had 
=learned= more between 14-19, but some of my sharpness had fallen 
off.  Now I don't feel sharp at all, but I do feel wiser.  I'm slower in 
reaching conclusions now, but that's because I have much more information 
to contend with and integrate.  In any case, 19 years old was the end for 
me - the end of childhood.  Basically because when I was 19 I started 
saying "When my parents were my age, they were engaged.  When my 
grandmothers were my age, they were already married."  Now I'm at the age 
by which my Ma's mother had had all 6 of her children, and my own mother 
had had all 3 of hers.   
 
I do wonder about those who must receive a constant stream of pap from TV, 
CDs, DVDs, PCs, etc. in order to be able to live with themselves.  Yes, 
I'm an info junkie, but I can stop anytime... honest!  Actually, when I 
was a kid, it was very difficult for my parents to punish me.  The best 
thing they ever came up with, in terms of "grounding", was to forbid me 
from using the computer or play on my Casio Keyboard.  If they told me to 
go to my room - well, I had lots of books in there.  They couldn't tell me 
I wasn't allowed to =read=.  As it was, I could be happy just lying in 
bed, daydreaming.  I loved how there was really no way to punish me. 
 
My head hurts.  Tea time, I think.