RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously??

RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

subtlebutterfly -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 8:55:08 AM)
LMFAO yea very sacred[:D] I agree with igor..science aint that perfect and I doubt the technology was as well on it's way back in 1995 as it is now. However I don't know, my granpa has this disease that is inherited. My dad didn't get tested for it until I was around ..16 or sum, even though he doesn't have it I mean heck it could just be a recessive gene..maybe it could pop up in me one day, or my kids (if I were to have one..but anyway) I don't really know much about genetics, but I did read sometime that recessive genes may just need a little push to come forward, same thing with hidden diseases..you maybe fall and the disease strikes with full power. You always take some risk, there's no guarantee - especially not when it comes to conception. The science isn't perfect heck it wasn't many years (k decades) ago that people didn't think it was possible to go out in space. I just can't possibly justify that the bank should be held liable. Is it justifiable that they want to sue the bank? of course...but is it justifiable enough? I don't believe it is. We have to draw the line somewhere.

FullCircle -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 3:37:26 PM)
The lawsuit is nonsense the analogy is incorrect because it is like me suing a car manufacturer for a car I never bought. She wouldn't have existed at all since you can't separate the defective from the rest of the genes that make her who she is. Injury was not caused it always existed, it's not as if she could have had a perfectly normal life if only she didn't have that father. Just an exercise in money grab, the mother can sue for getting a defective daughter perhaps, if she thinks of her daughter as a product. Let us be realistic the 13 year old isn't suing anyone; her parents are and they are terming it in ways to not make it look like they hate what they got.

aravain -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 4:00:59 PM)
~FR~ (I didn't read the article, it wouldn't play nice for some reason) I don't even think screening is required in the US... however, if the sperm bank had stated "Yep, we screened for all of those diseases" or the parents paid extra to have it done then, well, they're liable. shrug I haven't got a soul to sue for having arthritis, a genetic auto-immune disorder, and a mental illness at 21... just like anyone who has a disease that can be tested for but was a natural-birth doesn't, and while I understand it might not hold a candle to whatever this girl's gone through, I don't see why suing someone for being alive makes sense.

Vendaval -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 4:19:26 PM)
Fast Reply - Anyone here remember the Beavis and Butthead episode where they go down to the sperm bank to try and raise cash for rock concert tickets? One of them fills up all the jars by himself. lmao [8D]

kazzaslave -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 4:20:04 PM)
~FR~ Fragile X can be passed on from either the mother or the father, so it's possible that there was a recessive gene on her mother's side and that's where she got it. Unless they still have some of her father's sperm it's almost impossible to prove conclusively that it's the sperm bank's fault this girl has Fragile X. kazza

DarkFury -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 5:26:14 PM)
Which brings up a point: if the defective gene was passed through the sperm, then what responsibility has to fall on the donor?

Kirata -> RE: is nothing sacred I mean...seriously?? (4/9/2009 8:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 I believe the article said the girl was 13 wasn't she? Meaning she would have been conceived about 14 years ago or about 1995. Did the technology even exist at that time to test for genetic defects of that nature? If not, then I really don't see how the sperm bank could be held responsable for not detecting a defect for which there was no test available. Exactly. I agree that all due diligence should be required, and that liability for negligence is just. Where the legal system is crazy, in my opinion, is here: Donovan does not have to show that Idant was negligent, only that the sperm it provided was unsafe and caused injury. "It doesn't matter how much care was taken," says Daniel Thistle, the lawyer representing Donovan, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. K.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

1.757813E-02