...was is really ethical to modify this young boy by removing his third arm?

Maybe he was the first step in becoming this guy. XD

Who's to say two arms are "normal" anymore, especially since he was born that way. Sure, its a mutation, but isn't that the way its supposed to work? Perhaps we're trying to make the next evolutionary step to we can drive, fire AND eat at the same time! I guess the real test will come when his children inherit the 3rd arm and its fully functional.

Last edited: Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 1:42:19 PM

^ Robert Tilton Impression. No but really, if Our Lord gave him three arms, we have no right to tinker with his descisions. He decided this boy would have three arms, then he shall have three arms. It is not our place to moderate God's will.

The problem here, Jadewind, is you need to prove it was God's will.
How do you know? Why did God do it?
God granted us the intelligence and tech to fix areas of medical error, why not use it?
Why don't I have three arms?
Your statements just leave you wide open for retaliation.

That kid would be awesome at juggling.

Then again, maybe this is what the other hand was meant for...

Three

Demo

Mama?

@Jadewind |ATFR| |VT|

Ok if it was gods will and god is of corce perfect.
why where both left arms not fully functional.

Edit : And is it fair the the kid what do he do to deverve it.

Last edited: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at 9:09:21 AM

Science is study by TESTING. If there is no testing involved then its NOT scientific.

B

^ ok if you want to be technical yes.

But it still deffines WHAT we CAN do!!
If I wanted to be complete I'd have a post that would be a book.

Last edited: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at 8:01:44 PM

I think everyone here (even evolutionists and atheists) understand that it is an impossibility to prove that it was God's will. I think we all know I can't reach into heaven and pull out a "Divine Approval Form" out of God's desk. But if it was God's way of showing his power and proving his sufficient grace, I believe that they should have at least let the kid age until he could decide for himself whether or not he wanted his 3rd arm removed. Now, with that established I can honestly say that if the kid was dying from the arm's sheer precense, they should obviously remove the arm. I don't know the full story, though, so I can't state a solid comment. All I want to establish is that what was done to that kid was wrong. I just hope that you will open your minds to this and seriously consider it, even if you are an atheist or an evolutionist.

It was morally right to remove the third arm by surgery as it was a disadvantage to the kid, and would be a disadvantage to any human being.

Would you want a third arm?

Quiet... Thought so.

It's a disadvantage. It gives you nothing, but takes a lot away.
You would be definied throughtout your life with adjectives such as creepy, odd, ugly, unnatural, etc.

If it wouldn't been removed I believe that he would have been shamed of it and tried hide it under his clothes.
Two arms are normal, because everyone else have two arms.

About circumcising young boys: That is on the other hand morally wrong, because circumcised penis isn't something someone needs to have to be normal. Young boys should be kept untouched and let them choose if they want to get circumcised once they grow-up to the legal age.

Circumcition isn't good for the health of penis. It's not natural to be cut. As matter of fact by cutting the penis it is halfly murdered. Circumcition denudes(makes it ~25% shorter), desensitizes, disables, disfigures, disrupts circulation, harms the developing brains, is always risky, harms mothers, violates patients' rights, violates human rights and without saying is unhygienic and unhealthy.

You obviously never walked around a high school locker room.

But then it hurts.

Half? Come on...I don't know about you, but I'd say only about 1/5 or 1/6th murdered.

Desensitizes, disables, disfigures

Nope, Nope and are you serious? You mean mine actually wasn't disfigured for the first two days of life?

^I'm with Triv on this one. I think that cutting off part of a baby solely because of societal norms is just plain barbaric. There is no health reason for this procedure to be done. It is in fact NOT recommended because of health reasons i.e. The chance of infection, or severe mutilation. Personally I think that if health insurance companies did not pay for it the practice would quickly disappear.

Now on to the main topic of this thread.

First here is some basic biology. Birth defects are caused by both genetic and developmental errors.

Genetic birth defects: These can be passed on to the next generation and are caused by mutations to the DNA (point, frameshift, additions, deletions, etc.) These happen biologically at a steady rate due to transcriptional errors but these can be greatly increased by environmental influences.

Developmental birth defects: These cannot be passed on to the next generation as they are not caused by a change to the DNA. These are caused by many factors (vitamin deficiency, temperature, chemicals, and more) and are much more common then genetic mutations.

Now for the baby in discussion this is a developmental birth defect. This trait cannot be passed on to the next generation. This is a common defect that occurs in all vertebrates.

As to the ethical ramifications of the parents having the arm removed, I say they were correct. As one who has had corrective surgery to fix a developmental birth defect I believe that I can say this: The child's life will be much better with only having a scar than carrying around a non-functional appendage. If the boy was much older it would be much more traumatic to have the arm removed. It might also cause his usable left arm to lose some of its function if the third arm is not removed at infancy.

As to the argument that it is wrong because God made him that way Jadewind. It must also be wrong to fix congenital heart defects as well. So if we fix a defective heart so that the infant doesn't die it must be going against God's will. = evidence that too much religion makes you stupid.

I dunno about you, but I'd want a functional third arm. If it isn't functional, go ahead, cut it off.

Kung-Fu Prodigy here man, opponent has 2 arms 2 legs.. And you have 3 arms 2 legs. Wow, that brings dual wielding to shame...

Seriously though.. If his third arm wasn't functional, the doctors did him a favor by cutting it off. Saves him hell in school and whatever cancer that arm might produce.

This died long ago.