MPs say yes to three-person babies

I'm not dead set against this - I recognise that it can be a great help to many childless couples.

But we've got to be careful - this is just another step closer to us playing 'God' - I've got severe reservations about that.

Think I've got to read more about this and give it some consideration before I could even attempt to give some sort of informed opinion on it.

originally posted by: Misterlondon
One step closer to a real life frankenstein

No, not if you actually have a clue about the science.

This a real positive step. The fact that there has been years of intense debate and consideration shows that common sense will move things onwards for the benefit particularly of those babies born (or unborn) with defects which result in misery and death. Science, properly applied, is a force for good..

Regards

In genetics, what has been done, can't be undone. Wow! How can you say yes to something that hasn't been done..unless it has been done already? Not that would make any difference. Very dodgy stuff. Like, we have a hundred years of flight, yet highly sophisticated aircraft still fall out of the sky, or fall out of the sky, and go missing. Here we are ready to piss about with the unborn after but a few cocky years of genetics using a third party, That's called breeding in any other form. I tell you something, it had better be good!

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978


I feel your pain, I really do.

Nicely put.

Thank you

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: nullafides

So you disagree with IVF treatment then??.

I believe that what I said is pretty straightforward and ready for digestion.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Misterlondon
One step closer to a real life frankenstein

No, not if you actually have a clue about the science.

This a real positive step. The fact that there has been years of intense debate and consideration shows that common sense will move things onwards for the benefit particularly of those babies born (or unborn) with defects which result in misery and death. Science, properly applied, is a force for good..

Regards

Nicely worded.

But I respectfully disagree with your statement.

I am all for good science.

However there is something of the unethical about this.

Firstly the ''three parent'' thing is something MSM have latched on to as there wouldn't actually be three parents, just a splice of mDNA from a donor.

I do believe that sometimes some people that cannot pass on their DNA by reproduction perhaps shouldn't try forcing it, perhaps it just wasn't meant to be. Perhaps it is natural selection, there could be other things as yet undiscovered about their genetics or other areas that are best not passed to new generations.

Additionally it is playing around in an area where there could be unknown consequences, there are reports that it could cause increased risk of cancer and the possibility of other debilitating conditions, making the genetically engineered offspring requiring constant checks all their lives.

It also allows scope for messing around in the human gene pool and it isn't necessarily an incorruptible area of science, there could be unscrupulous labs seeing it as an okay for practicing eugenics for the right money.

Perhaps screening for such genetic diseases is a better idea.

What if this became commonplace and they could force you to go through with it if you have any known genetic predispositions? Would people consider you unfit if you chose not to genetically "vaccinate" your child?

Just throwing that out there. A lot can happen in a few decades.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Slippery slop fallacy. Denied. This is about curing genetic diseases by surrogating mitochondrial DNA. Not super humans, not Termibator babies, not genetic pick n mix.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Slippery slop fallacy. Denied. This is about curing genetic diseases by surrogating mitochondrial DNA. Not super humans, not Termibator babies, not genetic pick n mix.

Not yet.

I am torn. On one hand I wish every person to experience the joys of having a child, but on the other this is not how it should be done. So many things can go wrong. I feel sorry for those who can't copulate the natural way, but for the sake of the natural balance, it doesn't take a long bearded man on the top of mountain to know this is not wise and can lead to many problems.

Also, millions of children are living homeless and orphaned, can't people who can't have children adopt those that have no family?

I just hope this is what it is..........................used only for good.

Yes, its a step forward though probably be used incorrectly, it still has potential for good uses and for progress, further strides.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: xuenchen

Nope developed at Newcastle Uni by Prof Doug Turnbull.

www.ncl.ac.uk...


Just to add this will effect 150 babies a year not a massive amount so don't get all scared about super humans just yet folks lol.

Not JUST YET? Wow, that sure is comforting boymonkey... :/


You simply can't disagree that this could go very, very wrong.


I'm sorry, but I will not be happy the day the rich can buy their smart beautiful baby while I have to "play genetic lottery" like the rest of the commoners.



Oh and you know what? As horrible as it is, some people are just not meant to have kids. There's a thing called ADOPTION you know? Where already born children are looking for loving parents?


But aww, you can't choose a blondie when all they have is redheads huh...

originally posted by: smurfy
In genetics, what has been done, can't be undone. Wow! How can you say yes to something that hasn't been done..unless it has been done already? Not that would make any difference. Very dodgy stuff. Like, we have a hundred years of flight, yet highly sophisticated aircraft still fall out of the sky, or fall out of the sky, and go missing. Here we are ready to piss about with the unborn after but a few cocky years of genetics using a third party, That's called breeding in any other form. I tell you something, it had better be good!

And in a few decades humanity will be *shocked* when it's genetics are thoroughly f*d up, but hey, at least our superiors will have known all along what games were being played, so they will likely have remained "pure".

Maybe we can freeze them along with the seeds in Svalbard.

originally posted by: paraphi
This a real positive step. The fact that there has been years of intense debate and consideration shows that common sense will move things onwards for the benefit particularly of those babies born (or unborn) with defects which result in misery and death. Science, properly applied, is a force for good..

Exactly. Here, we have a bunch of people, who don't know ONE THING about the scientific research and study behind it, suggesting that it's somehow dangerous, Frankenstein-like and that we're "playing God"... Do you think the UK would be going forth with it if they weren't very certain that it will be safe?

Yes, we have disasters happen sometimes as a result of scientific progression: The Hindenburg, Space Shuttle Columbia, Thalidomide, DDT. But we have overwhelming advancements in making life better for our society and future generations, too.

As regards "playing God", we play God ALL THE TIME. Anytime we have a war, exercise the death penalty, use contraception or IVF, use a surrogate, have an abortion, euthanize a pet, take medicine, cure a disease, use stem cells, etc., we are "playing God". Each of us has our own personal "line", which we wouldn't cross, but it's unfair and selfish to say that NO ONE should cross OUR line.

Once again, if you don't think it's right, don't do it. But for those who can't have a child because of this disease, it cold be a "Godsend".

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

You misunderstand what survival of the fittest really means.

It means:

Who has the best mating strategy that allows them to live long enough to have offspring who will then go off and have offspring one day?

I'd rather someone's maximized mating strategy to be utilizing technology in a lab then by something such as...say rape.

To say that this is wrong isn't really up to you. If three people can have an offspring that is healthier and stronger, they have maximized their own mating strategy and have essentially become the "fittest".

Did you know that male bedbugs rip open female bed bugs bellies in order to inject sperm closer to their ovaries as a mating strategy that results in a severe physical detriment for the female's health?

Is human technology really so bad as a mating strategy?

Not really in my opinion.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Again, slippery slope fallacy.

Ground Zero is to be found here in this link.
en.wikipedia.org...

I am really enjoying this thread and at this point I am leaning towards be careful what you wish for.
Regards, Iwinder

I get the impression that a lot of people commenting, don't actually understanding what process is being performed.

The DNA that makes the child is not being altered, or added to in any way, shape or form. The child will have 2 genetic parents, the same as the rest of us.

For animal cells to work, they require a component called mitochondria. Mitochondria are not you, you cannot make mitochondria. There is no mitochondria in sperm.. Mitochondria is inherited exclusively through the female line.

The purposes of mitochondria is to convert food, into energy that a cell can use.

When an egg is fertalised, it already contain mitochondria. When the cell divides, some mitochondria ends up in one cell, and some in the other. The mitochondria in each half also divide within the cells they reside. This continues in every cell.

They have their own DNA, a cell within a cell, but their DNA has no effect on the growth of the organism within which they reside.

So, you could in theory, remove an unfertalised egg, remove all of the mitochondria from the cell, then replace it with mitochondria from any donor (male or female) and they should continue to power the cell and, as stressed over and over, have no effect on the development of the child.

The analogy would be like changing faulty batteries in an electrical device. Nobody thinks that if you take the batteries out of you radio, and put them in your torch, that the lights won't work but you will be able to pick up FM.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Look at the mosquito now one way of looking at it would be to say it has killed more people
than anything else.
Another way would be to say thank god for the mosquito it forced man to build an ammunity
so now are species is strong.
The point is leave nature alone it knows what its doing more than us its been doing it longer.
But here we come to make it better lol.