It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Three-parent IVF' may be made legal in UK, says minister

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

'Three-parent IVF' may be made legal in UK, says minister


www.in dependent.co.uk

The controversial technique known as "three-parent IVF" came a step closer yesterday after the Department of Health asked the fertility regulator to conduct a public consultation into its acceptability.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.channel4.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Scientists create three-parent embryos
Creation of 'three-parent babies' moves closer




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
O_o well then, shall we begin the public consultation about three parent children and morals and god and stem cells or shall we just admit this is probably the most insane thing we've ever read?

on the flip side, I know at least one person is going to point out the benefits for persons who may be sterile or have other medical issues, so I'll leave the debate to the pro's. the headline alone made me feel quite sick, but this is a follow up to the story I saw yesterday, now they are speaking of legality.

search showed only 2 threads from 2008 and 9, I am suprised muchly that this has not been posted yet.

peace, kk.

www.in dependent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

ed: I haven't posted many of my own threads, if this is in the wrong place by all means repair my failures.
edit on 19/1/2012 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


Dear whatsinaname,

We continue to play God and change basic human genetics. We have absolutely no idea what the results of such gene splicing may do to people. What is wrong with natural selection, I always sort of liked nature. Peace and thanks for posting the article.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
my theory is that there will be stores in the future where you can hire children
over night rental of a toddler $7.00
a newborn $10
twins $11

and every tuesday $2 madness

and when your finished you just stick them through the little gap in the door, they get a needle and go back into hibernation all lined up like a video shop.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stopmakingsense
 


personally I drew a conclusion to that film where they predict how long a person will live at birth, and this one guy outlives the prediction but has to hide from the cops cause he is an anomaly to society in their 'perfect' world. he ends up modifying his height and entire appearence, and passes a dna test through sheer luck that the doctor winks at him as if to say 'I get the deal, get out of here' and then they go to space.

but -that- is far more disturbing a thought than life expetancy prediction and enforcement.

ed: reminds me of the human trees in the matrix now that I think about it.
edit on 19/1/2012 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


you talking about gattaca?
i dont believe in genes and all that stuff.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


Dear whatsinaname,

We continue to play God and change basic human genetics. We have absolutely no idea what the results of such gene splicing may do to people. What is wrong with natural selection, I always sort of liked nature. Peace and thanks for posting the article.

There is no gene splicing involved in this instance. It is ectoplasm transplant. Yeah, mitochondria, part of the ectoplasm, also contain genes, but they are transplanted in totality without any splicing. Sort of like organ transplant in fully grown human beings.

Do you find organ transplants too as playing God?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Dear Observor,



There is no gene splicing involved in this instance. It is ectoplasm transplant. Yeah, mitochondria, part of the ectoplasm, also contain genes, but they are transplanted in totality without any splicing. Sort of like organ transplant in fully grown human beings. Do you find organ transplants too as playing God?


Lets start with mitochondria, isn't that only passed on by the mother and isn't that the little thing that lets us trace back the ancestry of all people to a single original mother? The genetics that the final child has is therefore partly do to the mitochondria. It is not like organ transplants because it is part of the source code that determines what the final being will be like. As for organ transplants, that does not change your genetic code or determine what you will be like, so, I am not necessarily against organ transplants.

If you believe in natural selection then let natural selection occur. How far down the line do we go with "creating" new types of people. I am very much against transhumanism, we should progress at out own pace. At a natural pace rather than a manufactured pace where we do not know the consequences. Peace.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


I don't bring god into the equation, if you screw with the natural order of things bad things happen, like zombies and hitler. its like an unwritten rule we all know but some choose to ignore. your organs are your organs, I believe I do have the issue there aswell, do you not? it makes me sick to think someone could tear my heart out and use it to further their own life, less so in the case of aiding someone, but frankly im a smoker so you don't want this.

"Fry: Uh-oh. Is this gonna be one of those crazy experiments that crosses a line man was not meant to cross?
[Professor puts his index and thumb close together in the "a little" sign] "

>_> see, I imagine exactly this when I think of three parents making a kid, that and how the heck they would explain that when they grow up. "hi, this is my mom, and my mom, and my dad"...

ed: I agree muchly against transhumanist view, and I played the new deus ex which focuses entirely on the subject, humanity should decide what to do with the technology, not the scientists or the government, experiments like this cross the thin line remaining that we shouldn't pass, we do not and cannot know the long term effects of these experiments, the same as the idea that pumping sulphur into the atmosphere 'might' help stem global warming, but will probably kill us a bit aswell if you realise what your actually saying.

has no one played the metal gear series? human genome project gone wrong, cloning soldiers, think they wouldn't do it if they could?! do not hold your breath
edit on 20/1/2012 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)


(this and other transhuman technologies are all a push toward eugenics again and I will never support it.)
edit on 20/1/2012 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 


Dear whatsinaname,

I did not bring God into the equation either. I did not say that anyone should or should not believe in God. I said that we should not attempt to play God and then I explained that playing God was doing things without enough understanding, taking actions without knowing the impact because of greed or other selfish reasons. One does not need to believe in a "God" in order to understand that man does not have sufficient understanding of the technologies that he is using to make "good" choices. Consider the psycho in Scandinavia that spliced the bird flu with the swine flu in order to make it airborne and capable of killing half of all people, how was this a good idea? Personally, I don't understand how an Atheist, Christian, Jew or Muslim or anyone else could feel comfortable with a very few scientists conducting gene splicing and possibly creating diseases that can kill us all. By the way, I agree with the movie Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way". Why take any chance of killing us all? Peace.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
Lets start with mitochondria, isn't that only passed on by the mother and isn't that the little thing that lets us trace back the ancestry of all people to a single original mother? The genetics that the final child has is therefore partly do to the mitochondria.

Yes, mitochondria contain genes and are inherited exclusively from the mother. But if all the genetic material in the mitochondria were traceable all the way to the mitochondrial eve, then all of the mitochondria in every person should be the same, except for some recent mutations and then what they are proposing to do should have absolutely zero effect, right?

It is not like organ transplants because it is part of the source code that determines what the final being will be like. As for organ transplants, that does not change your genetic code or determine what you will be like, so, I am not necessarily against organ transplants.

They are not changing genetic code either. They are mixing the genetic code of 3 people instead of the two it normally happens and they are doing it without picking any specific charcteristics. They are not transferring genetic material from some other species.

If you believe in natural selection then let natural selection occur. How far down the line do we go with "creating" new types of people. I am very much against transhumanism, we should progress at out own pace. At a natural pace rather than a manufactured pace where we do not know the consequences. Peace.

A child of this process inherits the characters from 3 people instead of 2. Not sure what is "transhuman" about it. There is no conflict between natural selection and human intervention to have healthier human beings.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Dear Observor,

Sorry you didn't understand me, I will try again.



A child of this process inherits the characters from 3 people instead of 2. Not sure what is "transhuman" about it. There is no conflict between natural selection and human intervention to have healthier human beings.


Transhumanism, that is the idea that we can use technology to design the future of our evolution, be it by genetic manipulation or the integration of technology with humans. I would think this falls into the first category. How can you say that there is NO conflict between the choice of a few over our genetic future and natural selection? You would not know what genetic aspects of yourself were passed onto you children if a scientists chose them, you would not know which were deleted for safety or health reasons, they would lie to you, it is already part of the law. My ex cheated on me and gave me herpes, her doctor called me and I went in for a check up, I did not know she had cheated on me; but, I knew she had been married before. The doctor checked me and told me I had herpes, I later found out the law that allowed this. In cases of STDs, the doctors can treat the spouses without telling them why or how they got sick. I asked my exes doctor how it could take so long for me to get herpes (ten years), she said that anything was possible. It was all a lie and allowed by the medical and legal system. She later cheated and basically admitted it and we got divorced; but, the law allowed her and her doctor to lie. Don't trust in doctors or science to act in your best interest or keep you fully informed, that is required under the law. Peace.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
All the diseases etc. associated with trisomy are the first thing that popped into my mind, Down's Syndrome, et al...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
As long as this procedure is proven safe for the child, where is the issue? I see nothing wrong with transhumanism and human genetic engineering if regulated for the wellbeing of the children. Nature is not perfect at all. In fact, I believe we are ethically obligated to conduct such research, it could help many.

As for playing god, god gave us advanced brains capable of such feats for a reason (assuming he actually exists).

edit on 20/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsinaname
I don't bring god into the equation,

Not did I. I was responding to a post about playing God which I believe is an idiom used mean someone who believes he understands and is in control of everything.

if you screw with the natural order of things bad things happen, like zombies and hitler.

Don't know about zombies, but didn't know that Hilter was a product of genetic engineering.

its like an unwritten rule we all know but some choose to ignore. your organs are your organs, I believe I do have the issue there aswell, do you not? it makes me sick to think someone could tear my heart out and use it to further their own life, less so in the case of aiding someone, but frankly im a smoker so you don't want this.

I am not advocating tearing out organs from living people and transplanting into others with their consent. Sometime people choose to donate organs like kidneys to others even when they are alive. But most often organ donations happen when the person is dead and the organs will either rot away or be burnt to ashes. A third option of transferring them to another person whose life can be prolonged seems a very decent idea to me.

>_> see, I imagine exactly this when I think of three parents making a kid, that and how the heck they would explain that when they grow up. "hi, this is my mom, and my mom, and my dad"...

Why not leave it to be sorted out by the people involved in it? No one is being forced into this.

ed: I agree muchly against transhumanist view, and I played the new deus ex which focuses entirely on the subject, humanity should decide what to do with the technology, not the scientists or the government,

Not sure why you think those involved in this don't constitute humanity. Do you expect to take a worldwide vote before any scientists take up any research?

experiments like this cross the thin line remaining that we shouldn't pass, we do not and cannot know the long term effects of these experiments,

This is hardly an experiment. The genetic material of the child could easily have come up in nature itself, except that it didn't in this particular instance. A different sequence of marriages and intermarriages than happened could easily a produce a child with such a genetic makeup.

this and other transhuman technologies are all a push toward eugenics again and I will never support it.

Eugenics doesn't require gene splicing. In its heyday, they simply wanted to sterilise the "undesriables". Eugenicists a few centuries ago would have killed off the "undesirables". Eugenics has nothing to do with technology or the lack of it.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 





(this and other transhuman technologies are all a push toward eugenics again and I will never support it.)


So tell me, what exactly is wrong with eugenics (the science of improving human genome) if it does not use violent means?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
Transhumanism, that is the idea that we can use technology to design the future of our evolution, be it by genetic manipulation or the integration of technology with humans. I would think this falls into the first category.

Nobody is trying to design the future of our evolution, it is simply an attempt by parents looking for a way to have a child and not pass on some of their own genetic disadvantages. It is not as if anyone is mandating that that is exactly how all children should be born.

How can you say that there is NO conflict between the choice of a few over our genetic future and natural selection?

The choice that is being made is the genetic future of the two or three individuals involved, not the whole of humanity. If that worries you, so should anyone and everyone who has children by whatever the means, they are all determining your genetic future


You would not know what genetic aspects of yourself were passed onto you children if a scientists chose them, you would not know which were deleted for safety or health reasons, they would lie to you, it is already part of the law.

So your problem seems to be that you don't trust the doctors and scientists to do what they say they are doing. But that is your problem, no one is forcing you to go to the doctors and scientists to seek their help in the genetic makeup of your child. Those who trust them and need them, go to them.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I don't find anything scary or nausea inducing about this prospect. That said, at first glance I don't agree with it being offered as a therapy either. It's the natural selection argument that so far convinces me, which is why I disagree with ordinary IVF and also any fertility treatment. Basically, if you can't have kids without help, you shouldn't have them.

Then again though, I wonder have we not already created an environment in which simple natural selection no longer works and even if it did, would it produce the kind of humans that could survive a serious environmental challenge? What I mean is that our society protects people who, in a pure dog-eat-dog environment probably wouldn't survive to reproduce and in many instances I can't say that this is a bad thing. There's a reason why the pale, skinny, bespectacled geek is a stereotype - because it's often true. Yet such people have given us a lot of the technological success that improves our lives... Then there's the way natural selection works - those members of the species with traits which provide a slight advantage will leave more and/or more viable offspring than the rest. So what traits will this modern environment of ours favour?

Clearly, at least twice in recent history, being a fit, healthy young man with good eyesight, traits which ordinarily we would expect to be advantageous, would have lessened the chances of leaving many/any offspring as such men were slaughtered wholesale on battlefields. So I wonder what other factors our society contains which favour those who will statistically leave more offspring with traits which would severely disadvantage them should our modern society undergo great upheaval? Perhaps it's already too late to rely on "nature" because of "nurture"? In which case, perhaps it's necessary for us to grasp the nettle and purposefully design our future evolution, despite knowing that we're bound to make mistakes, because the consequences of not doing will be equally bad, and perhaps worse?
edit on 20/1/12 by Bunken Drum because: sp



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname


I don't bring god into the equation, if you screw with the natural order of things bad things happen, like zombies and hitler.

 


Yes, because we all know that Hitler was a lab produced zombie.


1. Zombies are fiction.
2. Hitler was part of the "natural order of things".

So this reasoning is useless.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Iam all for the human race playing God, in fact I think it's our next step in our evolution and if God is real I think he/she/it would be quite proud that we have come so close to him/she/it and maybe we may be able to outdo God one day.
Three different genetic codes in one human? why not? it may make us better humans. But of course testing needs to be done.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join