It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


World's first GM babies born

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim
This is awesome, I disagree with you OP, this is not frightening at all.

All of this talk of "playing god" is exactly what you people have been conditioned to think. If you think using science and technology to prolong your life is wrong then stop taking medicine of going to the hospital!

Its sooo terrible that this has occurred yet perfectly fine for you to splatter your ex-drug addicted, inherently flawed DNA with any birth-defect prone DNA holding partner of your choosing..

I do not see the future of humans in smartphones.

This is welcome news to me. I embrace medicinal technology fully, in all of its probable wretchedly disfiguring glory, arms wide open to the GM kids.

edit on 9-3-2013 by 1/2 Nephilim because: (no reason given)

You use medical technology as a glowing example? Antibiotics were heralded for their abilities etc., and now what that has done is essentially create bacteria that are worse than they were before antibiotics, and a bunch of people with all kinds of physical problems resulting from using antibiotics.

Everyone is always so thrilled about every new medical development, but NONE of them have come about without consequences, unforeseen problems.

The point here is that they know how to do these things with babies, but do they know 100% of what they are doing? Certainly not.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by thebtheb

The point here is that they know how to do these things with babies, but do they know 100% of what they are doing? Certainly not.

You may wish to detail WHERE anything in medicine is 100% guaranteed.
If you go into surgery for appendix removal, there's a chance you will die.
If you go into the dentist to have a cavity filled, there's a chance you will die.
If you go to a physician to have a wart removed, or to just have a checkup, there's always, even a small chance, you could die in just having some freak allergic reaction to the latex gloves even if you've never had a reaction before, and even if no one in the whole history of mankind has ever done so and died as a result, still, there's a chance.

Basically, anything and everything involved in medicine comes with risk, and nothing is 100% guaranteed, no matter how much you might like to think it is.

Routine procedure is typically low risk. Experimental stuff as described in the OP is certainly not without its hazards, but, all these are assessed BEFOREHAND, and agreed upon between the physician and patient as acceptable risk with fully informed and cognizant consent.

It's not like prisoners and homeless people are being experimented on.
The patients involved fully understand there's chances for things going horribly wrong and still elect to go through with the procedure.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:26 PM
This is my first post.

Human is actually another meaning for monster. Maybe a clue to how they get to legally experiment with life.

Living breathing flesh and blood is a whole different ball game isn't Dr's.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Druscilla

It's not like prisoners and homeless people are being experimented on.

editby]edit on 10-3-2013 by azureskys because: changed lots of stuff

edit on 10-3-2013 by azureskys because: (no reason given)

Exactly how do you know this as a fact ?

It all brings to memory, the Natzi so called, scientific experiments. (as I tremble in disgust and fear)

edit on 10-3-2013 by azureskys because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by azureskys because: changed words and added some corrections

edit on 10-3-2013 by azureskys because: spelling

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by GrantedBail

Most likely they will die before they are 10 years old, that's cruel to do that to a human.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:42 PM
reply to post by GrantedBail

I don't know about it being legal or illegal.. i think it would fall under ethical or unethical.

We have been experimenting with everything else and the consensus seems to be that we evolved from animals so why the heck not based on that we are no different.

what path that attitude will lead us into is unknown but there have been people in the passed obsessed with genetic manipulation.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by WhosAuthority

I thought the name "human" came from words meaning "soil" and "earth."
Although ..I agree that humans have a monstrous tendency

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:09 PM
The question to ask is... Is this unlawful or lawful?

Once the answer has been established something can be done.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by azureskys

What's the law dictionary's say?

Human being see MONSTER.
-Ballentine's Law Dictionary ( 1930 )
Monster A human being by birth, but in som part resembling a lower animal.
A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.

Sounds familiar to me, who owns their land?

Blacks Law Dictionary Second Edition
MONSTER A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage.

Worth looking into.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by GrantedBail

I realize the technology probably exists but to actually experiment with humans is frightening to me. The article talks also about cloning children. I guess that is next.

Human experimentation? Human cloning?

I realize I am part of a minority in ATS being pro-transhumanism so no need to point it out

I fully support 'playing God'.

Of course there is risk involved. Of course there are ethical concerns. The benefit this kind of tinkering could bring is nearly boundless.

When you come to understand that your statement "I fully support playing God" is the entire battle of man, as the created, against He who IS CREATOR AND GOD, perhaps you'll come to understand what exactly the Bible chronicles from the first to last page. Perhaps then you'll come to recognise what Adam's iniquity was and why Judea, prophetic of the world today, comes to reject it's Creator and chooses to release a murderer, insurrectionist and robber instead.

These children are innocent abnormalities which will pass corrupted DNA to their offspring - a kind which is not in creation. These children are victims of men who strive to kill and destroy everything of God's Creation so that their wicked internal desires to "play God" are fulfilled. That is demented and the result of reprobate minds who will only go out to do the things which should not be done. And as a result of their reprobate minds, are doing nothing but piling up charges upon their head by which they will be soundly judged and condemned.

Same thing happened before (read Enoch) and the flood.
And we think History doesn't repeat.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

I totally agree, I thought being able to change your fetus' gender, hair and eye colour was bad enough. Oh man.

posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by GrantedBail

Strictly speaking, although the eggs did receive "genetic material", the babies have not been altered. If you read the whole article, what they have done is to inject healthy mitochondria into the eggs, because the mothers' eggs had defective mitochondria. This is not an experiment on the genes in the nucleus that determine who and what you are.
Mitochondria are organelles which perform a vital function--- to provide cells with energy by making ATP. There is little variation in the DNA sequence of mitochondria from one person to another, and in fact there is little difference across species.
Nevertheless, this is just the beginning. With gene therapy we could eliminate lethal genetic defects such as Tay-Sachs. I predict this will be done without much of a fuss. But we all know what this means-- the capability to
create GM "designer babies", selecting the traits that are wanted, just like we now do with plants and animals.

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by GrantedBail

I don't plan to eat the babies so I don't see a problem here.

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:11 AM
A while back I was reading about Elysia Chlorotica, they are sea slugs that produce chlorophyll and basically go through photosynthesis like plants.

I couldn't help but imagine how cool it would be to crack their genes, and genetically modify humans to live off the sun. Sure we'd all turn green, but I'm sure we could find some cool new advantages for our green skin. All the comic book nerds that fantasize about She Hulk would probably be pretty happy with it.

Researchers have shown that once a young slug has eaten a meal of Vaucheria algae it never has to eat again as long as it has access to light and supplies of chlorophyll and other chemicals used in photosynthesis.

In 2007 scientists, including Pierce and his team, found genes related to photosynthesis in the slugs, and these genes, apparently originally from the algae, were even found in unhatched slugs that had never eaten algae. In the latest research Pierce found more algal genes, and some of them were for enzymes required for the chemical process manufacturing chlorophyll.

Pierce and his team studied slugs that had not eaten anything for at least five months and had stopped eliminating waste digestive products. They contained chloroplasts taken from the algae, but Pierce said that any other part of the algae should have long ago been digested. They gave the slug an amino acid labeled with radioactive carbon and found that the radioactive carbon turned up in the chlorophyll a molecule after the slugs had been sunbathing, but not if they had been in the dark. Read more at:

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:14 AM
Oh no.. Soulless children!

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by mahatche

Oh I can assure you I would still find green-skinned women attractive!

Happy to see other ATS members here sharing my sentiments.

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by GrantedBail

| don't much like all this tampering with DNA. We don't fully understand what all of our DNA is for, so they can't really know what will happen by mixing all these genes together.
It's great that families can get help with getting pregnant, but surely there are other ways then this?
The whole 'playing god' thing really creeps me out. So does cloning.
DNA is meant to be unique for a reason, it's not meant to be played around with.

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 03:37 AM
The only thing that comes to mind when I hear of human cloning is... Will the clone have a soul? Anybody whose watched FMA will ponder this question seriously. I would like to see it done and showcased to the world just once to see how things turn out.

I wouldn't doubt it if there was somebody out there in the world doing it in their own backyard right now.. Failing time after time.. test after test... fetus after fetus.. baby after baby.. All the blood, all the tears.. all of the moans and insanity. All in the attempt to make a homunculus...It's horrible. Can you call it murder? Can you call it madness?

edit on 11-3-2013 by Mizzijr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by Mizzijr

All that extraneous detail added to your description is almost pornographic; bloody babies screaming and dying and such.

Perspective. Let's just look at SURGERY. Period.
How many people have died in working out sound methodologies for invasive surgery?
How many people have died before medicine was "perfected" to the level of 1850?

How many discoveries were made and procedures were refined and how many people were killed or died as a result of 'medical' intervention just between the years 1850 - 1900?

Please describe the state of medical technology between 1900 - 1950.
A whole lot of headway was made that half century.
How many people died refining those procedures and making all those new discoveries?

How about all the interesting developments between 1950 - 2000 like organ transplants, artificial hearts, and a number of many other fascinating revolutions in medicine as well as new challenges?

If you were in a car accident today, in the near future, would you prefer to be treated with the pinnacle of medical technologies available now in 2013, or would you like to be treated with the medical technologies available in 2000?
You'd be surprised at the differences, and you'd be surprised at mortality demographics for some procedures even between then and now.
In just the last 10 years alone: Top 10 medical advances from 2000 - 2010

Do you realize Heart Disease deaths have dropped by 40%?

Who's mother, father, aunt, uncle, wife husband, brother, sister, or any other loved ones are alive today due technologies and procedures developed in just the last 10 years?
Who died between 1990 - 2000 that could have lived with the technologies available now?

Of course, then, we've got the sorts of people that scream their bloody heads off about "Playing God".

Once Upon a Time, simply cutting a person open for even the most minor surgery was considered "Playing God" as who else other than some magical invisible fairy dust superstition man in the sky was allowed to tinker with the very insides of a precious divinely created human, insides hidden from the rest of creation for good reason?

I swear.
Some folk just need to go back to running around naked, smeared in their own filthy excrement, cowering in bladder and bowel emptying fear at every lightning strike or act of nature.

Playing God?

Tell you what. Convert to Amish, or whatever it is they practice.
None of you will have to worry about any of these horribly disturbing advances in any sort of technology ever again.

edit on 11-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by christina-66

If a woman cannot conceive naturally nature will have a reason for it - and that reason will be for the greater good.

Really? Nature is a goddess, is she, who has 'reasons' for her behaviour? And who is always concerned for the greater good?

Please explain tsunamis, earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, plagues, parasitism, cancer (which affects all animals and even many plants) and dinosaur-killing asteroids. Please explain by what yardstick 'the greater good' is measured, and who measures it. And please explain how your statement is not 100 percent faith-based and therefore almost certainly false.


new topics

top topics

active topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in