World's first Genetically Modified babies born...!

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...



Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey




Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children --a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.


I put this in this forum because it really is the origin of a new type of human. If you think about the developments in reproductive medicine and carry it out for another 50? years designer children or super kids will or can be made to order.....There are those who believe designer kids are being made even as you read this...myself I dunno; just thought the article was interesting.




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Here goes the start of slavery buy your own baby for the elite at least,hate this sick idea. This is kinda old news though...
edit on 19-4-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Makes me think of the movie "GATTACA"... S&F!!



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Ive always had this huge instinct to adopt. I dont see why I should be selfish and have my own children. What Im saying is........... with soooo many unwanted children why not simply love and give them a home.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 
I've seen a few movies that start out like this on FearNet and Chiller. Needless to say it never turns out good as by the time the children near puberty they always turn into psychotic serial killers. Baaaad mojo!


+25 more 
posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
do i need a cat avatar to comment on this thread?




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by skalla
do i need a cat avatar to comment on this thread?



Nah, you are a first responder (ATS Mystical Helper).
You are welcome in all threads and get a 10% discount on stars and flags!



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
glad to hear it, i've only just put together my new softer flowery image and would like to keep it a while


well, i've only actually skimmed the article as it is the, ugh, daily mail (yes, i'm a stuck record, sorry but i cant helpit) and then i saw the kids had genes from 3 parents.

gah! i'm with Freedom Entered, give a needy kid a home, go adoption rather than accept this kind of meddling.
edit on 19-4-2013 by skalla because: tyops



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by 727Sky
 
I've seen a few movies that start out like this on FearNet and Chiller. Needless to say it never turns out good as by the time the children near puberty they always turn into psychotic serial killers. Baaaad mojo!



Village of the Damned comes to mind with your reply....The original with the (white eyes if I remember right?) was a real classic
edit on 19-4-2013 by 727Sky because: ....



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


These public technology releases are said to be 20 years old, so imagine what has been done secretly in the area of cloning and genetic experiments.
The mind boggles.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
Ive always had this huge instinct to adopt. I dont see why I should be selfish and have my own children. What Im saying is........... with soooo many unwanted children why not simply love and give them a home.



That's a wonderful thought, makes absolutely perfect sense.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I wish humanity would stop trying to outsmart the Creator. It always ends in disaster. Let's genetically modify our scientists...



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


Completely agree with the adopting thing. Don't really want kids, but I always knew that If that changed and I wanted them I would adopt. At the very least set up a foster house for older kids that probably have never known a home.


As for the genetically modified babies? I don't agree with this, there's too many factor that can go wrong. Either accidentally or intentionally. I don't trust the system to do what it's supposed to do now, no way do I think their ready to create part of the next generation.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Oh it's a mitochondrial DNA transplant. Done by science not nature. We have officially trashed ancestry research.

Ideally someone can look at your mitochondrial DNA and trace you all the way back through your mothers' sides of the family. This traces through generations through millennia through the planet. Scientists hacked the cell, made a forgery. So now a thousand years from now, genetics preserved, some engineered lineages will record migration when they in fact didn't migrate.

They are test tube babies just the same. Just wait until cloning happens for the sake of wanting babies that had died in the womb. Delayed identical twins. Some parents have bizarre ideas of what a good child is.

On the one hand, this mitochondrial messing around can do wonders with a metabolism. On the other hand, genetic patenting monster companies like Monsanto will be all over this if they aren't already. There are going to be side effects. First, the bio-energy of the two mothers will be in conflict, only natural, so you might wind up with some mutations, like of the brain and metabolism. Kid will be so messed up: my mom is my dad?? And their offspring might be ...really interesting. Plus, viruses are going to address their world takeover plans upon reaching this engineered DNA, possibly making them mutate in ways where only the engineered people have immunities (Monsanto knows this genetic trick well with their herbicides), since many diseases are only receivable through the father's side of the family.

This is just the public discovery. Government has been experimenting with pig people, engineered, for some time, I think. Making a wider "grey area" for bending the laws about humanity.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
So we're speeding towards 8 billion people and they're putting time and money into fertility?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Threads like this and the ensuing dialogue are why I love ATS.

About spending money on fertility, should we spend more money on death instead? Just saying.

And like we don't need super-babies, we just need more responsible parents. Which I guess ties into the adoption thing, which I personally agree with, it's like we've given up on nurturing and are just going to try to nature the heck out of future generations. Does that make sense? Extended families and communities used to raise children, now we have latch-key kids and all that..love to go into to this more, see if I could tie this into some grand conspiracy theory, but I gotta run.

By the by, can I say heck on ATS? Or the locational equivalent?



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This can be used for good things . First many of us (humans that is have genetic flaws .
No more downs syndrome no more diabetes . And many other genetic defects will be able to be stopped before the kids even consived . But you all like way out Dumb ideas so here's one for you .
Mars does have atmosphere it does have o2 co2 methane nitrogen and so one .
as a matter of fact mars has every thing humans need to live .Only problem is the cold and low pressure.
So desine a human with 4 times lung composited add in harden skin without pores .
the ability to get its nutrition from mineral's directly and retain 100% of its water .
wouldn't this be faster then spending a 1000 years trying to terria form mars ?
Or better yet a human that can absorb enough o2 from water Aqua man .
Or a human with hollow bones and wings (hey we have wanted to fly like birds for about 10000 years now we can.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
By what I see in the world these days....this is what I see of the future with this.:

"Babies must be genetically modified (At birth or womb, how ever the process go's), in order to meet the "requirements" of everyday life.

If the baby isn't modified you are not allowed to have a baby at all (possibly the baby will be killed)

Genetically modifying your baby will cost $300 + any extra modifications added."

Great, now you also have to pay in order to reproduce. If you don't then you will either still have to pay or an abortion, or spend 9 months of pregnancy and then have your baby removed and killed since they will be "useless".



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Human "ingenuity" knows no bounds. Experimentation with genetic modifications and combinations is increasing exponentially. Whatever can be done will be done by someone somewhere whether outlawed or not. Perhaps the creatures of ancient mythology were not mythical after all. It's just a matter of time before the "mythical" creatures of the past, such as satyrs (half-man half-horse) are again seen prancing about in public and perhaps even demanding equal rights under the law such as the right to marry other formerly "mythical" creatures. This reminds me of the story of the Tower of Babel where the "gods" confused mankind's languages lest mankind "become as gods themselves" able to do anything they might imagine.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'm all for gene therapy, and I believe it is incredibly important for the future of medicine, but this seems relatively suspect. What 'science' is there in this? Hasn't the human genome project definitively proven that we don't quite know - haven't even got an inkling of a clue - what causes things to take on the physical form that they take on? That the human genome is practically identical to the mouse genome, and yet a mouse and a human are astronomically different, basically says there is more to the form a thing takes on then it's genes.

Additionally, all disease is gene related, even though at this juncture in time we don't know what gene causes what process to occur that results in a specific disease. In the case of ALS, for example, 200 possible genes are implicated. And then after we've identified the particular genes, we have to figure out how - in what order - these genes set off a particular disease.

Having a 3rd set of unique genes is something absolutely novel. Nature has never worked this way; it's always been 2 sets of genes, a mother and father, which determine the characteristics of the offspring. Isn't introducing a 3rd set, somewhat, controversial? Why such a lackadaisical attitude about this? Who knows what type of reactions might occur later on in this individuals life. It's a risk that I for one would not want to take.





top topics
 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum