News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Parliament says yes to three-person babies

Started by jimmy olsen, February 03, 2015, 07:13:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Duque de Bragança

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:36:26 PM
Though I liked this from one political reporter:
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh  ·  12h 12 hours ago
RiposteOfTheDay. Evangelical Tory MP in No lobby: "I'm voting for Jesus." 2nd Tory MP in Aye lobby: "But didn't He have three parents?"

:lol:

Good one indeed. :)

Razgovory

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.

Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.

Sounds like something a Green would say.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Tamas

I am happy to hear common sense prevailed for a change.

The Larch

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.

Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.

How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.

Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.

How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.

If the issue had been a goddamned tomato, cities would have burned. 

The Larch

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:07:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 05:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
I'm uneasy about this.

Also I think a 90 minute debate about something as ethically difficult as this is a bit of a disgrace.

How can it be ethically difficult? Are you not ok with egg donors for fertility treatments? This is simply an advancement on that, for medical purposes.

If the issue had been a goddamned tomato, cities would have burned.

This is not even remotely like GMOs. No DNA is actually altered with this procedure.

CountDeMoney

You're only introducing a third party's from the host.

The Larch


CountDeMoney

This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit;  this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level.  The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.

That being said, it's going to do wonders for the UK's genetics industry.

Josephus

So in the future everyone will be bright and beautiful. Why's that a problem?
Civis Romanus Sum<br /><br />"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." Jack Layton 1950-2011

CountDeMoney


The Larch

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:52:54 AM
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit;  this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level.  The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.

That being said, it's going to do wonders for the UK's genetics industry.

Without those interventions at the mitochondrial level these hypothetical babies wouldn't be able to be born and/or live healthy lives. There's a host of genetic diseases that can be prevented this way, this is not genetic engineering for the purpose of making everyone blonde and blue eyed.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: The Larch on February 04, 2015, 08:19:52 AM
Without those interventions at the mitochondrial level these hypothetical babies wouldn't be able to be born and/or live healthy lives. There's a host of genetic diseases that can be prevented this way, this is not genetic engineering for the purpose of making everyone blonde and blue eyed.

Not now in 2015, but 2075 may be a different story.  That's why genetic patenting is going on now.

Some mitochondrial diseases will be mitigated, not all of them.  But it's all genies and bottles, anyway.  It happened with the atom, it will happen with DNA. 

grumbler

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2015, 06:52:54 AM
This isn't surrogate parenting, where somebody's carrying around someone else's future snot-nosed little shit;  this introduces genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level.  The issue at hand may be addressing a specific procedure, but it's really the future of prenatal genetic modification Parliament just gave the green light for.

What fears do you have for "genetic alterations at the mitochondrial level?" What is the worst that could happen?
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Tamas

Who cares about mitochondrial DNS? Ain't that just basically the power plant for the cell proper? We inherit it from our mother "unrandomised" anyways, so its not like they are drastically decreasing genetic variaty