Parliament says yes to three-person babies

[Tamas]

The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"

Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.

You are old so you have a pass for fearing technological advance, ergo I am not debating this with you

[DontSayBanana]

There are alternatives such as genetic screening, abortion, IVF treatment. I don't think there's necessarily a right to have a baby that's biologically yours.

You are the last person I'd expect to drop the civil union argument- your argument is, after all, akin to saying that gays have no right to marriage because they have a functional equivalent in civil unions.  IVF and surrogacy are functionally equivalent, but they are not biological reproduction (and I couldn't disagree more strongly about the right to a genetic lineage).

No identifiable traits are gained from the third parent, BTW, so for the umpteenth time, your argument about "modification" is a complete and total red herring.  There is an ethical issue at hand here, yes, but you've been dancing around it- the issue is actually how we define a "parent."  If a collective pool of traits from which we obtain a new individual is your line, then no, the third party is not a parent, neither biologically nor socially.

Do you also believe organ transplant recipients have a right to track down their respective donors?  Or that the transplant somehow turns the recipient into a chimera of themselves and the donor?  Because that's the kind of absolutism you seem to be pushing in this thread.

[CountDeMoney]

You are old so you have a pass for fearing technological advance, ergo I am not debating this with you

I may not have done it very long, but I picked up a couple things about the post-doctoral genetic engineering experimental environment last year.  mtDNA is a bit more than a "battery", beet boy. 

[The Minsky Moment]

So the objections seem to be:

1) safety/need more time - possible but that just means revisiting a couple years from now
2) Lack of consent from a being not yet existence that absent the procedure will never come into existence.  This doesn't seem that compelling.
3). Slippery slope
4) just doesn't seem right somehow.

Am I missing anything?

[Valmy]

5) Jesus is against it...possibly hypocritically.

[garbon]

The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"

Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.

Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity?

[Tamas]

The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"

Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.

Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity?

Because science is spooky.

[11B4V]

I dont see a problem with this.

[The Larch]

For the record, this particular technique is a variation of a similar previous one that was already used for human reproduction in the US back in 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1312708.stm

[The Brain]

We should return to a simpler time. Subsistence farming is where it's at. Science is evil.

[11B4V]

I really hope the slippery slope concerns are true. All hail the genetic superhumans of the future! 

What valid slippery slope concerns are there that havent been tainted by people watching/reading too much Sci-fi books or put forward by religious freaks and their moon gods. 

[CountDeMoney]

The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"

Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.

Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity?

Why are you asking me a question when I'm goofing on Tamas' silly ass "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die" comment?

[Siege]

The debate in Commons also repeatedly struggled with whether the move would constitute "genetic modification".

Why?  Is the English and Welsh House of Commons as stupid as our own legislature?  Of course it's not "genetic modification."  The nuclear DNA is left untouched.

It's a good thing, but it's a baby step--barely a step at all--toward creating better humans.

We don't need to create better humans.
I am already a better human.
What we need is a global free market economy so we can develop technology, and nanotechnology in specific, to its fullest potential.

[CountDeMoney]

So the objections seem to be:

1) safety/need more time - possible but that just means revisiting a couple years from now
2) Lack of consent from a being not yet existence that absent the procedure will never come into existence.  This doesn't seem that compelling.
3). Slippery slope
4) just doesn't seem right somehow.

Am I missing anything?

All I mentioned was, had the subject of the discussion been a genetically modified tomato* instead, England would burn over the ethical and moral discourse regarding the potential ramifications of the future of the human race.  Because Europeans are kinda goofy that way.



*As opposed to Tamas, a genetically unmodified tomato.

[garbon]

The alternative is saying "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die"

Actually, that's not the alternative at all, as garbon intimated that we're dealing with gene therapy with an entity that cannot give consent.

Why should inability to grant consent block an unborn entity from receiving gene therapy but not block abortion of the unborn entity?

Why are you asking me a question when I'm goofing on Tamas' silly ass "we could help you, but instead we are letting you die" comment?

Sorry, I've been confused as to your position throughout the tread.