Parliament says yes to three-person babies

[garbon]

So your objection is really that you question the motivation in allowing this to go forwards now?

[grumbler]

And there is a strong element of slippery slope - not in terms of very superficial things like hair or eye colour, but as I say my understanding is that a very similar treatment could be used for cystic fibrosis and other very serious diseases. Once we've accepted the principles of altering the genetic makeup of a person in an inheritable way, why not do it for those other conditions? We have the technology. As CC says until now there's been a very clear line that observed by scientists across the democratic, developed world which this crosses.

Just curious:  are you aware that a slippery slope argument is, by definition, a logical fallacy?

[garbon]

And there is a strong element of slippery slope - not in terms of very superficial things like hair or eye colour, but as I say my understanding is that a very similar treatment could be used for cystic fibrosis and other very serious diseases. Once we've accepted the principles of altering the genetic makeup of a person in an inheritable way, why not do it for those other conditions? We have the technology. As CC says until now there's been a very clear line that observed by scientists across the democratic, developed world which this crosses.

Just curious:  are you aware that a slippery slope argument is, by definition, a logical fallacy?

Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.

[grumbler]

Okay. I'd rather it happened after broad international consultation and consensus rather than the UK going alone. Other countries have considered allowing this treatment and decided not to allow it. I think maybe people assume the only possible objection to this is religious grounds and so we all want to be on the side of progress not men in dresses. My impression is that there's also a lot of disquiet among scientists internationally - the woman I linked to earlier is a bioethicist who is in no way religious for example.

My suspicion is that this is motivated more by getting that research money into the UK and keeping a successful industry as a global leader.

This type of treatment has been carried out in the US for 15 years.  It hasn't been without controversy, but the controversy isn't over safety or effectiveness, but whether the human germline should be altered, even with the best intentions and results.

My view is that the human germline is changed each time an egg is fertilized.  Provided care is taken to avoid known mismatches, I don't think that this technique is really producing anything new or newly risky.

[grumbler]

Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.

That's not a slippery slope, though.  So long as each case is judged on its merits, there is no inevitability to the process.  I understand that Sheilbh thinks that the scientists involved are not acting in good faith, but that's an argument independent of the wisdom of this type of procedure.

[11B4V]

[garbon]

Well isn't there something to be said regarding a minor step that logically leads to a further step? I don't know that this is the inciting step but certainly if we start tinkering with Dna, I think we will then progress to wanting to prevent physical disabilities which is something that CC noted as a negative.

That's not a slippery slope, though.  So long as each case is judged on its merits, there is no inevitability to the process.  I understand that Sheilbh thinks that the scientists involved are not acting in good faith, but that's an argument independent of the wisdom of this type of procedure.

Yeah, I guess that's fair. It all sort of seems like it'll be inevitably (the curing of disabilities I mean) but you are right that it doesn't necessarily have to shake out that way / it'll be decided at each of those times and not out of any of these prelim decisions.

[Ideologue]

Until scientists figure out a way to get a three-person baby out of a threesome, I refuse to find this important.

Why can't science be useful for once? 

Why would you want to ruin a threesome with pregnancy?

Pregnancy play?  Maybe.

MY CUM CAN BEAT YOUR CUM ANY DAY OF THE WEEK

[Ideologue]

The slope is that terrible things will go down like we will only want affable, smart, tall, blond, thin blue eyed heterosexual cisgendered children.

No we wouldn't.  We want affable, dusky bisexual cisgendered children who are good at math and can endogenously produce enough vitamin D despite their melanin concentration.  Eye and hair color can be left to parental preference.

[Ed Anger]

I want orcs.

[Eddie Teach]

No we wouldn't.  We want affable, dusky bisexual cisgendered children who are good at math and can endogenously produce enough vitamin D despite their melanin concentration.  Eye and hair color can be left to parental preference.

Who is this "we"?

[The Brain]

I want orcs.

But instead you went for quantity.

[Ed Anger]

I want orcs.

But instead you went for quantity.

I have a Kampfgruppe.