UK MPs vote to allow three-parent babies

[Silver Surfer]

IT WILL HAVE THREEE HEADSS OMGG KILL IT.

[+DieChecker]

Wouldn't it be a wonder thing to be able to eliminate birth defects. I wonder if all the people that are yelling "The sky is falling" have dealt with birth defects themselves or have friends that have dealt with them. My son-in-law's cousin has two such children. I don't see how she does it. I'd be in the looney bin or in a hospital with a complete breakdown. I only see the cousin at Christmas when I can get back to Pennsylvania. It's only for a few hours and sometimes that's more than enough. People say they understand what the families go through, but you really can't unless the unfortunate happens to you. If that's "natural selection", we need to do something about it. I usually try to look at things with a bit of humor, but the birth defects subject doesn't have a humourous side.

The problem with eliminating birth defects is the definition of "birth defects". Some people are going to think that if their kid has the gay-oriented gene, or the left-handed gene, or the black hair gene, that those are, to them, genetic defects. That's where this leads into eugenics and designer babies.

[paperdyer]

The problem with eliminating birth defects is the definition of "birth defects". Some people are going to think that if their kid has the gay-oriented gene, or the left-handed gene, or the black hair gene, that those are, to them, genetic defects. That's where this leads into eugenics and designer babies.

Perhaps, but can we include the stupidity gene as a birth defect?

[+DieChecker]

Perhaps, but can we include the stupidity gene as a birth defect?

Naturally. Everyone will eventually have to be genius, even the cashier at the gas station. Though probably the Japanese androids will replace human low wage jobs pretty soon. Receptionists, cab drivers, waiters, and such will cease to exist soon, so the stupid people won't have anywhere to work anyway.

Edited February 4, 2015 by DieChecker

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

The problem with eliminating birth defects is the definition of "birth defects". Some people are going to think that if their kid has the gay-oriented gene, or the left-handed gene, or the black hair gene, that those are, to them, genetic defects. That's where this leads into eugenics and designer babies.

Wait gay oriented gene? Do go on. While ive heard this said before ive never seen any evidence.

[+DieChecker]

Wait gay oriented gene? Do go on. While ive heard this said before ive never seen any evidence.

Oh my, I myself only think that it contributes to a persons orientation, but go in any of the Gay threads and you'll get a schooling. According to many gay posters here, there is NO (zero) choice involved, their orientation is 100% genetic. And there are enough Woo-woo sites and some good sites, that support that to allow them to ride high on that statement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Study finds that while gay men share similar genetic make-up, it only accounts for 40 per cent of chance of a man being homosexual

[paperdyer]

Naturally. Everyone will eventually have to be genius, even the cashier at the gas station. Though probably the Japanese androids will replace human low wage jobs pretty soon. Receptionists, cab drivers, waiters, and such will cease to exist soon, so the stupid people won't have anywhere to work anyway.

Good point. Just a Blade Runner/Total Recall type of world, I guess.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Oh my, I myself only think that it contributes to a persons orientation, but go in any of the Gay threads and you'll get a schooling. According to many gay posters here, there is NO (zero) choice involved, their orientation is 100% genetic. And there are enough Woo-woo sites and some good sites, that support that to allow them to ride high on that statement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

Would that be causation or correlation.

I believe gay or straight that is simply who you are. Thats good enough for me.

Btw, I have no argument for or against. I was just curious.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Atuke]

Gross!

[Sir Smoke aLot]

If things continue this way we will have mutated generations in few decades.

[Leonardo]

I'd argue that it is, if you get to pick the mitochondrial DNA donor, and I can't see them Not allowing that. If you get to pick traits of your baby, that is a designer baby.

EDIT: The PM vote has nothing to do with parent rights actually, just about the lifting of the medical ban on working on this DNA replacement procedure. Seems to me that the procedure isn't ready for general use yet.

Mitochondrial DNA only influences the function of the mitochondria, it has no influence on any 'characteristic' of the organism. It is not a 'designer procedure' as parents do not get to 'pick it' as an option unless the actual dysfunction is already present in the maternal mitochondria - thus it is a 'medical treatment'.

Replacing the mitochondrial DNA would be the same as replacing the battery in your car. It doesn't change your car nor does it give the person who might have given you the battery a claim to 'ownership' of it.

Oh my, I myself only think that it contributes to a persons orientation, but go in any of the Gay threads and you'll get a schooling. According to many gay posters here, there is NO (zero) choice involved, their orientation is 100% genetic.

This is an issue unrelated to the thread topic, but whether or not being gay has some genetic factor has no bearing on whether the person has any 'choice' about whom they are attracted to. Nobody seems to have any 'choice' regarding that.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Leonardo

[LV-426]

.

no.

more.

Gingers.

.

.

.

yaaaayyy!!!!!

.

Random internet 'ging', Ebba Zingmark, mocks your foolish ways!

[gailforce]

failing that wrap yourself in bandages, build yourself a Pyramid, add a bit of salt, sand resin = immortal.

nah gdf11 actually works

[shrooma]

Random internet 'ging', Ebba Zingmark, mocks your foolish ways!

.

a good point well made LV!

i'll have to amend my view to-

'no more gingers- except sexy ones!!'

.

[+DieChecker]

Mitochondrial DNA only influences the function of the mitochondria, it has no influence on any 'characteristic' of the organism. It is not a 'designer procedure' as parents do not get to 'pick it' as an option unless the actual dysfunction is already present in the maternal mitochondria - thus it is a 'medical treatment'.

Replacing the mitochondrial DNA would be the same as replacing the battery in your car. It doesn't change your car nor does it give the person who might have given you the battery a claim to 'ownership' of it.

Doesn't really matter, once you open the door to genetic manipulation to prevent some disease, then people will look at perhaps autism, and then...... lefthandedness. Changing a marker that is connected to homosexuality, or lefthandedness, or whatever will be called a medical treatment also.

The mDNA does have a characteristic, it regulates how well a cell works. And thus the healthiness of the person.

In general someone with good mDNA will have better health and live longer then those with inferior mDNA, so engineering a baby by picking a superior example of mDNA would be making a designer baby. Really how are doctors going to maintain non-designer DNA? Is there going to be one not overly athletic, but fit, woman who will be the donor for all such DNA? Or, will the doctors allow for people to select their donor, from their family, friends, off a list, or whatever? The obvious answer is they will be allowed to chose the donor.

[Leonardo]

Doesn't really matter, once you open the door to genetic manipulation to prevent some disease, then people will look at perhaps autism, and then...... lefthandedness. Changing a marker that is connected to homosexuality, or lefthandedness, or whatever will be called a medical treatment also.

Autism is a disability, left-handedness or homosexuality - not so much. Neither is having brown eyes as opposed to blue; having an IQ of 120 as opposed to 180; not being able to run a marathon in 2 hrs 10 mins; etc.

In general someone with good mDNA will have better health and live longer then those with inferior mDNA, so engineering a baby by picking a superior example of mDNA would be making a designer baby.

Apart from the distinction between mitochondria that function as expected and mitochondria that don't, there is no 'selection process' in choosing what donor cells to replace the nucleus of. There is no modification of any DNA - mDNA or nDNA - in the procedure so it cannot be said to be a "designer process", but the purpose of the procedure under discussion is to provide a medical treatment for a known condition or disability which negatively impacts the health and/or capability of the individual.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Leonardo

[Calle]

If things continue this way we will have mutated generations in few decades.

like this current generation is any better.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Calle

[+DieChecker]

Autism is a disability, left-handedness or homosexuality - not so much. Neither is having brown eyes as opposed to blue; having an IQ of 120 as opposed to 180; not being able to run a marathon in 2 hrs 10 mins; etc.

Those are still subjective. YOU think autism is a disability, and other things not so much. But that is you, not everyone. Once all other disabilities are gone, those non-disability traits may become disabilities.

Apart from the distinction between mitochondria that function as expected and mitochondria that don't, there is no 'selection process' in choosing what donor cells to replace the nucleus of. There is no modification of any DNA - mDNA or nDNA - in the procedure so it cannot be said to be a "designer process", but the purpose of the procedure under discussion is to provide a medical treatment for a known condition or disability which negatively impacts the health and/or capability of the individual.

So no mDNA works better, or ages better? Isn't part of aging said to be those with strong mDNA age better?

[LV-426]

Those are still subjective. YOU think autism is a disability, and other things not so much. But that is you, not everyone. Once all other disabilities are gone, those non-disability traits may become disabilities.

There's no sense to following this kind of logic. Ultimately, everything from 'fire' to 'the internet' has the potential for misuse. You can't ignore the potential benefits of a concept, as it might be abused. We'd still be huddled in caves with that kind of thinking.

[Leonardo]

Those are still subjective. YOU think autism is a disability, and other things not so much. But that is you, not everyone. Once all other disabilities are gone, those non-disability traits may become disabilities.

No, autism is a disability as described by the health authorities of every major nation that I am aware of. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of medical experts in whom I have confidence.

[+DieChecker]

No, autism is a disability as described by the health authorities of every major nation that I am aware of. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of medical experts in whom I have confidence.

That is not the point. You conveniently go after a detail and fail to answer the actual question. Good deflection attempt.

Do you believe that if most disabilities were eliminated that stuff that would not be considered a disability today, such as male pattern hair lose, or nearsightedness, would then be the subject of genetic modification? And then doesn't if follow that parents would want anything they don't like to be changed?

[+DieChecker]

There's no sense to following this kind of logic. Ultimately, everything from 'fire' to 'the internet' has the potential for misuse. You can't ignore the potential benefits of a concept, as it might be abused. We'd still be huddled in caves with that kind of thinking.

Hey, I'm actually in favor of genetic modification. I'm just pointing out a reality that eventually parents will be able to modify just about anything they like... handedness, hair color and thickness, eye color.... Whatever they want. It is only logical. It will happen, if we allow genetic modifications to become legal.

I also notice that you did not respond whether some people have better/stronger mDNA then others...

Edited February 7, 2015 by DieChecker

[LV-426]

Hey, I'm actually in favor of genetic modification. I'm just pointing out a reality that eventually parents will be able to modify just about anything they like... handedness, hair color and thickness, eye color.... Whatever they want. It is only logical. It will happen, if we allow genetic modifications to become legal.

Possibly. Like I say though, anything that can be beneficial, can (and will) invariably be used for selfish or even harmful motives. All that can be done is to attempt to maintain tight regulation over what is permitted.

In all honesty, I don't think it'll eventually matter whether genetic modifications are legally sanctioned or not. If there's a demand for them, with large sums of cash waiting to be exchanged, they'll go ahead regardless in some corner of the world. I'd say it's better to get an early start on defining practices and standards.

I also notice that you did not respond whether some people have better/stronger mDNA then others...

I think you were aiming this one at Leonardo, who was discussing the science involved.

If you want my general opinion on the ethical question of "Should we meddle with the aging process if it's possible?", I'm unsure.

On the one hand, I'd say 'no.' The natural process of birth, life and death is the way things should be.

On the other hand... preventing Dementia, Osteoporosis, etc., and maintaining a fit, healthy body and mind for the duration of a lifespan... absolutely!

Of course, other questions then come into play. How long should an individual lifespan be if science counters natural mortality. How would it affect the world's population without limiting birthrates (and should it even be allowed to affect birthrates). Personally though, I'd rather have a fit and healthy body and then flick an 'off switch' at the accepted 'permanent retirement age' than slowly rot my way towards the grave.

For once, I can sympathize with religious views on the subject too, as it is a huge ethical question.

Edited February 7, 2015 by LV-426

[Grey Area]

Of course, other questions then come into play. How long should an individual lifespan be if science counters natural mortality. How would it affect the world's population without limiting birthrates (and should it even be allowed to affect birthrates).

For once, I can sympathize with religious views on the subject too, as it is a huge ethical question.

I don't think it will happen like that. There will not be a super pill released that will suddenly flick a switch and all humans will live an extra hundred years. What you are describing is a process, a very subtle one, but it has already started.

We now have average lifespans in the west that are double those two hundred years ago, and this process is on going. Medical professionals have gone on record stating that there is no medial limit to the maximum lifespan that can be achieved. The effects of this are a stark reality reflected in the economy, with pensions having to stretch further and state benefits paying out for longer durations, as well as newer generations not having access to the inherited wealth of their parents until they are much older.

It's a brave new world, not necessarily a better world, but change is always... interesting.

[Moon Gazer]

I think that as long as it is regulated and only used for medical purposes and not "designer babies" then it's a very good thing.

Regarding the 3 people responsible for the child, I don't think it would work like that. Usually the birth mother is the one responsible, no matter who has input in to it. I am currently pregnant as a surrogate for my sister who is unable to have her own children. It's my egg and her husbands sperm. I give birth to this child so I legally go on the birth certificate as mother and am the one who receives all the maternity benefits (although obviously we apply for parental order for my sis and brother in law once the child arrives). Even if we had been able to use my sisters eggs, I would have still being considered the mother in the eyes of the law as I was the one giving birth.

We tried IVF last year, using my eggs to be put in my sister. It didn't work but if it had been sucessful then she would have been the legal mother in spite of it being my eggs.