Godless Ethics Panel Says it's "Ethical" to Create Babies with Three Parents

[JimBowie1958]

The article doesn't really explain, very well, the distinction between mitochondrial DNA, and a human's main DNA; and an understanding of this distinction is crucial in order to understand what the article is really about. What is being discussed, here, is not really nearly as bizarre as it sounds.

Some time very early in the evolution of life, a bacterium that got eaten by an early Eukaryote, instead of being digested and destroyed, instead started living symbiotically with that Eukaryote, providing additional benefits to the Eukaryote. The mitochondria in our cells today are descendants of that bacterium, having their own DNA separate from ours. Of course, in all the billions of years that Eukaryotic life has existed, these mitochondria and other organelles derived from ingested bacteria have evolved to fulfill their roles, not as individual bacteria, but as functioning parts of a greater Eukaryotic organism.


What the article is about is people whose mitochondria are in some way defective, and of a proposed means of preventing it which involves splicing mitochondrial DNA from a different donor into a human zygote, on place of that which one would normally inherit from one's mother.

I disagree with the terminology that suggests that the mitochondrial donor would be a third “parent”; and with the bizarre ethical implications that are suggested by this terminology.

My family historically have always supported Eugenics since the 1890s, it's natural that this generation of my family follow suit in supporting it and this news is greatly exciting and also needed.

What is wrong with society having perfect babies, perfect people, nothing, why does society want defective babies, defective people, for a start look how much money they cost to care for etc, money that could be used for better purposes.

I think the problem is in going beyond what is human, not perfection itself, but trans humanism.

Imagine the child whose parents thought it would be cool for them to have webbed fingers and toes? We know how cruel kids can be if it is something as inocuous as red hair or short height, this would be mentally disturbing for the child, I would think.

 

[the_human_being]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

Wasn't it messing around with dna that produced this mosquito that's now causing a firestorm of disease?

No. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Again, where's your link?

Where's his link?

Why is it my responsibility to prove him wrong?

You're the one who mentioned the internet. I got my info off television.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

I wouldnt say that it is exactly a sham, but it is opening ethical doors that I think should remain tightly sealed.

Enhancing the human genetic code is a laudable thing, but when we start getting into trans human designer babies that are literlly inhuman, I think that crosses the line of tolerability and wise scientific conduct.

I don't think we're meaning creating inhuman beings. We're trying to create babies who don't carry any hereditary disease, so it's creating healthy babies, 100% physically healthy and 100% mentally healthy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

I wouldnt say that it is exactly a sham, but it is opening ethical doors that I think should remain tightly sealed.

Enhancing the human genetic code is a laudable thing, but when we start getting into trans human designer babies that are literlly inhuman, I think that crosses the line of tolerability and wise scientific conduct.

I don't think we're meaning creating inhuman beings. We're trying to create babies who don't carry any hereditary disease, so it's creating healthy babies, 100% physically healthy and 100% mentally healthy.

I dont see how using DNA from three people instead of the natural two people is anything other than transhuman in and of itself.

Lucy, do we know enough about how the genome works to make such radical changes to it? I dont think we do and we should do many many more experiments before we allow it to be done to human beings.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The article doesn't really explain, very well, the distinction between mitochondrial DNA, and a human's main DNA; and an understanding of this distinction is crucial in order to understand what the article is really about. What is being discussed, here, is not really nearly as bizarre as it sounds.

Some time very early in the evolution of life, a bacterium that got eaten by an early Eukaryote, instead of being digested and destroyed, instead started living symbiotically with that Eukaryote, providing additional benefits to the Eukaryote. The mitochondria in our cells today are descendants of that bacterium, having their own DNA separate from ours. Of course, in all the billions of years that Eukaryotic life has existed, these mitochondria and other organelles derived from ingested bacteria have evolved to fulfill their roles, not as individual bacteria, but as functioning parts of a greater Eukaryotic organism.


What the article is about is people whose mitochondria are in some way defective, and of a proposed means of preventing it which involves splicing mitochondrial DNA from a different donor into a human zygote, on place of that which one would normally inherit from one's mother.

I disagree with the terminology that suggests that the mitochondrial donor would be a third “parent”; and with the bizarre ethical implications that are suggested by this terminology.

My family historically have always supported Eugenics since the 1890s, it's natural that this generation of my family follow suit in supporting it and this news is greatly exciting and also needed.

What is wrong with society having perfect babies, perfect people, nothing, why does society want defective babies, defective people, for a start look how much money they cost to care for etc, money that could be used for better purposes.

I think the problem is in going beyond what is human, not perfection itself, but trans humanism.

Imagine the child whose parents thought it would be cool for them to have webbed fingers and toes? We know how cruel kids can be if it is something as inocuous as red hair or short height, this would be mentally disturbing for the child, I would think.

Of course this shouldn't be allowed, if some lunatic parents want a child with webbed fingers and toes, actually those sorts of people should be sterilised as they'd obviously be mentally unfit to be around any child.

Society needs mass sterilisation anyhow, prostitutes, Junkies, a variety of mental illnesses from Paranoia to Schizophrenia, all these people should be sterilised....America was THE FIRST nation to do this in 1907 and it was legalised in more than 30 States by the 1927 United States Supreme Court Buck v Bell decision.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hazlnut]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

Sounds pretty speculative.

Don't get all worked up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course this shouldn't be allowed, if some lunatic parents want a child with webbed fingers and toes, actually those sorts of people should be sterilised as they'd obviously be mentally unfit to be around any child.

Society needs mass sterilisation anyhow, prostitutes, Junkies, a variety of mental illnesses from Paranoia to Schizophrenia, all these people should be sterilised....America was THE FIRST nation to do this in 1907 and it was legalised in more than 30 States by the 1927 United States Supreme Court Buck v Bell decision.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree with government at any level forcing sterilization on a person as I think that reproduction is a natural right and the government cannot be accurate enough to always get it right.

If the government can ever get criminal trial down 100% correct, then maybe then we can talk about other responsibilities for them, but sterilizing people unwillingly would not be one of them.

I could see a buy out offer perhaps.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

Sounds pretty speculative.

Don't get all worked up.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

I wouldnt say that it is exactly a sham, but it is opening ethical doors that I think should remain tightly sealed.

Enhancing the human genetic code is a laudable thing, but when we start getting into trans human designer babies that are literlly inhuman, I think that crosses the line of tolerability and wise scientific conduct.

I don't think we're meaning creating inhuman beings. We're trying to create babies who don't carry any hereditary disease, so it's creating healthy babies, 100% physically healthy and 100% mentally healthy.

I dont see how using DNA from three people instead of the natural two people is anything other than transhuman in and of itself.

Lucy, do we know enough about how the genome works to make such radical changes to it? I dont think we do and we should do many many more experiments before we allow it to be done to human beings.

The three parent thing, this has already been given go-ahead to begin ASAP by UK Government.

If two people, man and woman, so the woman carries the hereditary disease in her DNA, if they have baby together, the chances are that baby born with the hereditary disease. This is where third person comes in, the scientists take the TINY part of her DNA that is not carrying said hereditary disease and they splice it with natural mother's DNA after the latters DNA has the TINY part carrying hereditary disease removed, then result 100% healthy baby with no hereditary disease.

I think this will be wonderful for many people out there.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Of course this shouldn't be allowed, if some lunatic parents want a child with webbed fingers and toes, actually those sorts of people should be sterilised as they'd obviously be mentally unfit to be around any child.

Society needs mass sterilisation anyhow, prostitutes, Junkies, a variety of mental illnesses from Paranoia to Schizophrenia, all these people should be sterilised....America was THE FIRST nation to do this in 1907 and it was legalised in more than 30 States by the 1927 United States Supreme Court Buck v Bell decision.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree with government at any level forcing sterilization on a person as I think that reproduction is a natural right and the government cannot be accurate enough to always get it right.

If the government can ever get criminal trial down 100% correct, then maybe then we can talk about other responsibilities for them, but sterilizing people unwillingly would not be one of them.

I could see a buy out offer perhaps.

You think Junkies, prostitutes and Schizophrenics have natural right to reproduce? The children for a start, destined to grow up in unhealthy environment both mentally and physically, then as adults all messed up in head and then they reproduce and the problems begin all again for another generation.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Of course this shouldn't be allowed, if some lunatic parents want a child with webbed fingers and toes, actually those sorts of people should be sterilised as they'd obviously be mentally unfit to be around any child.

Society needs mass sterilisation anyhow, prostitutes, Junkies, a variety of mental illnesses from Paranoia to Schizophrenia, all these people should be sterilised....America was THE FIRST nation to do this in 1907 and it was legalised in more than 30 States by the 1927 United States Supreme Court Buck v Bell decision.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree with government at any level forcing sterilization on a person as I think that reproduction is a natural right and the government cannot be accurate enough to always get it right.

If the government can ever get criminal trial down 100% correct, then maybe then we can talk about other responsibilities for them, but sterilizing people unwillingly would not be one of them.

I could see a buy out offer perhaps.

If you offered them all $5,000 each to get sterilised they would. Giving them money okay, because think of the many BILLIONS taxpayers would save over many many decades of not having to fund entire groups of messed-up people, the crime, the drugs, the booze, the medical care, the psychological care etc.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You think Junkies, prostitutes and Schizophrenics have natural right to reproduce? The children for a start, destined to grow up in unhealthy environment both mentally and physically, then as adults all messed up in head and then they reproduce and the problems begin all again for another generation.

Yes, I do think that they have a 'natural' right to reproduce as they are not always prostitutes and junkies, and medicine can help them with their mental issues if they have them.

I have Asperger's Syndrome, aka 'High Functioning Autism'; should I be sterilized too?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course this shouldn't be allowed, if some lunatic parents want a child with webbed fingers and toes, actually those sorts of people should be sterilised as they'd obviously be mentally unfit to be around any child.

Society needs mass sterilisation anyhow, prostitutes, Junkies, a variety of mental illnesses from Paranoia to Schizophrenia, all these people should be sterilised....America was THE FIRST nation to do this in 1907 and it was legalised in more than 30 States by the 1927 United States Supreme Court Buck v Bell decision.

Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree with government at any level forcing sterilization on a person as I think that reproduction is a natural right and the government cannot be accurate enough to always get it right.

If the government can ever get criminal trial down 100% correct, then maybe then we can talk about other responsibilities for them, but sterilizing people unwillingly would not be one of them.

I could see a buy out offer perhaps.

If you offered them all $5,000 each to get sterilised they would. Giving them money okay, because think of the many BILLIONS taxpayers would save over many many decades of not having to fund entire groups of messed-up people, the crime, the drugs, the booze, the medical care, the psychological care etc.

But the key point is that it would be THEIR choice, and not that of some bureaucrat.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

You think Junkies, prostitutes and Schizophrenics have natural right to reproduce? The children for a start, destined to grow up in unhealthy environment both mentally and physically, then as adults all messed up in head and then they reproduce and the problems begin all again for another generation.

Yes, I do think that they have a 'natural' right to reproduce as they are not always prostitutes and junkies, and medicine can help them with their mental issues if they have them.

I have Asperger's Syndrome, aka 'High Functioning Autism'; should I be sterilized too?

No darling, I like you, so I'd make sure I wouldn't let you be sterilised.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No darling, I like you, so I'd make sure I wouldn't let you be sterilised.

Well, thanks for being so kind, lol.

 

[Blackrook]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

Wasn't it messing around with dna that produced this mosquito that's now causing a firestorm of disease?

No. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Again, where's your link?

Where's his link?

Why is it my responsibility to prove him wrong?

You have no responsibility to do anything, but if you don't provide a link, I will not put any credit in anything you say.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You think Junkies, prostitutes and Schizophrenics have natural right to reproduce? The children for a start, destined to grow up in unhealthy environment both mentally and physically, then as adults all messed up in head and then they reproduce and the problems begin all again for another generation.

Lucy, you need to get the Hell out of Germany. Too much residual influence there still.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

You think Junkies, prostitutes and Schizophrenics have natural right to reproduce? The children for a start, destined to grow up in unhealthy environment both mentally and physically, then as adults all messed up in head and then they reproduce and the problems begin all again for another generation.

Lucy, you need to get the Hell out of Germany. Too much residual influence there still.

I'm Austrian, like those other famous Austrians W. A. Mozart, Franz Schubert and....others

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says

Good to see that scientists are making sure it's "ethical" to perform genetic experiments on human life to create bizarre lifeforms with genes from three parents.

I mean, these scientists would have halted their research and destroyed all their notes if it turned out they were doing something "unethical" right?

Or maybe it's all a sham to have some phony "ethics panel" approve whatever Frankenstein experiments scientists want to do.

Yes, I think that's it. It's a sham.

Wasn't it messing around with dna that produced this mosquito that's now causing a firestorm of disease?

No. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Again, where's your link?

Where's his link?

Why is it my responsibility to prove him wrong?

You have no responsibility to do anything, but if you don't provide a link, I will not put any credit in anything you say.

Oh no! Some clown on the internet doesn't think I'm "credible"! Whatever will I do?

I wonder why you haven't asked "the human being" for a link to back up his claims...

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

No darling, I like you, so I'd make sure I wouldn't let you be sterilised.

Well, thanks for being so kind, lol.

Would I be any less?