• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDA panel debates technique that would create embryos with three genetic parents

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,275
Reaction score
10,371
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Food and Drug Administration panel is focused on a procedure that scientists think could help women who carry DNA mutations for conditions such as blindness and epilepsy.
The process would let them have children without passing on those defects. government advisory committee began debating a new technique that combines DNA from three people to create embryos free of certain inherited diseases

The technology involves taking defective mitochondria, the cell’s powerhouses, from a mother’s egg and replacing them with healthy mitochondria from another woman.
After being fertilized by the father’s sperm in a lab, the egg would be implanted in the mother, and the pregnancy could progress normally.

The FDA’s announcement several months ago that it would hold a public hearing on the subject elicited an outcry from scientists, ethicists and religious groups, who say the technology raises grave safety concerns and could open the door to creating “designer” babies, whose eye color, intelligence and other characteristics are selected by parents.

FDA panel debates technique that would create embryos with three genetic parents - The Washington Post
so is this a slippery slope? Or is it just a" better baby?"
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

Heya AT. :2wave: These people in Oregon now want to do this. The major concern would be designer babies.

My thought is.....they say they wouldn't do so. Yet if we have such a capability. Then the questioned should be asked to those doing this. Why wouldn't you? Especially knowing you could make a human from scratch to be faster, and stronger, and in essence superior to any Human born naturally.
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

Heya AT. :2wave: These people in Oregon now want to do this. The major concern would be designer babies.

My thought is.....they say they wouldn't do so. Yet if we have such a capability. Then the questioned should be asked to those doing this. Why wouldn't you? Especially knowing you could make a human from scratch to be faster, and stronger, and in essence superior to any Human born naturally.

it's dangerous to narrow a gene pool, start producing blue eyed blondes for ex -and you are using so called "recessive genes" (as opposed to dominate genes), more which skews the futher generations' gene pool.

Theere are laws that do/can prohibit this - the defective mitochondria don't seem problematic, but start changing chromosomes to produce new phenotypes, is not a good idea at all

( phenotypes are the outcome or what the child develops into, as the nuclease of the cells ( sperm/egg) combine during reproduction)
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

I've got no issue with it.

"Slippery Slope" is not a reason, in and of itself, not to go forward with something.

Using science to reduce or eliminate the chance of a child being born with disabilities is not a problem in my mind.
 


I'm absolutely against it. We live in a Corporate world and the next step would be to create good worker babies for the labor force. No way. If it can be corrupted, it will definitely be corrupted in the good ol' USA. "What's good for business is good for America," that old Republican mantra. The key word is "business."
 
I'm absolutely against it. We live in a Corporate world and the next step would be to create good worker babies for the labor force. No way. If it can be corrupted, it will definitely be corrupted in the good ol' USA. "What's good for business is good for America," that old Republican mantra. The key word is "business."

law of so called "unintended consequences" / build a better baby ...yep
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

Heya AT. :2wave: These people in Oregon now want to do this. The major concern would be designer babies.

My thought is.....they say they wouldn't do so. Yet if we have such a capability. Then the questioned should be asked to those doing this. Why wouldn't you? Especially knowing you could make a human from scratch to be faster, and stronger, and in essence superior to any Human born naturally.

This is great for women and lawyers, they find two male suckers to donate sperm then hit them with paternity suits. Wow, two checks in the mail every month for 18 years.
 
I'm absolutely against it. We live in a Corporate world and the next step would be to create good worker babies for the labor force. No way. If it can be corrupted, it will definitely be corrupted in the good ol' USA. "What's good for business is good for America," that old Republican mantra. The key word is "business."

I'd just like to add that "Eugenics" movements have been advocated by Adolph Hitler, Henry Ford, David Rockefeller, and GHW Bush. Why is it that the rich people want to promote this? Oh wait, a thought has manifested; could they see themselves as survival of the fitest because of their great wealth. Fittest for Corporatism, and let's cull the defectives, eh?
 
There's nothing wrong with directed evolution.

It's understandable that change scares people, it's unfortunate that it's the case even when that change comes in the form of progress.
 
It's an exciting step on the road to real gene engineering and an extension of our control over nature. We should never fear the designer baby--embrace it!

The Nazis would have loved this.
 
I'd just like to add that "Eugenics" movements have been advocated by Adolph Hitler, Henry Ford, David Rockefeller, and GHW Bush. Why is it that the rich people want to promote this? Oh wait, a thought has manifested; could they see themselves as survival of the fitest because of their great wealth. Fittest for Corporatism, and let's cull the defectives, eh?

Don't you know quoting yourself is against the unwritten rules?
 
...so? I'm sure they would have loved Fusion too but it doesn't mean the technology is Nazified. Good grief.

Let me clarify:

The Nazis would have loved this for reasons of their evil ideology.
 
Let me clarify:

The Nazis would have loved this for reasons of their evil ideology.

They also would have loved Fusion for the reasons of their evil ideology. I'm not a Nazi so I don't care.
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

This is great for women and lawyers, they find two male suckers to donate sperm then hit them with paternity suits. Wow, two checks in the mail every month for 18 years.

Yeah! Those gold-digging whores! Women, I tell you.
 
Let me clarify:

The Nazis would have loved this for reasons of their evil ideology.

So? They also loved hard work and national pride for reasons of their evil ideology.
 
The Nazis would have loved this.

godwins-law-9796.jpg
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

Yeah! Those gold-digging whores! Women, I tell you.

Sure, it was hyperbole. It would happen at least once. ;)
 
Re: genetically modified babies (WAPO)

There are things you should not mess with just because you can...
 

From the informal liberal to English dictionary:

You're just proving Godwin's law-shut up, you might prevent another holocaust with all your going on about learning from past mistakes
 
Back
Top Bottom