UK Approves Three-Person Babies

[c.d.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/uk-approves-three-person-babies/ar-BBhVenM?ocid=DELLDHP

c.d.

[c.d.]

Wow. Talk about Brave New World. I don't think anything like this could pass in the U.S. There would be too much opposition from religious groups.

c.d.

[GUT]

I hope they give a lot of thought to issues of contact with the various parents.

Though I understand the use will be very limited.

[c.d.]

The term three-way has now sadly lost some of the attraction it once held for me.

c.d.

[GUT]

The term three-way has now sadly lost some of the attraction it once held for me.

c.d.

Naughty c.d. never held any attraction for me, another bloke no way, another shiela boy I struggle to handle the one I've got.

[Damaso Marte]

This is pretty misleading. They are taking mitochondria from one person and DNA from two other people. That's much less exciting than if they were taking DNA from three people.

Basically this is only useful for a small number of people who have a very specific combination of medical problems.

[Chris]

This is pretty misleading. They are taking mitochondria from one person and DNA from two other people. That's much less exciting than if they were taking DNA from three people.

I haven't really been following this story. Can anyone tell me what the basis of the religious objection is?

[GUT]

I haven't really been following this story. Can anyone tell me what the basis of the religious objection is?

Not sure that I would classify it as a religious objection, but some say that life is meant to come from one male and one female, it's a bit like those who argue against cloning or GM modified foods, in a nut shell I think that some see it as being unnatural.

Or that's how it comes across to me.

[Chris]

Not sure that I would classify it as a religious objection, but some say that life is meant to come from one male and one female, it's a bit like those who argue against cloning or GM modified foods, in a nut shell I think that some see it as being unnatural.

Or that's how it comes across to me.

Thanks. I'm tempted to say antibiotics and heart transplants aren't natural either.

[GUT]

Thanks. I'm tempted to say antibiotics and heart transplants aren't natural either.

Yep, and some are opposed to them too, just as some oppose blood transfusions and some oppose IVF, and probably about a million other things.

[Robert]

"I am a clone
And I'm not alone"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXK_0H5m6sU

[Errata]

I haven't really been following this story. Can anyone tell me what the basis of the religious objection is?

From the yelling at my dad's house (he structured the trial of the procedure here) the objection has to to with the mitochondrial donor. In order for the ova structure to be used, the DNA in that egg has to be destroyed. They are destroying the potential for one life in order to create a much less guaranteed potential for another life. The mitochondrial egg has every chance of being fertilized and carried to term. The DNA egg has almost no chance. Combining the two creates a better chance for the damaged egg, but not as much of a chance as the mitochondrial egg, whose DNA was destroyed.

So I get it. There's a big part of this where a potential mother needs to suck it up and take what she can get, and if that doesn't include her DNA than so be it. Destroying a perfectly healthy egg seems counter intuitive to the reproductive process. But what it boils down to is that if the donor wasn't using the egg, it had zero chance of being fertilized and carried to term. So destroying the DNA in the donor egg creates a chance that life will be created, where otherwise the egg would have simply been discarded in the menstrual cycle.

But we are creeping ever closer to designer babies, and some people want this to stop here. Ban this procedure and that outcome can be avoided. And as it happens, I agree and so does my father. He's a scientist, he of course is going to run this procedure through it's paces, and if it is approved he will work to make it as safe as possible. But he doesn't like it. And neither do I. We really need to ramp down the importance of a child's DNA. My dad is afraid that if this is approved, in 50 years children will stop being adopted. The idea of sharing DNA will be so important that no one will invest in a child not of their blood. And adults aren't going to stop abandoning kids. It's a real issue how this is going to affect our views on the next generation. And the last time this was a big deal it became a very abusive environment for children. I'm not a fan. I'm a huge fan of scientific advancement, so this is just cool as hell. But I don't like where it leads.