FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Exclusive: First 3 way parent baby is born
Exclusive: First 3 way parent baby is born
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it's brilliant the parents were able to use donated mitochondrial DNA to avoid passing on the disease that had already killed several of their foetuses and children. I don't believe in God but if he exists I guess he's the guy responsible for creating the fatal Leigh Syndrome that science has managed to overcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's brilliant the parents were able to use donated mitochondrial DNA to avoid passing on the disease that had already killed several of their foetuses and children. I don't believe in God but if he exists I guess he's the guy responsible for creating the fatal Leigh Syndrome that science has managed to overcome."
Many syndromes are fatal and some are not, it's people yet again striving for perfection playing with nature.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it's brilliant the parents were able to use donated mitochondrial DNA to avoid passing on the disease that had already killed several of their foetuses and children. I don't believe in God but if he exists I guess he's the guy responsible for creating the fatal Leigh Syndrome that science has managed to overcome.
Many syndromes are fatal and some are not, it's people yet again striving for perfection playing with nature.
"
This syndrome is fatal to every baby the mother has. The donated DNA is just 0.1% of the total in the fertilised egg but gives life to her baby.
Nature is indifferent to human suffering, but we can sometimes, as in this case, alleviate it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's brilliant the parents were able to use donated mitochondrial DNA to avoid passing on the disease that had already killed several of their foetuses and children. I don't believe in God but if he exists I guess he's the guy responsible for creating the fatal Leigh Syndrome that science has managed to overcome.
Many syndromes are fatal and some are not, it's people yet again striving for perfection playing with nature.
This syndrome is fatal to every baby the mother has. The donated DNA is just 0.1% of the total in the fertilised egg but gives life to her baby.
Nature is indifferent to human suffering, but we can sometimes, as in this case, alleviate it.
"
So ask yourself the mother knows she will pass on the faulty dna why has she had more than one child?
Isn't it rather selfish putting a child through that just because she wants a child?
It's a risk she knew she was taking which would ultimately lead to the death of her child, rather than use the money it costs funding this treatment I would say it's better spent treating children who through no fault of their own have other syndromes or cancers etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rMrs_CCouple
over a year ago
Plymouth |
Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
"
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
"
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx"
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think it's brilliant the parents were able to use donated mitochondrial DNA to avoid passing on the disease that had already killed several of their foetuses and children. I don't believe in God but if he exists I guess he's the guy responsible for creating the fatal Leigh Syndrome that science has managed to overcome."
.
I couldn't have said it better!  .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats "
This seems illogical.
You're saying eugenics will help keep populations down?? How??
Have we introduced sterility into gene splicing and no one told me?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. "
.
The mightiest force in the universe.... Were a fucking mammal, one of thousands on the third rock from the sun, one of 20 billon in our galaxy and as many of them galaxies as grains of sand in all the beeches of the world combined....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats
This seems illogical.
You're saying eugenics will help keep populations down?? How??
Have we introduced sterility into gene splicing and no one told me?
"
.
We've been going sterile for decades, at current rates of it, we'd be extinct in about 800 years!.
Have no fear, I think we'll fuck it up before we get to that problem though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats
This seems illogical.
You're saying eugenics will help keep populations down?? How??
Have we introduced sterility into gene splicing and no one told me?
"
I said social engineering that is not eugenics xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
"
It seems one of us is getting two sides of a coin blended ?
My response was regarding the new gene technique , where the lady in question could have her genetic child and NOT inherit the disease ?
With regards to her history where she knowingly attempted and hoped, I have no facts or information my personal thought is if she knew she should not have tried but then that's a can of worms regarding selective breeding when one knows a family history , as to where the line is drawn . Maybe she hoped God would help her I do not know and stand back from judging her
But I did comment regarding her decision to have her own child without disease and how attempting such controversial methods will help millions in the future and all medical intervention will have moral implications that always need consideration
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats
This seems illogical.
You're saying eugenics will help keep populations down?? How??
Have we introduced sterility into gene splicing and no one told me?
I said social engineering that is not eugenics xxx"
Sure it is. Engineering all the bad shit out is no different to engineering the good stuff in.
Either way how would that stop a population increase? It would exacerbate it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
It seems one of us is getting two sides of a coin blended ?
My response was regarding the new gene technique , where the lady in question could have her genetic child and NOT inherit the disease ?
With regards to her history where she knowingly attempted and hoped, I have no facts or information my personal thought is if she knew she should not have tried but then that's a can of worms regarding selective breeding when one knows a family history , as to where the line is drawn . Maybe she hoped God would help her I do not know and stand back from judging her
But I did comment regarding her decision to have her own child without disease and how attempting such controversial methods will help millions in the future and all medical intervention will have moral implications that always need consideration
"
So because I don't agree with your view I'm 1. Bitter and 2. Blending my facts.
As you admitted you haven't any background on this case so maybe I suggest you reading up prior to posting.
It's an interesting read and you might learn something. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"sooo wrong, stop messing ffs, 3 parents?? Jeremy kyle will be rubbing his hands in glee!!!!!
Do you disagree with ivf ?"
With I find isn't there only 2 sets of DNA? Bit different I think |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Do you disagree with ivf ?"
Absofuckinglutely.
Adopt an unwanted child if you're need is that great.
"But I'm a woman so it's my right to give birth"
"No it isn't, fuck off"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"sooo wrong, stop messing ffs, 3 parents?? Jeremy kyle will be rubbing his hands in glee!!!!!
Do you disagree with ivf ?"
.
Will you be told... it's tampering with nature!! The most powerful force in the universe... Now leave me alone to stroke me domesticated pussy like a good bond baddie |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?"
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people 
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
It seems one of us is getting two sides of a coin blended ?
My response was regarding the new gene technique , where the lady in question could have her genetic child and NOT inherit the disease ?
With regards to her history where she knowingly attempted and hoped, I have no facts or information my personal thought is if she knew she should not have tried but then that's a can of worms regarding selective breeding when one knows a family history , as to where the line is drawn . Maybe she hoped God would help her I do not know and stand back from judging her
But I did comment regarding her decision to have her own child without disease and how attempting such controversial methods will help millions in the future and all medical intervention will have moral implications that always need consideration
So because I don't agree with your view I'm 1. Bitter and 2. Blending my facts.
As you admitted you haven't any background on this case so maybe I suggest you reading up prior to posting.
It's an interesting read and you might learn something. "
You have blended two issues
And I said I have no background upon her state of mind or circumstances regarding her previous attempts NOT the latest 3 way attempt
I read and learn all the time . Perhaps if you did you may be more charitable to another humans position and how science , medicine and ethics weave themselves to help future generations xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats
This seems illogical.
You're saying eugenics will help keep populations down?? How??
Have we introduced sterility into gene splicing and no one told me?
I said social engineering that is not eugenics xxx
Sure it is. Engineering all the bad shit out is no different to engineering the good stuff in.
Either way how would that stop a population increase? It would exacerbate it?
"
Social engineering lol not genetic
China with its one baby policy was social engineering
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? "
.
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost?"
.
Ha were on a plant that's fucked from shopping and your worried about genetic malfunctions that might appear in 200 years time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
It seems one of us is getting two sides of a coin blended ?
My response was regarding the new gene technique , where the lady in question could have her genetic child and NOT inherit the disease ?
With regards to her history where she knowingly attempted and hoped, I have no facts or information my personal thought is if she knew she should not have tried but then that's a can of worms regarding selective breeding when one knows a family history , as to where the line is drawn . Maybe she hoped God would help her I do not know and stand back from judging her
But I did comment regarding her decision to have her own child without disease and how attempting such controversial methods will help millions in the future and all medical intervention will have moral implications that always need consideration
So because I don't agree with your view I'm 1. Bitter and 2. Blending my facts.
As you admitted you haven't any background on this case so maybe I suggest you reading up prior to posting.
It's an interesting read and you might learn something.
You have blended two issues
And I said I have no background upon her state of mind or circumstances regarding her previous attempts NOT the latest 3 way attempt
I read and learn all the time . Perhaps if you did you may be more charitable to another humans position and how science , medicine and ethics weave themselves to help future generations xxx"
Oh another insult you throw my way!
I hope it makes you feel proud while I'm sat laughing.
As you have said you have read up on 3 way DNA then you will know this also has huge health implications.
And to be honest I'm quite insulted your questioning how charitable to another human I'm being when I'm fostering a child who's parents were even less charitable to the child due to a significant syndrome.
So why not rather than trying to belittle me and be rude have a facts based discussion about 3 way DNA. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Pursuit of gain comes at a risk you have to base the risk against the gain.
Eradication of natural genetic faults in evolutionary processes could lead to huge gains for human life but then you could also gain extra genetic faults...
The choice is you try and fail or never try at all |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost?.
Ha were on a plant that's fucked from shopping and your worried about genetic malfunctions that might appear in 200 years time"
Yup, it's called the long term view....it'd be a bit of an arse to get the planet sorted only to find our species was fucked due to genetic tampering.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
These are exciting times to be alive...over the last 40 years mankind has developed all sorts of new technologies.
Tesla - batteries that initially charge from the sun and 24 hours later the house can charge and run itself void of the national grid....cars capable of sustainable speed over three days....and yet shelved because of taxes on fuel.
We live in a generation where NASA have successfully trailed a microwave engine capable of the moon in 12 hours....mars in a matter of days.
An age where due to bioprinting body parts can be grown from the donors own dna.
Being able to splice genes is nothing new to man. Every day new medical sciences come out to prolong our lives, help disabled.
Do we have the right to play "god"?....we already have been for decades, cloning sheep, test tube babies and this is the next step on.
Is it right? In some aspects yes...to help those who cannot have kids. Is it right to plan genetic manipulation for the perfect child? That is a step to far.
No matter how far we push boundaries, nature finds a way to step in if things go to far.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's brilliant people working on stem cell manipulation to cure cancer, regrow withered and lost limbs, regrow teeth.... It all comes at a risk.
The man who nearly eradicated polio with a vaccine had a competitor who more than likely created the hiv virus trying to cure polio with live viruses...
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question"
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's brilliant people working on stem cell manipulation to cure cancer, regrow withered and lost limbs, regrow teeth.... It all comes at a risk.
The man who nearly eradicated polio with a vaccine had a competitor who more than likely created the hiv virus trying to cure polio with live viruses...
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose"
You mean it wasn't a human butt fucking a monkey that started HIV? Or a monkey butt fucking a human? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost?.
Ha were on a plant that's fucked from shopping and your worried about genetic malfunctions that might appear in 200 years time
Yup, it's called the long term view....it'd be a bit of an arse to get the planet sorted only to find our species was fucked due to genetic tampering...."
.
No not really! I think your thinking like a human, I think it would be good of us to leave a planet for other species despite us ruining our own on experimenting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"These are exciting times to be alive...over the last 40 years mankind has developed all sorts of new technologies.
Tesla - batteries that initially charge from the sun and 24 hours later the house can charge and run itself void of the national grid....cars capable of sustainable speed over three days....and yet shelved because of taxes on fuel.
We live in a generation where NASA have successfully trailed a microwave engine capable of the moon in 12 hours....mars in a matter of days.
An age where due to bioprinting body parts can be grown from the donors own dna.
Being able to splice genes is nothing new to man. Every day new medical sciences come out to prolong our lives, help disabled.
Do we have the right to play "god"?....we already have been for decades, cloning sheep, test tube babies and this is the next step on.
Is it right? In some aspects yes...to help those who cannot have kids. Is it right to plan genetic manipulation for the perfect child? That is a step to far.
No matter how far we push boundaries, nature finds a way to step in if things go to far.
"
Spot on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Put yourself in the parents shoes...you find out that you cannot have children due to giving your child a death sentence with a faulty gene. You are told that there is a way of becoming a natural parent with using technology to splice out the fatal gene and create a healthy baby using that gene from a donor...who wouldn't??
Think in the future of how we can reduce the amount of disability and infant death in children with this revolutionary breakthrough.
I know what it's like not being able to have children so I don't need to put myself in their shoes as I walk them every day.
I think the woman is selfish she knew she would pass the gene on and she still chose to have not one child but two and to let that child for for the small time it would live suffer that's cruel.
There are other ways in becoming a parent without interfering with Mother Nature.
Yes ivf is brilliant for those wanting a child, but even that can come with the child having health problems.
It's never going to iradicate disability and why should
It many people with disabilities go on to live the best lives they can. Playing god to seek perfection is wrong and money would be better spent on childhood dieseses which are not hirediatory.
I disagree you sound bitter
I feel we have to aware of designer babies and eugenics however perhaps that dark side is only as bad as randomly having children with random intolerable conditions
This particular example of the technique may only help a person who YOU feel should not have their own offering however the continuing research and development of the technique could indeed one day mean less people die of cancer . The ground work and controversy is always required for future breakthroughs often in non related fields
As for playing with nature , that moral was broken long ago and the line has always been there and always will be there to cross
There is no God to offend or play and evolution is a fickle cruel genius of a selector , if humans can counter balance it's evolutionary demise then that is fair play in my opinion
Personally I feel social engineering is required to prevent humans over running the planet like rats I also feel no human has the right to enforce what is required thus eventually humanity on mass will suffer and starve with a select few having luxury xxx
I'm not bitter I can't have kids I've had to deal with it and I've chosen to do that the best way I can by being a parent to an unwanted child with a disability.
I am angry that this woman chose to have two children knowing she has a medical condition which would also be passed to her children, condemning them to death.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly enough, of a person has a child in this way due to passing on a rouge gene if conceived the normal way all well and good.
What angers me (but doesn't make me bitter) is this woman previously had born two children who subsequently died. When she got pregnant she would have been given a choice knowing the full outcome what health and condition her child would be in. She took that choice then she did it again. People go up in arms when they see people who are cruel to animals etc but how is this woman any different?.
A child is the greatest gift a person could have not a god given right.
It seems one of us is getting two sides of a coin blended ?
My response was regarding the new gene technique , where the lady in question could have her genetic child and NOT inherit the disease ?
With regards to her history where she knowingly attempted and hoped, I have no facts or information my personal thought is if she knew she should not have tried but then that's a can of worms regarding selective breeding when one knows a family history , as to where the line is drawn . Maybe she hoped God would help her I do not know and stand back from judging her
But I did comment regarding her decision to have her own child without disease and how attempting such controversial methods will help millions in the future and all medical intervention will have moral implications that always need consideration
So because I don't agree with your view I'm 1. Bitter and 2. Blending my facts.
As you admitted you haven't any background on this case so maybe I suggest you reading up prior to posting.
It's an interesting read and you might learn something.
You have blended two issues
And I said I have no background upon her state of mind or circumstances regarding her previous attempts NOT the latest 3 way attempt
I read and learn all the time . Perhaps if you did you may be more charitable to another humans position and how science , medicine and ethics weave themselves to help future generations xxx
Oh another insult you throw my way!
I hope it makes you feel proud while I'm sat laughing.
As you have said you have read up on 3 way DNA then you will know this also has huge health implications.
And to be honest I'm quite insulted your questioning how charitable to another human I'm being when I'm fostering a child who's parents were even less charitable to the child due to a significant syndrome.
So why not rather than trying to belittle me and be rude have a facts based discussion about 3 way DNA. "
I think what you have done for a child is amazing xxx
I do not wish to belittle you and retract my bitter comment . However I thought you harsh and outwardly non charitable towards what hopefully is a positive breakthrough which will lead to others
I think great care has to be exercised with all such areas but condemning the women or the scientists is making to warranted judgments
She chose her path you chose yours , I wish you all well xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first."
.I half agree with you but
It's a related problem to a problem I already mentioned and nobody picked up on, we've been going sterile for decades, all that human manipulation with hormonal patches, birth control pills, drugs to cure illnesses that 70% of this forum would be dead from already.... We started down this path with that wheel thingy you can't just jump off it because you've found something you dislike |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose"
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
"
.
Well go get pneumonia and refuse the anti biotics in case we all die off a super bug?.... Yeah thought not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost?.
Ha were on a plant that's fucked from shopping and your worried about genetic malfunctions that might appear in 200 years time
Yup, it's called the long term view....it'd be a bit of an arse to get the planet sorted only to find our species was fucked due to genetic tampering.....
No not really! I think your thinking like a human, I think it would be good of us to leave a planet for other species despite us ruining our own on experimenting"
I know not of any other way to think than as a human?
However you seem to be implying that extinction is merely a mechanism to make way for another species?
Yes I will have that rhino steak and I'll have it served in a gorillas hand wrapped in a panda pelt please |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first..I half agree with you but
It's a related problem to a problem I already mentioned and nobody picked up on, we've been going sterile for decades, all that human manipulation with hormonal patches, birth control pills, drugs to cure illnesses that 70% of this forum would be dead from already.... We started down this path with that wheel thingy you can't just jump off it because you've found something you dislike"
I watch too much Jeremy Kyle to believe humans going sterile is a problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Taking a completely dispassionate view I revert to a constant driving force that has been in influence since the first single cell organism got hungry....evolution.
It has shaped our planet from the dawn of time.
A fundamental part of evolution is which genes are passed on and which aren't.
This seems like a way to side step the natural order.....similar to the research which has lead to sperm fertilising non egg cells in mice potentially meaning a man could have a child containing only his dna.
I understand the drive in human nature to fix, improve and perfect but at what long term cost?.
Ha were on a plant that's fucked from shopping and your worried about genetic malfunctions that might appear in 200 years time
Yup, it's called the long term view....it'd be a bit of an arse to get the planet sorted only to find our species was fucked due to genetic tampering.....
No not really! I think your thinking like a human, I think it would be good of us to leave a planet for other species despite us ruining our own on experimenting
I know not of any other way to think than as a human?
However you seem to be implying that extinction is merely a mechanism to make way for another species?
Yes I will have that rhino steak and I'll have it served in a gorillas hand wrapped in a panda pelt please"
. Providing you've left a habitable planet and some life then.... Funnily enough extinction is the best mechanism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
.
Well go get pneumonia and refuse the anti biotics in case we all die off a super bug?.... Yeah thought not"
I'll take my chances with the pneumonia if it's all the same to you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first."
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
"
The polio vaccine theory was debunked.
It was humans hunting SIV infected monkeys for their meat which facilitate the jump into human biology.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
.
Well go get pneumonia and refuse the anti biotics in case we all die off a super bug?.... Yeah thought not
I'll take my chances with the pneumonia if it's all the same to you. "
.
That's what they all say till they get it, it's probably what people who hadn't caught polio said given the choice as well...
Ps there's no reason to die off AIDS today, we've got drugs that those egg heads have made through scientific advancement!!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first.
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx"
Good point, well made. I'd assumed this was tax payer funded research but it seems not. Carry on as you were... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
You win some you lose some.... But the idea is you win more than you lose
Awesome.
"Sorry you're dying of aids mate, but look on the bright side, at least your kids won't have polio"
The polio vaccine theory was debunked.
It was humans hunting SIV infected monkeys for their meat which facilitate the jump into human biology.
"
We both know they weren't eating those monkeys |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first.
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx
Good point, well made. I'd assumed this was tax payer funded research but it seems not. Carry on as you were... "
.
Isn't he wonderful.... He's like the new you  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. .
The mightiest force in the universe.... Were a fucking mammal, one of thousands on the third rock from the sun, one of 20 billon in our galaxy and as many of them galaxies as grains of sand in all the beeches of the world combined....
"
And genetic structure exists in all of it......Physics of existence isn't just available in corner shops you know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first.
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx
Good point, well made. I'd assumed this was tax payer funded research but it seems not. Carry on as you were... "
To my knowledge but open to correction it was a US team and whether the state had involvement or not they are not known for their charitable healthcare ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. .
The mightiest force in the universe.... Were a fucking mammal, one of thousands on the third rock from the sun, one of 20 billon in our galaxy and as many of them galaxies as grains of sand in all the beeches of the world combined....
And genetic structure exists in all of it......Physics of existence isn't just available in corner shops you know."
.
I haven't the foggiest what that means? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first.
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx
Good point, well made. I'd assumed this was tax payer funded research but it seems not. Carry on as you were...
To my knowledge but open to correction it was a US team and whether the state had involvement or not they are not known for their charitable healthcare ?
"
As I understand it, it was a Chinese doctor working for an American company, operating in Mexico.
There's globalisation for you. The procedure isn't legal in the US but is legal in Mexico and the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have you heard the latest news? It is a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people.
The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. What do you think of it and would this be a new thing to go about it and how would 3 genes work?
So just to be clear, we have 7bn on the planet and that's very likely to rise to 12bn given current birth rates etc. So scientists are spending money to work out how to create even more fucking people
How about, the people who can't have children adopt one of the millions of child who already are alive and don't have parents? I can't understand the obsession with having to have you own fecking genes in the child you raise? .
Now I'm shocked!!
You of all people should appreciate human ingenuity.
where it manifests is a different question
Remember, there are finite resources and what you spend time on matters. This is in the lower region of problems that needed solving. You of all people should appreciate we have bigger environmental issues that 'scientists' should be solving first.
Lovely as that first seems it's not really true
Money talks it's all business
So we don't say apple or Google or Nintendo or ford should not spend billions developing stuff people want to buy so why suggest fertility help is a waste ?
The truth is someone will get rich , some people will be happy and in the future a life will be saved and improved
Space is a fine example , much space tech has now filtered it's way into medicine , from mri to heart valves
To hear some rant , business should stop across the globe and every one should work toward solving problems
Bob spent 50 on a new game
What a waste he should have given that to the nhs or Africa it WOULD have saved a life
Although I think we all should be a little less consumer and more charitable, I feel condemnation of projects such as this 3 way are a little off the mark xxx
Good point, well made. I'd assumed this was tax payer funded research but it seems not. Carry on as you were...
To my knowledge but open to correction it was a US team and whether the state had involvement or not they are not known for their charitable healthcare ?
"
It was actually a team from New York however from my understanding as this is not allowed in the USA it was carried out in Mexico as they have little fertility laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
UK isn't "going to introduce laws to allow it" We already did in 2014.....we just haven't actually done it yet.
Mitochondria are present in the cytoplasm of all cells.....they are passed on through the maternal line (only the nucleus of a sperm forms an embryo). The characteristics of a child come entirely from nuclear DNA (50/50 from mother and father). This in no way allows for "designer" babies. It just allows women with faulty mitochondria to have their own children.
The best way to think of mitochondria is as symbiotic bacteria living in all of our cells. They are what allows us/our cells to metabolise food through respiration using oxygen. Without them oxygen would actually be toxic to us, as are the other elements such as Sulpher and Selenium in the same chemical group.
It is a great medical step forward for women with this "problem". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. .
The mightiest force in the universe.... Were a fucking mammal, one of thousands on the third rock from the sun, one of 20 billon in our galaxy and as many of them galaxies as grains of sand in all the beeches of the world combined....
And genetic structure exists in all of it......Physics of existence isn't just available in corner shops you know..
I haven't the foggiest what that means?"
Then maybe it's best you ought not to comment then eh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh dear.
This isn't going to end well.
Yet another natural phenomenon tampered with and the mightiest force in universal existence played about with like modelling clay.
Genetic structure can't and won't be manipulated, perfection may seem visible on the surface but DNA has a habit of becoming very unhappy when you mess about with it.
Tread VERY carefully. .
The mightiest force in the universe.... Were a fucking mammal, one of thousands on the third rock from the sun, one of 20 billon in our galaxy and as many of them galaxies as grains of sand in all the beeches of the world combined....
And genetic structure exists in all of it......Physics of existence isn't just available in corner shops you know..
I haven't the foggiest what that means?
Then maybe it's best you ought not to comment then eh. "
.
Or maybe you explain the quote in English.
Personally I think your talking utter gibberish, you haven't a clue what your talking about and your knowledged of genetics is limited... But tell me why I'm wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's what most people do when there stuck for answer, they just chuck big words and utter bollocks together to sound impressive... Where's the genetic structure in the sun? Or the milky way? Or the fucking universe for that matter!.
You made a statement that genetic structure exists throughout the universe.... All I wanted was a reasonable explanation of why you think that is so??.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have mixed feelings about such things, I have three kids that I had no problems conceiving so I have no idea what it feels like to want a child, however one of my daughters who is 22 had a full hysterectomy when she was only 18 and I've seen how it's affected her already and I feel it will get worse as she gets older, gets married etc I wouldn't wish it on anybody
But i do feel that nature has a way of controlling things and maybe people who cannot have children is nature's way of keeping the population down
It's like now days nobody is allowed to die, people have to have children the population is getting bigger and people are living longer, how much can the planet cope with
Just a thought |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have mixed feelings about such things, I have three kids that I had no problems conceiving so I have no idea what it feels like to want a child, however one of my daughters who is 22 had a full hysterectomy when she was only 18 and I've seen how it's affected her already and I feel it will get worse as she gets older, gets married etc I wouldn't wish it on anybody
But i do feel that nature has a way of controlling things and maybe people who cannot have children is nature's way of keeping the population down
It's like now days nobody is allowed to die, people have to have children the population is getting bigger and people are living longer, how much can the planet cope with
Just a thought "
But nature is indiscriminate
I'd suggest nature prevents good parents from having their own and some who are unsuitable are able to breed with ease ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
