ReinnieR Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-19597856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not A Mallard Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Husband + wife + 0 = baby. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Saw this story a few months back. Pretty cool! Genetically speaking, mitochondrial DNA is separate from your actual cells DNA, but in functionality, the mitochondria play a huge role. Not sure how this will play out legally, but we shall see I guess. Only potential moral problem is the destruction of an embryo to harvest either the mitochondrial DNA or cell dna in order to combine it with a healthy mitochondria. Luckily there is a way to do that without the use of an embryo and simply harvest the mitochondria from an egg before fertilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Saw this story a few months back. Pretty cool! Genetically speaking, mitochondrial DNA is separate from your actual cells DNA, but in functionality, the mitochondria play a huge role. Not sure how this will play out legally, but we shall see I guess. Only potential moral problem is the destruction of an embryo to harvest either the mitochondrial DNA or cell dna in order to combine it with a healthy mitochondria. Luckily there is a way to do that without the use of an embryo and simply harvest the mitochondria from an egg before fertilization.I wouldn't say that's the only moral problem. It would still require IVF, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Eugenics. Nothing new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I wouldn't say that's the only moral problem. It would still require IVF, right? Ah yes, that is true. Eugenics. Nothing new under the sun. I dont think its Eugenics. Eugenics operates solely for the purpose of manipulating genetic material to result in a superior baby...ei to select the best genes for appearance, intelligence, health and what not. I wouldn't consider curing Mitochondrial disease as eugenics; there is a difference between using technology to eliminate a disease vs using it to simply make someone better when there was nothing wrong in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archaeology cat Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Mitochondrial diseases are crazy. THere was a question about whether Kieran's cyclic vomiting could be from a mitochondrial issue, but they aren't thinking that so much now. Finding a way to actually cure mitochondrial diseases would be awesome, provided they can do so without using immoral means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Having a defective mitochondria is a big deal. It is involved with soooo much in your body. If this works, it would be a saving grace for many babies that die only months after they are born because of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 This is less about eugenics and more about vanity and stupidity. It's from the quarter that think babies are fashion accessories and a "right." I love the quote from Juassic Park about scientists spending all their time on can we do it rather than on should we do it. I can imagine so many really nasty things that could come from this besides bad moral decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superblue Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Remember that show, My Two Dads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 I once heard that they found a way to create a baby using only two women, but I'm to lazy to look up the link. Hopefully nothing comes of it. what a violation of human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 This is less about eugenics and more about vanity and stupidity. It's from the quarter that think babies are fashion accessories and a "right." I love the quote from Juassic Park about scientists spending all their time on can we do it rather than on should we do it. I can imagine so many really nasty things that could come from this besides bad moral decisions. What about this has anything to do with vanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 What about this has anything to do with vanity? The vanity of wanting to create a perfect baby rather allowing God to do the creating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Edited September 19, 2014 by FuturePacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 The vanity of wanting to create a perfect baby rather allowing God to do the creating. "perfect" here simply means designing someone to look as they want. That's not "perfect." So much for everyone is beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now