Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

demmiblue

(36,851 posts)
Tue Feb 3, 2015, 10:29 AM Feb 2015

Three-person baby debate begins in Parliament

Source: BBC

MPs have begun debating whether to allow the creation of babies using DNA from three people.

Prime Minister David Cameron said he would vote in favour of the technique which is aimed at preventing deadly genetic diseases.

The UK could become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.

The issue has sparked fierce ethical debate and senior Church figures have called for the procedure to be blocked.

However, if there is a "yes" vote in the Commons, then the first three-person baby could be born as soon as next year. It could eventually help about 150 couples a year.

<snip>





Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31069173
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Three-person baby debate begins in Parliament (Original Post) demmiblue Feb 2015 OP
OMG ann--- Feb 2015 #1
"It's alive!" vs "It's dead." DetlefK Feb 2015 #2
The difference ann--- Feb 2015 #3
You mean, in legal and parenting terms? DetlefK Feb 2015 #5
Well ann--- Feb 2015 #7
Mitochrondial DNA is normally duplicated from mother to child muriel_volestrangler Feb 2015 #6
What a brilliant technique! MohRokTah Feb 2015 #4

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
2. "It's alive!" vs "It's dead."
Tue Feb 3, 2015, 10:44 AM
Feb 2015

From a strictly materialistic point of view, we are just chemical machines anyways. And this method is like patching bad software.


But seriously: What's the difference between this and homo sapiens interbreeding with neanderthals?

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
3. The difference
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 07:51 AM
Feb 2015

as I see it, is that there is a third party involved. That's a recipe for disaster, in my view.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
5. You mean, in legal and parenting terms?
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:10 AM
Feb 2015

The third party could be treated like a sperm donor that helps a couple get pregnant. That's not that outlandish.

 

ann---

(1,933 posts)
7. Well
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:46 AM
Feb 2015

You only need ONE sperm donor in order to get pregnant. Adding genes from a THIRD party is outlandish - to me.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,315 posts)
6. Mitochrondial DNA is normally duplicated from mother to child
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:24 AM
Feb 2015

and so, unless there are mistakes in the copying process, everyone has the same mtDNA sequences. This is replacing the mitochondrial DNA that has gone wrong, due to errors in copying, with a version that still does the job that is needed. Why would this cause a disaster?

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
4. What a brilliant technique!
Wed Feb 4, 2015, 08:05 AM
Feb 2015

The child will have a nucleic mother and a mitochondrial mother, but one father.

It's really very simple to solve any legal issues. The nucleic mother is considered the biological mother.

There could also be a third mother if a surrogate mother is used to carry the embryo to term.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Three-person baby debate ...