3 person baby

[Paul6754]

Excellent news and absolutely the right thing to do. Religion should have absolutely no say in the matter and as for "let nature run its course", are all the benefits science has and will bring mankind and the world going to be ignored. How many Vale fans aged over 40 think they would be alive today without the wonders science has bought during the last 50-100 years.

[TheJoker]

Sorry i don't understand the question?

 

In the normal situation with a mother who was likely to pass on a defective gene then a child she had would be likely to have a condition which could reduce life expectancy. Unless I have mistaken something here?

[valiant_593]

Well for me there is one side..what would the child choose if he/she had the choice to make and i can't see that he/she would choose not to have the condition eliminated..no room for noble parents

 

Yeah your probably right

[Tone]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31069173

 

Vote on this today in the house of commons.

 

Interesting to read in the article that the church opposes this. Do many people care what the church say? If they had their way we would be living in the middle ages still.

 

I have no issues with a 3 person baby if it saves suffering and prevents the deaths of thousands of infants.

 

128 MPS were against it.

 

Do the churches not have a right to express their opinion all of a sudden?

 

Although the article suggests it only affects 150 babies a year, I have no issues with saving suffering and preventing deaths of thousands of infants. Let's start with the 185,000 abortions that take place every year in the UK, shall we?

[cheshirevaliant]

128 MPS were against it.

 

Do the churches not have a right to express their opinion all of a sudden?

 

Although the article suggests it only affects 150 babies a year, I have no issues with saving suffering and preventing deaths of thousands of infants. Let's start with the 185,000 abortions that take place every year in the UK, shall we?

 

Completely different issue, although I suspect we are never going to agree on said issue.

[TheJoker]

128 MPS were against it.

 

Do the churches not have a right to express their opinion all of a sudden?

 

Although the article suggests it only affects 150 babies a year, I have no issues with saving suffering and preventing deaths of thousands of infants. Let's start with the 185,000 abortions that take place every year in the UK, shall we?

 

Yeah sure they can express opinion as long as thats all it is and not any actual influence.

 

If you want to talk about abortions then by all means start a thread about it...

[Tone]

Yeah sure they can express opinion as long as thats all it is and not any actual influence.

 

If you want to talk about abortions then by all means start a thread about it...

 

Who gets to say which views of which members of the community get taken into account?

 

I thought we were talking about saving babies?

[Andyregs]

The church can have an opinion, just don't expect the government to take any notice.

I can't for the life of me understand what the problem is with it. We have the ability to make life better for people, so of course we should use it. It's notice different from a transplant or blood transfusion ethically. If people are ok with a dead persons heart keeping you alive then why have an issue with this.

[Andyregs]

Who gets to say which views of which members of the community get taken into account?

 

I thought we were talking about saving babies?

 

The voters. Their representatives have chosen to accept it. What else would you suggest?

Thankfully we have progressed beyond the ideals and backwards nature of a theocracy.

[TheJoker]

Who gets to say which views of which members of the community get taken into account?

 

I thought we were talking about saving babies?

 

It was a vote in the house of commons. The members of the house of commons opinions were the only ones taken into account whilst making the decision. It is pretty simple really

[Tone]

It was a vote in the house of commons. The members of the house of commons opinions were the only ones taken into account whilst making the decision. It is pretty simple really

 

So MPs never take notice of the views of special interest groups? I am surprised by that news. :rolleyes:

[Bea Smith]

The objections remind me of Jehovah's witnesses who oppose blood transfusions.

[Paul6754]

Who gets to say which views of which members of the community get taken into account?

 

I thought we were talking about saving babies?

 

It's not about saving babies but stacking the odds if favor of producing healthy babies which will develop into healthy children/adults.

 

Surely no one can deny a family, in which the mother is known to have defective Mitochondrial DNA, a healthy baby. The other plus from this is if the child is a female then she will inherit normal Mitochondrial DNA which she will pass onto her children.

[Andyregs]

So MPs never take notice of the views of special interest groups? I am surprised by that news. :rolleyes:

 

Not all of them and definitely not all of the time. Unless every cult should have an impact on how MP's vote.

[Tone]

Not all of them and definitely not all of the time. Unless every cult should have an impact on how MP's vote.

 

What about trade unions? Are they a "cult"?

 

The problem with this change in the law is that it may open the door to all sorts of other opportunities which may not be desirable.