onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


3 person baby

TheJoker

By TheJoker
in Off-topic

Recommended Posts

JOHNNYAITCH Newbie

JOHNNYAITCH

Posted
Posted
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?

 

Yes but I still don't get what you were asking

 

For me if the unborn child had a choice in this it would choose to have the condition corrected every time..it would not choose to keep the condition to give its parents the chance to prove that they love him/her anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

Andyregs Newbie

Andyregs

Posted
Posted
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.

 

No of course not.

 

Such as....

 

Does that mean you support this procedure in itself then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andyregs Newbie

Andyregs

Posted
Posted
No, and neither do a lot of other people, unaligned to any particular group.

 

There are always people who disagree with things. If we didn't do anything because of it we wouldn't get anything done. Just because it's a religious group doesn't mean that their opinions should take on any extra weight than any other group.

 

What is wrong with the procedure in itself then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andyregs Newbie

Andyregs

Posted
Posted

 

We asked for your opinion, not for a googled article of someone else's. I'm quite amazed you chose a left leaning website, and that you claim its scientific reasons for your opposition. Considering your opinions on science, forgive me if I don't believe that this article is your opinion, or is it fair to say you can cherry pick when science is relevant as well. To be fair, the huff post doesn't have the best history of checking the validity of its science bloggers sometimes. It has at times also published anti vaccine and homeopathy articles as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tone Newbie

Tone

Posted
Posted
We asked for your opinion, not for a googled article of someone else's. I'm quite amazed you chose a left leaning website, and that you claim its scientific reasons for your opposition. Considering your opinions on science, forgive me if I don't believe that this article is your opinion, or is it fair to say you can cherry pick when science is relevant as well. To be fair, the huff post doesn't have the best history of checking the validity of its science bloggers sometimes. It has at times also published anti vaccine and homeopathy articles as well.

 

I give you an opinion and you dismiss it. I should have known that, on past experience. You always disagree with everything I say.

 

I am reminded of Proverbs 23:9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davidatpreston Newbie

davidatpreston

Posted
Posted
You didn't give me an opinion. You gave me someone else's.

 

I must be honest that I don't often agree with Tone's posts, at least not fully.

 

However, very few opinions are totally unique and if he happens to agree with what he quoted, I don't see the problem with that.

Even more so if it came from a 'left leaning' website, it is encouraging that as many people as possible read as many shades of opinion as possible before making their mind up. In my own humble opinion of course.

 

In any event, I'm not sure this is a subject where left and right come into play, more personal beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andyregs Newbie

Andyregs

Posted
Posted
I must be honest that I don't often agree with Tone's posts, at least not fully.

 

However, very few opinions are totally unique and if he happens to agree with what he quoted, I don't see the problem with that.

Even more so if it came from a 'left leaning' website, it is encouraging that as many people as possible read as many shades of opinion as possible before making their mind up. In my own humble opinion of course.

 

In any event, I'm not sure this is a subject where left and right come into play, more personal beliefs.

 

I agree with you. I just find its are to believe. Did he have this opinion first and then find the exact article to express it, or did he find then reticle and think 'damn that's spot on that is'? Has he read the scientific articles it quotes? Or anything more than what is quoted there? Any articles that possibly refute them.

Also I find it hard to believe someone that disputes evolution and believes the world is a few thousand years old is now using science in a debate about genetics.

I just can't see the difference between this and when we first starter using vaccines, transplants, IVF or blood transfusions. There are always scare stories when such things are introduced, then they became normal. The use of headlines talking about three parents is sensationalist tabloid fodder as the child will have 99.9999% the genetic make up of its two parents. Can't see the difference between that and having someone else's heart beating in your chest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul6754 Veteran

Paul6754

Posted
Posted

 

The author of the paper is hardly informed, her qualifications are not science based. This technique isn't about quote, "make genetic changes to IVF embryos" as no changes or manipulation of the actual molecules that make up the genes/DNA are taking place.

 

This technique is about taking an embryo of a donor female containing already formed healthy Mitochondrial DNA and then adding to that embryo the already formed nuclear DNA from a cell of the mother to be, then adding the male sperm/fertilization, then re-implantation into the mothers womb.

 

The same objections about IVF occurred when it became available and those concerns has been shown to be completely unfounded over the years. The author of the article you referenced was herself a product of IVF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tone Newbie

Tone

Posted
Posted
The author of the paper is hardly informed, her qualifications are not science based. .

 

Maybe, if you consider Anthropology is not a science.

 

She graduated with Highest Distinction from UC Berkeley, earning a B.A. with a major in Anthropology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk

  • Friends of OVF

Advert



×
×
  • Create New...