-:Undertaker:-
02-03-2015, 11:50 PM
Are 3-parent babies morally right?
A few weeks ago, the House of Commons voted to legalise 3-parent babies in the United Kingdom becoming the first country in the world to allow the practice to go ahead outside of the research labs provided any objections from the House of Lords are dealt with. The controversial move means that now, babies with the DNA of 3 people will be born in the United Kingdom in future and this will be legal: although the extent to how much of the DNA of the third person will likely depend on what faulty DNA is being replaced in the child.
The move however does bring up the bigger broader issue of designer babies - are we heading towards a future of test tube babies where by parents will literally be able to design their babies, with the ability to remove not only faulty DNA but also change features in the DNA such as hair colour, eyes, height and so on? Opponents to this would say that as the science is so new, this can create unknown dangers decades from now which we can't know about with hindsight... whilst proponents would argue that it is yet another step to removing the risks of some of the most appalling diseases and conditions that people are sadly born with.
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/1/31/1422704532016/IVF-artificial-inseminati-007.jpg
Women who donate their mitochondria would remain anonymous and have no rights over the child.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained
Britain will be on the path to becoming the first country in the world to permit the creation of “three-parent” babies if MPs vote in favour of changing the law on Tuesday.
The procedure replaces a small amount of faulty DNA in a mother’s egg with healthy DNA from a second woman, so that the baby would inherit genes from two mothers and one father. The idea is to prevent certain genetic diseases being passed on to children. Most experts are in favour but a handful have raised concerns, as has the Church of England.
British MPs have been given the right to vote with their consciences. Under current UK law, the procedure is banned because genetically altered embryos cannot be implanted into a woman. If MPs in the House of Commons approve the change in law, the decision will pass to the House of Lords for a vote at the end of February - and if the Lords agree the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority could license clinics to perform the procedure as soon as this autumn – and the first babies could be born in 2016.
But what do you think? Should the practice be allowed at all? Should it be severely restricted or completely allowed?
There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!
The debate is open to you.
A few weeks ago, the House of Commons voted to legalise 3-parent babies in the United Kingdom becoming the first country in the world to allow the practice to go ahead outside of the research labs provided any objections from the House of Lords are dealt with. The controversial move means that now, babies with the DNA of 3 people will be born in the United Kingdom in future and this will be legal: although the extent to how much of the DNA of the third person will likely depend on what faulty DNA is being replaced in the child.
The move however does bring up the bigger broader issue of designer babies - are we heading towards a future of test tube babies where by parents will literally be able to design their babies, with the ability to remove not only faulty DNA but also change features in the DNA such as hair colour, eyes, height and so on? Opponents to this would say that as the science is so new, this can create unknown dangers decades from now which we can't know about with hindsight... whilst proponents would argue that it is yet another step to removing the risks of some of the most appalling diseases and conditions that people are sadly born with.
http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/1/31/1422704532016/IVF-artificial-inseminati-007.jpg
Women who donate their mitochondria would remain anonymous and have no rights over the child.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/02/three-parent-babies-explained
Britain will be on the path to becoming the first country in the world to permit the creation of “three-parent” babies if MPs vote in favour of changing the law on Tuesday.
The procedure replaces a small amount of faulty DNA in a mother’s egg with healthy DNA from a second woman, so that the baby would inherit genes from two mothers and one father. The idea is to prevent certain genetic diseases being passed on to children. Most experts are in favour but a handful have raised concerns, as has the Church of England.
British MPs have been given the right to vote with their consciences. Under current UK law, the procedure is banned because genetically altered embryos cannot be implanted into a woman. If MPs in the House of Commons approve the change in law, the decision will pass to the House of Lords for a vote at the end of February - and if the Lords agree the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority could license clinics to perform the procedure as soon as this autumn – and the first babies could be born in 2016.
But what do you think? Should the practice be allowed at all? Should it be severely restricted or completely allowed?
There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!
The debate is open to you.