Churches oppose three-person baby plan

[zebo-the-fat]

Senior church figures have called on the UK government to block the creation of babies from three people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31063500


The Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was not clear the technique - adding a donor woman's mitochondria to another woman's egg - was safe or ethical.


As usual the god botherers want to hold back progress, they don't care about the families who see their children die after one or two years. (or maybe they deserve to die because god made them with faulty mitochondria)

[Losty]

I'm no doctor and I've never heard of doing this. Is it safe and ethical? Has it been done? Are there risks?

[zebo-the-fat]

Is it safe to let your kids die before their first birthday?

[Losty]

Did you just answer my question with a question?

[zebo-the-fat]

Did you just answer my question with a question?

Yes

[Nope]

I had never heard of the this either but it sounds promising.The church's reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Why would saving an individual's life be unethical? Are there some side effects that the article doesn't mention or is this just a case of religious people being terrified of progress?

From the article:

But a group of scientists has urged MPs to approve the procedure - intended to stop deadly mitochondrial diseases.

---

Did you just answer my question with a question?

Yes

No? Maybe?

[Losty]

Did you just answer my question with a question?

Yes

Well that makes me want to take you really seriously. For real. I'm your number one fan now. All of the good argument points are belong to you.

I was asking a legitimate question. I don't care if a church is the one who said it. Is it more dangerous than the disease itself? Could it cause babies to be born with even worse diseases? Those are important questions to ask regardless of religious stance.

@Nope- obviously there has to be some circumstances where saving a life would be unethical, but I think that's besides the point. I don't think this is unethical...but I just don't know enough about it.

[vorlon13]

Mitochondria are believed to have been free living life forms eons ago, and then were symbiotically assimilated by other life forms.

Human fathers don't contribute mitochondria to offspring, only mothers. Also, mitochondrial DNA can be separately sequenced to learn about our ancestors.

Mitochondria are our cells energy producers.

[Losty]

Mitochondria are believed to have been free living life forms eons ago, and then were symbiotically assimilated by other life forms.

Human fathers don't contribute mitochondria to offspring, only mothers. Also, mitochondrial DNA can be separately sequenced to learn about our ancestors.

Mitochondria are our cells energy producers.

Now see that's cool to know. I only knew they're the squiggly beans. They are the squiggly ones right?

[Nope]

Yes

Well that makes me want to take you really seriously. For real. I'm your number one fan now. All of the good argument points are belong to you.

I was asking a legitimate question. I don't care if a church is the one who said it. Is it more dangerous than the disease itself? Could it cause babies to be born with even worse diseases? Those are important questions to ask regardless of religious stance.

@Nope- obviously there has to be some circumstances where saving a life would be unethical, but I think that's besides the point. I don't think this is unethical...but I just don't know enough about it.

I think that you asked a good question and the poster was wrong in how he/she (sorry) responded to you. My last response to the poster was just silliness on my part