Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 7:25 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm by Cyberman.)
As if the church opinion on this has any relevance whatsoever. If they want to insist in intervening in scientific matters, then perhaps they should be equally insistent in allowing science to intervene in religious ones.
To me, this is little more than a desperate attempt to make the church seem pertinent to modern society. Look at the pig-ignorance in the following article:
The Torygraph Wrote:Scientists have accused the church leaders of refusing to examine overwhelming evidence which shows that the creation of three parent babies is ethical and safe.
The Anglican and Catholic churches have both warned that it would irresponsible for MPs to pass new laws allowing the DNA of a ‘second mother’ to be used to repair genetic faults in an unborn child.
They have called for more scientific evidence to prove that the child will not inherit characteristics from the donor DNA.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 44036
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 7:28 pm
So, they object to fiddling about with donor mitochondria, but fiddling about with altar boys seems ok?
I'd dearly love to read church doctrines regarding definitions of 'safe' and 'ethical'.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 7:32 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 7:33 pm by Norman Humann.)
My question is, why does a group of old celibate virgins take so much interest in childbirth?
Jelly?
Posts: 3405
Threads: 33
Joined: July 17, 2013
Reputation:
43
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 7:34 pm
(This post was last modified: January 30, 2015 at 7:38 pm by Lucanus.)
How the fuck would the replacement of mithochondria (which I didn't know about and is hella cool) be unethical? What, will they say that mitochondria are the seat of the soul?
Btw, why have a third person intervene? Couldn't they take the mitochondria from the father's white blood cells?
Edit: I just now realized that they meant mitochondrial DNA replacement. Well, whatever.
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.
Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.
Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.
Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 8:10 pm
And don't mix up mitochondria with midichlorians !!
Posts: 10470
Threads: 165
Joined: May 29, 2013
Reputation:
53
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Even in Midlothian?
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
92
RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
January 30, 2015 at 8:19 pm
That happened in Middlesex.
