|
Churches oppose three-person baby plan
|
I thought it was Middle Earth in the Middle Ages?
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.'
 Quote: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. What would those pious frauds know about either? 
Ask the altar boys.
 (January 30, 2015 at 9:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote: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. Christianiy still seriously thinks it is an authority on "ethics", after preaching that condoms are "unethical" in AIDS riddled Africa and brushing their problems with child molestation under the carpet... Yeah k bye with that.
"Adulthood is like looking both ways before you cross the road, and then getting hit by an airplane" - sarcasm_only
"Ironically like the nativist far-Right, which despises multiculturalism, but benefits from its ideas of difference to scapegoat the other and to promote its own white identity politics; these postmodernists, leftists, feminists and liberals also use multiculturalism, to side with the oppressor, by demanding respect and tolerance for oppression characterised as 'difference', no matter how intolerable." - Maryam Namazie  (January 30, 2015 at 6:45 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: 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. I always consult my local vicar for medical advice, and I'd urge all medical researchers to do the same. 
I would not know if it is ethical, whether it is or not might always be a debate. Safety is something that can always be improved on, I guess. But if it is ready go trough parliament, I would think it has already been trough some testing.
Thing is, I disagree with the reasons why the church is against this. In the Dutch news they said that the church is against this because it will mean one egg cell gets destroyed in the process. That is a pretty dumb reason to be against it. But exactly what I would expect from a religious institution.  RE: Churches oppose three-person baby plan
February 3, 2015 at 6:46 am
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 6:50 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
(January 30, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm no doctor and I've never heard of doing this. Is it safe and ethical? Has it been done? Are there risks? This news behind this story has grossly misrepresented what is actually going on in this story. They are not physically using 3 people to create a baby. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/...-three-dna Less than a 10th of 1% will be DNA from a 3rd body to combat genetic faults which causes children to suffer and eventually die from diseases such as muscular dystrophy. It's known as a mitochondrial transfer. It is not creating children with different coloured eyes or 3 arms etc. As to the OP, nobody gives 2 shits about what the church has to say anything anyway except a few out of touch politicians. (January 30, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Losty Wrote: 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. No to all. The UK has a more liberal stance towards genetic sciences than the overtly negative stance taken in the US, but that's not say that we don't have very rigorous and stringent ethical guidelines and reviews, not to mention a strong inclination towards following the scientific method designed to expose and potential issues and work towards preventing them. 
Is there a consensus among atheists concerning the consumption of genetically modified babies?
 (February 3, 2015 at 6:46 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:(January 30, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm no doctor and I've never heard of doing this. Is it safe and ethical? Has it been done? Are there risks? That's great news, but I didn't know that. Which is why I asked :p |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
