Fertility Method For Creating Three-Parent Baby May Become Legal

The old conservative canard that “it takes one man and one woman can make a baby” grows ever more out-of-date. The Telegraph reports:

Members of the public are being asked whether families with a genetic risk of incurable conditions like muscular dystrophy should be allowed to use the DNA of a third party to create healthy children. Although the resulting babies would inherit a small fraction of their DNA from the donor and not their mother or father, the procedure would spare all future generations from a host of rare and debilitating conditions.

The technique is currently forbidden as a treatment, but a public consultation launched today will help inform a decision by Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, on whether the clinical benefits outweigh any ethical concerns. Should Mr. Hunt decide to give the treatment the green light the technique could be written into law as early as next year, making Britain the first country in the world to allow human trials.

9 Comments on "Fertility Method For Creating Three-Parent Baby May Become Legal"

  1. This ought not become reality, remember babies born could have DNA issues, then what? Abort them after birth? Could they in turn have children and pollute the future DNA pool? There are serious issues at play here. This ought not be reality.

    • VaudeVillain | Sep 18, 2012 at 9:46 am |

      While I’m normally right on board to kneejerk against meddling with the human genome… I think you skipped a half dozen steps between “we use this procedure to tamp down genetic defects by substituting broken genes for working ones” and “post-birth abortion.”

      If this process doesn’t work, unless it does so in spectacular and wholly unpredictable ways (think children with two heads), the worst likely case is that genetic ailments persist just as they always have.

      There are plenty of good reasons to be against this sort of thing, but inventing a slippery slope and then throwing us down it doesn’t really illuminate them. A better “but what about…” would be when people start applying this to “defects” such as, say, too much melanin. That’s a far more manageable logic leap, and one that doesn’t require much lateral movement along the spectrum of Bad Ideas.

      • Matt Staggs | Sep 18, 2012 at 10:02 am |

        Babies with three parents! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

  2. Alexander Jones | Sep 18, 2012 at 10:02 am |

    I am confused are they speaking of mixing DNA between the tow other people or just using someone else’s sperm to impregnate the female? If its the latter hasn’t this been going on for a long time? A third person donating to make the baby has ben going on for some time now no?

    •  I think it’s like two dudes impregnating a woman. Much like that X Files episode in with those redneck mutants impregnated their own mom and the mutant baby’s DNA shown multiple fathers. Mess up, in that way.

  3. in 1800 there were 1 billion people on Earth
    that doubled by 1930 (130 years) and that doubled by 1975 to 4 billion (45 years)
    there are almost 8 billion people on Earth right now
    so we should do everything possible to make sure
    everyone born lives, regardless of their genetic heritage
    or the risks to the human gene pool from this Frankenstein like experimentation

    I’m confused, aren’t they elites supposed to trying to kill us off

    • Who would do all the hard labor for them? They always  have ambitious plans to increase their luxury and comfort. Before we used to be forced into slavery, now we compete for jobs and who is the best slave. 

Comments are closed.