8 2 mins 7 yrs

Listening to the snivelling and swivelling contributors to the broadcasts and debates regarding ‘Three Person Baby’ proposals, and how terrible it would be if the Law was not changed to allow a couple whose genetic make-up gives their children a possibility of a mitochondrial disease or condition; I was struck by the miserable sentimentality spoken by the woman whose first child has this condition. “Oh, she won’t live for more than four years; so we must be able to have a baby who will not be struck down with this terrible condition!”

What a disgraceful, self-centred, outrageous proposition this is! If the do-gooders and the ‘science’ get their way, we shall be engineering a new person, not one who has the traits and genetic make-up of the parents, but something new, and something very sinister; because we just do not know what the outcome will be.

The Westminster MP’s should say a very firm ‘NO’, and the parents, or would-be parents who discover that any children may be afflicted should be firmly told that they either attempt to have a child in the normal, unscientific way, and love the outcome; or adopt, or go without!

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “Ever thought of not having a baby instead?

  1. The Westminster MP’s should say a very firm ‘NO’

    The less the shits at Westminster say, the better.

  2. Geneticists have recently discovered that 90% of human DNA is virtually redundant, which gets scientists really excited about the possibility of manipulating the rest.
    My guess is that MP’s (who have a higher than average child abnormalities) will eventually say “yes” to this proposal.
    Social engineering, and even GM foods, have long been the raison d’être of the elite classes.

  3. Is genetic engineering really a step in the right direction? The possibilities for a disastser for mankind are endless, and with our current state of global moral decline, are extremely likely.

    It has often been said that Humanity will be destroyed by Humans, this could well be a good example that there may well be some truth to that prediction.

    It seems that the fiction of Frankenstein’s Monster, – a being created by a member of the medical profession, – wasn’t quite as fictional as first thought. Would the new breed of human being be labelled as Homo Medicallis, or some such name?

    Genetic engineering – isn’t that what the nazis were supposed to be trying to do, albeit by a differen route?

  4. Interesting stuff.

    It’s not the first time Hawking has warned about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence. In April, Hawking penned an op-ed for The Huffington Post with well-known physicists Max Tegmark and Frank Wilczek of MIT, and computer scientist Stuart Russell of the University of California, Berkeley, forecasting that the creation of AI will be “the biggest event in human history.” Unfortunately, it may also be the last, the scientists wrote.

    http://www.livescience.com/48972-stephen-hawking-artificial-intelligence-threat.html

  5. Quite so Ernesto.

    The subject is too vast for these short columns, but one aspect of genetic engineering is the growing realisation that altering genes allows a whole new paradigm of ‘facultative’ viruses, bacteria & fungi to take advantage of the greatest prise of all: the immune system.
    Non-medically this is called Bubble Boy Disease, because patients are confined in total isolation from the outside world.
    Rare for sure over here, but becoming commoner in third world countries. Nevertheless, mother nature is always ready to fill a vacuum, and an altered genetic configuration provides the ideal breeding ground for new pathogens to take hold.

  6. All medical developments ever since the dawn of humanity have carried risks . There ouls be no medical progress in any field whatsoever if you took a ‘risk free’ approach to medical care and development. There are potentially excellent and humane benefits to be made from these medical/genetic possibilities

    I hope the MPs give their approval to this procedure and then properly all concerned ensure that every due care and attention is given to how these techniques are practised and used in future. That is the right approach to take , not to close our eyes and say never never never !

  7. Colm, what you say is only partially right.
    When the atom was split many saw it as a peaceful & potential source of new energy, including Einstein.
    What happened there?

    This new genome project and the way genes operate is only vaguely understood. To use humans as guinea pigs at such an early stage looks highly risky to me.

  8. In terms of Evolution this is a ‘dead end’. If two infertile people manage to artificially reproduce the liklihood is that the offspring will similarly be infertile – for infertile you can substitute any genetic condition. All your doing is ensuring the survival of defective genes. Far better to let them ‘wither on the vine’ so to speak to ensure more healthy offspring. Sociologically speaking.

    As to genetic modification…how long before people modify for higher intelligence or superior physical ability. Gene Roddenbery covered this in Star Trek. ‘Superior ability breeds superior ambition’ and leads to Eugenics Wars. Where the inferior (us) eventually become serfs or become dead serfs. It’s a Pandora’s box…don’t go there.

    Better to leave breeding issues well alone. Cure chronically sick if possible but thats all.

    Being multi parented by half a dozen or so should make for some interesting divorce cases. Gay palimony already has.
    Funny how real gay women aren’t as hot as the prawno would suggest……walks off whistling…..

Comments are closed.