[ARCHIVED THREAD] - First genetically modified babies (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/24/2013 8:20:41 AM EDT
|
In reading it it sounds like more of a mitochondrial transplant.
What do you guys think? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-43767/Worlds-GM-babies-born.html The world's first geneticallymodified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.
The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics. |
| I don't see anything wrong with that. So what if we make out population stronger and smarter, god forbid that happens. Also, the scientist that said that this is a form of making children in a production line is an idiotic statement and has probably never had children. Just because that baby was genetically modified doesn't mean that the mother carrying the child feels any different that if it weren't a genetically modified child. She gains weight the same, feels the hormonal change the same and will deliver the same. |
 |
Just noticed the bit about how cloning is now an afternoon's work. I think they should do it. I fact, I want a couple of clones of myself to raise. It'd be like a form of immortality. 
Just messing around about wanting clones.......mostly. 
It is interesting though. Once it happens (You know it will), we'll be able to finally put to rest the whole nurture vs nature argument. Oh wait a minute. We already did that. Identical twins are just clones of each other, so.......
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would love to see diseases and birth defects removed. That's what Hitler said 
Really, I think it's neat. If they can bring back dinosaurs before I die, that would be fucking awesome 
Speed Capital punishment? Sarnaev vs. Tyrannosaurus on PPV?? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Genetic alteration of babies would be something that I'd be onboard with. My wife and I refuse to have our own kids because of the potential of them being fucked up. Cousins, huh?  No, realistic. We're on the fence about kids anyway, and we've discussed abortion in the event that they will have birth defects. We share the opinion that allowing a fetus to grow to maturity, only to live crippled, is cruel. While both her and I are healthy and come from healthy families (separate ones, I might add ), the risk is always there.
Not worth ruining my relationship with my wife over a kid we couldn't handle. There's hundreds of thousands of kids that need parents. Why make one? |
|
For a second I thought, "I don't remember that scene in Prometheus." 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a Doctor creates a baby in a lab is he responsible for it until it is 18? I'd say yes but he? With current technology it would at least have to be a woman unless we perfected that whole artificial womb thing. Are surrogate mothers legally responsible any more than a baby-sitter is? ETA: and fuck the luddites: I want a fully loaded baby, give me the performance package |
| I only regret that I was born before this technology has fully matured. I'd sure like to have the nose of a bloodhound, the vision of a hawk, the hearing of a rabbit, the muscular and skeletal composition of a chimp, the reflexes of a ...really-good-reflex-having-animal and the intelligence of a Nobel physics laureate. |
|
Quoted:
I would love to see diseases and birth defects removed. My wife and I would do this. There is a 50% chance if we have kids it will be born with a heart defect. If we could remove that gene that would be awesome. Bible thumpers will probably not like this idea, but God made us smart enough to figure this out, so I don't see a problem with it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would love to see diseases and birth defects removed. My wife and I would do this. There is a 50% chance if we have kids it will be born with a heart defect. If we could remove that gene that would be awesome. Bible thumpers will probably not like this idea, but God made us smart enough to figure this out, so I don't see a problem with it. It'll happen in the future. We'll be able to prevent taysachs and other genetic disorders. 
|
|
The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their 'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.
Altering the human germline - in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world's scientists. This is a little overblown - mitochondria only encode 37 genes - and it is 'germline' only for the females of these babies, AND these are unmodified genes - it'd be like claiming a person with a kidney transplant is a cyborg |
|
Quoted:
They gonna require genetically modified food? Well, they inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. They can't manufacture the amino acid lysine. Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll slip into a coma and die. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda like the idea of genetically modified humans. We can artificially evolve our own species.
Hopefully doing that could lead us away from idiocracy. Be a use right now that movie is looking like a documentary. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'd rather have cybernetics mods than genetic mods. It seems less creepy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I kinda like the idea of genetically modified humans. We can artificially evolve our own species.
Hopefully doing that could lead us away from idiocracy. Be a use right now that movie is looking like a documentary. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'd rather have cybernetics mods than genetic mods. It seems less creepy. Agent Gunther Hermann, is that you?
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - First genetically modified babies (Page 1 of 2)
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.