UK Government Proposes Rules To Allow 'Three-Parent Embryos' 146
sciencehabit writes "The U.K. government today issued proposed regulations that would allow researchers to try a new and controversial in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure in patients. The technique could allow women who are carriers of mitochondrial disease to have healthy, genetically related children. But it also transfers DNA from one egg or embryo into another, a form of genetic alteration that could be passed on to future generations. Altering the genes of human egg cells or embryos in IVF procedures is now forbidden in the United Kingdom."
Stranger than fiction (Score:2)
I thought the SyFy channel ran out of ideas after Sharknado. I guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
The crazy part is... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two. For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
Also, a few others: at what point does the result stop being a lab experiment and start being a human being with the same rights as everyone else - for instance, is the kid 'patented' and therefore owned by a corporation or other entity?
Lots of sticky issues on that one...
Re:Stranger than fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the proposal, the donor of the egg would have no parental rights. That is logical, since mtDNA carries very little information, compared to nuclear DNA.
There is no genetic modification involved so there is no "intellectual property" vested in the DNA of the offspring. From that standpoint, this is no different from conventional in-vitro fertilization.
Re: (Score:1)
My parents are biological objects. The concept of family has procedural meaning to me: apparently you come out of a person, or you spend much of your life with people, I haven't figured out what it is meant to specify because I've seen people refer to these isolate and my personal experience is both.
Family is like every other people you meet on the street. They're mostly annoying people you don't want to deal with; a few you might bother to go back and talk to. These particular annoying people won't go
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stranger than fiction (Score:4)
For god's sake WHY?
Because most people don't feel the way you do about family.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great.
Why would you want to be a serial murderer? Because you don't feel the way I do about killing some innocent women with your bare hands? Welp, that explains everything, yep.
Family is nothing. It's an invented construct. There's this idea that if your parents mistreat you, they're actively harmful, they're so stupid that your life would have been better if you ran away from home when you were 6 and joined the circus, well... they're still your parents, abusive, exploitative, or incompete
Re: (Score:2)
Woah, easy there tiger. I'm not exactly sure why you chose here and now to explain your unusual, possibly damaging from an evolutionary point-of-view feelings on the subject of family, but no-one actually asked or needed you to.
Family is nothing to me.
FTFY. It's something to most people.
It's an invented construct.
Really? Who invented it? Because familial relations have been in existence since long before us apes. It's a biological instinct.
Besides which, invention has little to do with relevance or usefulness. money is an invented construct. Can I have your
Re: (Score:2)
Let's submit random facts to round out the discussion. You claim there's some evolutionary/biological/inherent construct here.
People form familial attachments to those who raise them. If raised with a foster family, they bond to them as family. The bonding is oxytocsin based, similar to strong frendships or long relationships.
Incest is not rejected due to genetics; rather, sexual attraction is typically mitigated by continuous long-term contact, especially from a developmental age. That is to say:
Re: (Score:2)
Being cognizant of the internal functions of the brain and of how society interacts and forms is not sociopathy; it's called science. Or heresy, if your 'science' tries to explain the laws of God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular case, that couldn't happen, although I don't necessarily trust any government rules to not be overly broad or open to misinterpretation and abuse.
The case here is that an otherwise normal woman has a pathology linked to her mitochondria that will in all likelihood be passed on to her children. For the most part, paternal mitochondria don't get passed on, so the father isn't an issue. So a third party egg donor is screened to make sure she has "normal" mitochondria and provides some eggs,
Re: (Score:3)
The crazy part is... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two.
Tell me about it. My family tree has routing loops.
Re:Stranger than fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two
A kid with three legal parents, perhaps, but that's not what's being discussed.
For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
Surely it would be dealt with in exactly the same way as egg donation, sperm donation, adoption, surrogacy etc. The two legal parents will be the legal parents, and no-one else gets a say.
Re: (Score:2)
... a kid with three parents may well have a hard time fitting into a legal system that assumes only two.
No, the legal system has long had to deal with far more complex situations. Its not just the two biological parents who have legal standing with a child. ... All have legal rights - ( well, here, I'm not sure about Saudi Arabia or the USA.) - you do not need to be a parent to apply for custody or access rights.
You have surrogates, grandparents as primary carers, parent's (gay) partner acting as parent
Sperm donors do not go on the birth certificate, and donors of eggs without chromosomes would have even les
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, how would the divorce issues work out (custody, support, etc)?
This may seem like stating the obvious, but- divorce issues are based on marriage law, not parental law. You can be married to someone who is not the parent of your child (crazy modern world, eh?). And while custody battles tend to favour biological parents, it is not a solid point of law- it is entirely possible for a step parent to be granted custody over a biological parent, if the court thinks a case is compelling.*
*I have witnessed this in real life. An acquaintance of mine got custody of both children
Re: (Score:1)
is the kid 'patented' and therefore owned by a corporation or other entity?
Don't give them any ideas. O, well, who am I kidding, of course they will have thought of that already. I bet they'll pull a Monsanto on any grandchildren.
How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a solution doesn't just allow such women to have healthy, genetically related children. It frees their lineage from the disease. Implement this fix in one generation, and the children, grandchildren, and all their progeny are disease-free.
I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease, or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
Add in some DNA from neanderthal man and you can see what other interesting characters we could come up with for our entertainment..
Once Started, how are you going to police this?
Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have a point if mitochondrial DNA did all that shit. Thing is, mitochondrial DNA doesn't so any of that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the proposed law limited to mitochondrial DNA? And even if it is, how long before that restriction is lifted in another law? Once you start down this road, there's no going back. The end result is obvious: a world like Gattaca, where every unborn child will need his DNA tampered just to get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, mitochondria DNA does have effects on athletic performance, so there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
How long until people start hand picking the genes for the next super generation. The next super athlete, scientist, beauty queen...
I honestly don't care if they do.
Re: (Score:2)
And, what exactly would be wrong with that? People try to do the best for their kids after they're born...why should they not try to do so BEFORE they're born too? If I could help to ensure my prodigy was smart, healthy, athletic, why in the world would I try for anything less for them?
Heck, if you're one that believes in God (and I do), you have to believe he gave us the bra
Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease,
Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
Re: (Score:1)
Please stop breathing. You're asking someone else to stop one of the basic impetuses of life....its reasonable to ask you to do so in return isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a sad excuse for "choice," especially when a solution is readily available.
So is clothing.
The gene pool would be unchanged because what's happening is a mechanical repackaging of the genetic material with non-defective mitochondria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
DNA isn't being manipulated. The nuclei are just swapped. Mitochondrial DNA is physically separate from the rest of your DNA. This is a very non-slippery slope.
Regarding parental rights, the women donating the egg sans-nucleus has no parental rights, which would seem reasonable. Of course that's up to the government, all parental rights in a society are governed by that society via its government. If a lab makes a mistake, then presumably the unfertilized eggs would be destroyed. If by that question you mea
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certain the legalities can be sorted out in the same way that adoption (child generally has four possible parents there), sperm donation and egg donation are currently worked out.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm pretty sure I saw a really bad movie with a premise very similar to that when I was much younger...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it incredibly offensive to say that women should be forced to condemn their children to suffer from a preventable disease,
Then don't have kids. It's still an elective choice.
or be prevented from bearing genetically-related children, simply because some people think the cure is "unnatural".
By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
How about you don't have kids? We don't need any more AC trolls in the world.
We started messing with the "gene pool" when we started giving people things like glasses, surgery, antibiotics, and immunizations to enhance their lives.
Most people will have children regardless. Your stance is effectively condemning those children to a diseased life.
My elective choice would be to take all the people like you, ship them to an island that was devoid of any modern medicine, and let you "evolve" naturally. Enjoy dy
Re: (Score:1)
By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
Humans are part of nature. There is literally nothing we can do that is "unnatural." Furthermore, what is "unnatural" is not necessarily bad; that's just a fallacy.
Medicine Unnatural (Score:2)
By its very definition of how it's done is unnatural and the long term consequences to the gene pool unknown.
By that definition so is just about every medical treatment or procedure ever devised. Any treatment that cures someone and lets them live long enough to reproduce affects the gene pool this include vaccines, antibiotics etc. Indeed you could argue that this problem is itself unnatural since many people with genetic diseases would not live long enough to reproduce in the natural world. So, unless you want to argue that we are better off without any medicine we are already tampering with the gene pool and a
Re: (Score:2)
So we should only allow fertilization via copulation and anything else ist verboten?
Personally, I consider it a very unnatural act to go around sticking little needles into people and injecting things into them for the sole purpose of giving their immune systems a head start against a few diseases. You do understand that those needles and what they contain aren't grown on trees or vines, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And? It's ANOTHER way to have children. Bonus, there children will be healthier to, and so.
Clearly this woman want to have a child with her genes. It's almost like she's some sort of a mammal
Just so you know, you are the one on the high horse. You might want to look up what that means.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I get what you were going for here, but you came off as a seriously creepy AC by phrasing it this way....
Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or we could solve the problem instead of simply going "oh you should just not have children."
Because it's an inherent drive in most living creatures. Feel free to start with yourself, however.
Addressing the suffering of those who are here has no bearing on bringing in more life, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:1)
I have no problem with things like this, but...
Because it's an inherent drive in most living creatures. Feel free to start with yourself, however.
Already have. Now, if only the unintelligent masses would follow. We really don't need anywhere close to 7 billion people on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
" if only the other unintelligent masses would follow."
FIFY
" We really don't need anywhere close to 7 billion people on this planet."
based on..what?
Re: (Score:1)
FIFY
Yeah, I never even saw that coming.
based on..what?
Based on simple logic. We have enough trash and orphans as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but if you do that, it is SO damned hard to get them to look like you as they grow up...
Re: (Score:2)
These children wouldn't exactly be like their parents either, that's the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're advocating the idea that those less affluent can only have genetically disease free kids if they themselves are free of genetic disease.
No, I'm advocating that everyone take a step back and ask "does the world really need another mouth to feed?", regardless of genetic suitability. Deciding not to have a child because it may be afflicted by a genetically inherited condition, in my opinion, is a noble choice. Spending $$$ on a method to circumvent this natural limitation just so you can have a brand new little copy of yourself seems a bit selfish. The more diseases we cure, the more babies we have, the longer we extend natural lifespans, the
Re: (Score:2)
Please post us the proof that you've been surgically sterilized so we can all relax, comfortable with the knowledge that you aren't going to be "bring[ing] more life into this world."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... until you find out 400 years later that the new gene has a self destruct sequence.
Or worse, patent law follows the trend of copyright law in the US and half the population ends up owing royalties for the genes they were born with.
Re: (Score:3)
"until you find out 400 years later that the new gene has a self destruct sequence."
MORBO: "THAT IS NOT HOW GENES WORK!"
Re: (Score:2)
We should keep Monsanto well out of the way, because they'd sneak such a thing in if they could.
Re: (Score:3)
It frees their lineage from the disease.
It's a slippery slope. So we allow them to prevent this disease. What gets defined as a disease next? Genetic predisposition to heart disease? Sounds great. We'd probably allow it if we had already allowed them to deal with the disease being discussed here, right? And if heart disease, then why not genetic predispositions to high cholesterol as well? It only makes sense. What about cancers? Surely we'd deal with any susceptibilities to those too, right?
But at a certain point you start to get into diseases t
Re: (Score:2)
I find it shortsighted to believe that an experimental fertilization method that's never born a single child should be allowed without testing.
I'm all about personal liberty, but safety needs to be a concern too. If the doctors can demonstrate that this method is at least as safe as normal IVF (safe for the parents AND potential child) then have at it, but until then, let's temper our excitement
I'd also tread very carefully around what looks and sounds like a potential new form of eugenics.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it shortsighted to believe that an experimental fertilization method that's never born a single child should be allowed without testing.
I'm all about personal liberty, but safety needs to be a concern too. If the doctors can demonstrate that this method is at least as safe as normal IVF (safe for the parents AND potential child) then have at it, but until then, let's temper our excitement
I'd also tread very carefully around what looks and sounds like a potential new form of eugenics.
Until I had my first child, it was quite the experiment. Lots of room for error too. But I suppose it is better to leave things to chance, and hope on that first ultrasound that everything looks to be developing properly.
Re: (Score:1)
Well the only thing I'd personally worry about is if these changes result in stable and healthy genetics. I'm not really up on the latest in genetic research but I didn't know that we were at the point where science could move in to selectively excise 'bad' genes and insert health DNA. The last time I even looked into genetic engineering involved the science of GMO crops. And at that time there we just hammering random DNA into cells until they could get a cell that didn't automatically die.
Maybe it work
This is not the threesome... (Score:1)
you were looking for!
Sad day... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
genetic contributor - not parent (Score:2)
It really should be not a parent but a genetic information contributor. If it is parent they have an extra target for child support.
However if they do make it parent then I want my probiotic yogurt maker listed as my parent and years of support payments. I am linking the bacteria are a large part of our component body to this notion that a supplier of genetic materials becomes financially liable for care.
Re: (Score:2)
since probiotic yogurt does nothing, then you want have much of a case. IT's all dead before it gets to your intestine.
Re: (Score:2)
"since probiotic yogurt does nothing, then you want have much of a case. IT's all dead before it gets to your intestine."
Are you lying or just ignorant? Check out the research on the effects of probiotic yogurt on IBD. Just because the culture may not survive to the intestines does not mean it "does nothing".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
See? I can "stalk" you, too. The difference is that I done lie and spout off in ignorance.
excellent (Score:2)
a great opportunity for women like that.
Also a great step forward to removing genetic diseases from the gene pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a great step forward to removing genetic diseases from the gene pool.
For some definition of genetic disease... Definitions are very important in this area...
Historically, anything people didn't agree with was categorized as a disease. For example, being gay was once considered a potential genetic mental disorder/disease. Not to be too flip about it, it once had a strong potential to handicap you in life relative to your peers which could potentially shorten your lifespan. I imagine not everyone has migrated away from this view.
Also, evolutionary, there have been times wh
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there's also a poorly understood bottleneck in the transmission of the mother's mitochondrial "chromosomes" to her children...
I'm not a expert on this by any means, but a simplistic answer is that it suggests that only a few of mitochondria out of the 1000's that are in the egg are the ones replicating (rather than all of them uniformly). Perhaps it is related to the inhibition process described in this analysis [nih.gov]. As I recall, the eggs come as part of the later differentiation cycle in the inner cell mass and those are the only ones that get passed to children.
Of course that's just a guess. As I understand it, one question is i
No big deal (Score:4, Interesting)
My DNA is already a mis-mash of genes from millions of ancestors. What would one more matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mitochondria from birds (Score:2)
I think there are some bird species with super efficient ATP generation due to superior mitochondria. I’d love to be able to replace all of mine with theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA testing would see the parentage of the third doner without specialized testing. Mitochondrial DNS are ONLY passed to offspring by their mothers, and given the procedure, there will still be a "DNS" mother involved, insuring that a reasonable set of parents can still be determined using the normal procedures. Not a nightmare at all.
Re: (Score:2)
DNA testing would see the parentage of the third doner without specialized testing. Mitochondrial DNS are ONLY passed to offspring by their mothers, and given the procedure, there will still be a "DNS" mother involved, insuring that a reasonable set of parents can still be determined using the normal procedures. Not a nightmare at all.
One annoyance, for a select group, would be that such offspring would toast the assumptions behind mitochondrial inheritance modeling(since you always get the mitocondria from mommy, and the thing still has nearly as much independent genome as it did in its free-living days, mitochondrial DNA is a good trick for tracking maternity over historical time, similar to the use of Y chromosomes for historical paternity tracking.
If some kid suddenly shows up with a random(but functional) stranger's mitochondrial
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the UK isn't Kansas.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the UK isn't Kansas.
No, but they have their own mess going on there in the CSA (child support agency)... Apparently earning its own level of bureaucratic hell [csahell.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
SO .. will the third parent be asked to pay child support by the court?
I suspect that a lawyer would advise against this; but I would be sorely tempted to point out that anyone who thinks that providing a lifetime supply of mitochondria that actually make it to the 'ATP' part of the job isn't 'child support' in a sense that makes anything after the invention of currency look like trivial stamp collecting, they are welcome to explore this hypothesis with the assistance of such obliging simulations of mitochondrial defects as cynanide, 2,4-dinitrophenol, or Flavotoxin A. Should
Re: (Score:2)
cancer isn't new.
back in the old days they would have called something like SARS a walking pneumonia, as sort of a catch all for a contagious pneumonia that sometimes progresses in an acute pneumonia. There could possibly been dozens of viral outbreaks like SARS in the past that we don't know about because virology didn't exist to identify the cause of such diseases. And it wasn't in fashion for doctors back then to give a collection of symptoms scary sounding acronyms.
Re: (Score:2)
what could go wrong?
Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
what could go wrong?
Plenty of things could go wrong. And it is legitimate for a government to regulate artificial reproductive techniques to ensure the procedures are reasonably safe. But it is NOT legitimate for the government to ban or interfere with individual reproductive choices because they are "immoral" or "don't seem natural". If/when these procedures are shown to be at least as safe as traditional methods of conception and childbirth, then people should be free to use them.
Why is it okay for government to ban or interfere with other choices that are immoral or don't seem natural such as rape, murder, etc.? Isn't the purpose of government to ensure the common good? While one may argue that reproductive choices are moral or immoral, drawing a distinction saying those morality choices are off limits but all of the other ones are fair game seems to imply that something other than morality is involved in the discussion.
It is a myth that society (government) can be divorced from m
Re: (Score:1)
Individual liberties be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual liberties be damned.
What individual liberty is being damned if this procedure is not approved? The couple in question is still free to procreate. They are still free to use IVP to do it and screen the embryos for those with the defect or not. They are free to adopt, if they decide the risk is too great. Of course, adoption would not be the woman's natural child, but then again, if you replace the mitochondrial DNA with another woman's, then neither is the child that would result.
So, what individual liberty is being damned?
Re: (Score:1)
The couple in question is still free to procreate.
Just like you're still free to travel even though the TSA will molest you at airports. The availability of alternate solutions does not mean that your individual liberties are not being infringed upon; you are taking away one possible choice, and that alone is enough to infringe upon people's individual liberties, no matter how many other choices exist.
Awful, awful logic.
Re: well... (Score:2)
Liberty is normally thought of as a freedom from coercion or a freedom to act. Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
The individual is not being kept from having IVP, nor is the donor of the mitochondrial DNA being restricted from donating her egg. The donor doesn't have a right to force anybody to use her egg, so she isn't harmed in any way if the procedure isn't allowed. Likewise, the woman can sti
Re: (Score:1)
Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
Re: (Score:2)
Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not. I'm short, no matter how much I want it, I cannot choose to be a fighter pilot. I pilot many aircraft, including decommissioned fighter planes, but I still did not have a choice to fly one for the military. Did that regulation restrict my liberty? No. Nor does restricting the use of experimental procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
Yes.
Please explain how it restricted my liberty. Do I have a right to fly a fighter jet? No, I do not. Therefore, if I do not have a right to do something, I cannot have my liberty restricted by not being permitted to do it. Liberty only impacts things you have a right to in the first place. That's why not being allowed to sleep with your neighbors kids also doesn't restrict your liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
And really...how does banning this type of thing affec
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what govt. your talking about. IN the US, the constitution basically sets up the federal govt. to have a set, small enumerated set of powers (yes, sadly we're really getting away from that)...but it should be there to keep things civil,enforce contracts, and prevent crime. But I don't see that it is there to be mommy and daddy, and say what I can or cannot do with my body or my life.
And really...how does banning this type of thing affect the common good one way or another? This is purely a decision and action by consenting adults, why should anyone else, particularly the government have a say in what they are doing here?
Being for the common good has nothing to do with the government being mommy and daddy for the people. As for banning this procedure being wrong, well, why should the government regulate anything, then? One can make an argument that any decision made by consenting adults is okay. Don't want to pay to have a board certified surgeon remove your appendix? Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right? But, if it is alright for the gover
Re: (Score:1)
Fine, maybe the butcher down the street will do it. After all, as long as there are consenting adults, that's fine, right?
Yep. If some dumbass wants to risk it, I don't really care; fewer stupid people that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy. Ducks for example. The essential hunting, restraining, and forcible penetration strategy is common across various species.
I have the actual answer for why rape is wrong because I've been able to correctly define right and wrong. This requires some explanation, but the final result will be apparent.
People seek security. In the absence of society, people are individuals with numerous natural threats from wild animals, the weather, starvation, and
Re: (Score:2)
You start off by saying how many species engage in rape as a reproductive strategy, but then conclude with why rape is wrong because people will still be terrified and thus society must change this. However, while I don't condone rape, it is an effective strategy for passing on a male's genetic code. When the Norse raided villages and raped and pillaged (or the Huns or just about any other group), from their moral perspective, raping those conquered did not cause a moral problem for them.
Your premise is t
Re: (Score:2)
Ducks are not as social as human beings. Humans depend on society for survival; rape decreases survival overall, while ducks benefit overall from rape.
Your assumption of conditioning versus instinct is nonsense. Conditioning stems from instinct: instinctive needs being met or harmed provides conditioning, among other things. People instinctively have a desire to live, which is why they will kill to take things they want/need, and will kill in self defense if conditioned largely not to kill. When thi
Re: (Score:2)
What if this leaves the child diseased or crippled with some kind of birth defect? Or that child's children?
That's what this will prevent.
This isn't "Hey, let's try this for no particular reason". This is a means of (at least hypothetically) preventing heritable mitocondrial disorders, such as Leigh syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you should be modded -1, Kneejerk. Seems to me this is not about "Heather has two mommies and a daddy", but specifically to avoid known expected birth defects due to bad mitochondrial DNA in the mother.
Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively inherited from one parent, the mother in humans. Swap out the known bad stuff for some other woman's known good stuff, and Bab's your aunt.
Mitochondrial DNA#Female_inheritance [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The burden of proof is not on me to justify the safety of biological reproduction.