Babies made from three people approved in the UK


Glad we are taking strides in health and science.



Good. It’s hurting nobody, I don’t see the issue.



Plus it’s helping people whose babies might have conditions.


And therefore society as a whole.


that’s retarded, furthering the spread of bad genetics so that a few families have the benefit of a child who won’t die immediately but their children are more likely to.

sorry, but there’s a reason they’re not born.

edgy but true. science should not meddle in darwinism for the yet-unborn.

and this comes just after a report has been released by the WHO that for the first time in human genetic history, vaginas are getting smaller, because of all the caesarians happening, caused by mothers who would normally die in the process. meaning that if you have a home birth due to the inability of an ambulance to arrive, you are more likely to die than someone giving birth 100 years ago.

care for the people on earth sure. bringing more bad genetics and suffering on the world, no.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


Caesarians are good though. I’m not good on gynaecology but my mother (both me and my sister) were breech. This reduces infant deaths.


Yes. But they also pass on these bad genetics to the children.

Then, if she was to have a home birth because the ambulance can’t arrive fast enough, she’d die. So would your children.

I’m not saying that people should die

but spreading genetics which are unsuitable, in this case deadly diseases, is hardly a good thing for homo sapiens. as long as we live in a hospital society, caesarans are not terrifying for our species. however, the protection and spread of deadly diseases most definitely is.


Ok I see.

What are your views on abortion laws? Just to take a bigger picture on your views on reproduction.


The road to hell is also paved by social darwinism.

That’s a shitty argument if I’ve ever seen one.


can you read or did you choose to ignore what i wrote

what have genetics got to do with abortion


If it hurts the already damaged nuclear family, this is not a good development.


What are your views on a same sex family/parentage?


If a child is adopted by a stable gay couple in a long-term relationship I don’t really have a problem. Unless some evidence comes out suggesting same-sex parents are significantly and reliably worse for the child than heterosexual parents, who am I to say no?


Except the procedure is made to exclude the damaged mitochondrial DNA, so technically you are removing bad genetics from the population, not the other way around (even maybe adding better genetic material depending on the rest of the parents DNA)


Exactly. It’s a mitochondrial problem being removed and the third parents DNA is put in. It’s totally safe (not really as nothing is totally safe). But pretty close.
Oh the cool thing here is that mitochondrial DNA is used in forensics, so the kids won’t be traced to anyone but the third party donor if they’re found dead in an alleyway or something.


As @First_Order said, if it hurts the nuclear family (which is already declining) then I’m against it.

Furthermore, I’d much rather have that scientific capital be focused on gene editing rather than threesome children (which I would imagine would sort of fuck up the child if raised by all 3).


So, I wonder how you will react to crispr


I’m not sure you understand it.

The idea is to remove DNA which produces bad phenotypes. It’s the exact opposite of “furthering the spread of bad genetics”.

Could you link it in because I can’t find in the website.

That’s a cliché which doesn’t hold too much meaning.

The road to hell is paved with intentions which some people believed were good and others believed were bad. Just like the road to heaven, or indeed a road to any other end, would be.


Is this what nature intended?


These are genuine concerns with the procedure that I also share.

That said, removing genetic conditions through this process may be a net societal good.