View Full Version : IVF but with 3 parents ?
scientists in china have partially sucessfully created triplets from 3 donors the women fell pregnant but during the pregnancy the foetus's all died
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=453121
i would like to point out that i am against this for the simple fact that 3 parents ?
is there a need for it i mean apart from the child or children dieing due to physical/biological defects when born or in this case dieing in the womb
*doesent like people 'tweaking' with nature
Atomic22
14-10-2003, 18:30
i have to disagree with you on this kronas but tweaking with nature sometimes is essential , however in this case they seem to have gone over the top for no real reason.
ivf is a fantastic thing for many many people and the only stories ever printed in the paper are the scandals like cloning or wrong parents etc etc..
they never seem to do stories on the thousands of people who have paid thousands upon thousands of pounds for countless attempts and the fantastic joy when ivf succeeds....
im not against IVF for women who cant concieve naturally im against the type of tampering which i see like this i mean 3 parents and the need for it is ?
obviously im against gender or sex tampering as i said before im not against IVF if its the egg from the women sperm from the partner
scientists in china have partially sucessfully created triplets from 3 donors the women fell pregnant but during the pregnancy the foetus's all died
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=453121
i would like to point out that i am against this for the simple fact that 3 parents ?
is there a need for it i mean apart from the child or children dieing due to physical/biological defects when born or in this case dieing in the womb
*doesent like people 'tweaking' with nature
My mind boggles. The ends never justify the means; and in this case especially, three babies died just so a bunch of scientists could make a name for themselves. :(
Ah if you read the article, it's not as bad as it sounds.
The woman had a history of problems with her eggs dividing (problem with the genes within).
They took some of her eggs, cleared out the DNA and inserted DNA from a doner egg and then fertilised it.
The advantage of this over just fertilising a doner egg and implanting it, is there's less chance of rejection by the mother's immune system, and also some part of the child is that of the mother (the mitochondrial DNA) rather than her giving birth to the child of her husband and some doner.
My mind boggles. The ends never justify the means; and in this case especially, three babies died just so a bunch of scientists could make a name for themselves. :(
tis a sad state of affairs......i'm not against IVF if it is used in the right way...:erm:
Atomic22
14-10-2003, 19:24
yes xaccers there were reasons behind the attempt and making a name for themselves was secondary and they died from poor aftercare.
Ah if you read the article, it's not as bad as it sounds.
The woman had a history of problems with her eggs dividing (problem with the genes within).
They took some of her eggs, cleared out the DNA and inserted DNA from a doner egg and then fertilised it.
The advantage of this over just fertilising a doner egg and implanting it, is there's less chance of rejection by the mother's immune system, and also some part of the child is that of the mother (the mitochondrial DNA) rather than her giving birth to the child of her husband and some doner.
I did read it; I know the researchers say the babies died due to poor antenatal care of the mother, but this is besides the point (even if it's true, and I'm not convinced it is - they would say that wouldn't they, eh?) surely nature itself (or God, if you like, but I'm not trying to make this a religious thread) designed people to have two genetic parents? Who knows what could happen if we interfere with that? And I still have a problem with the death of the babies involved apparently being treated by the researchers as the unfortunate outcome of an interesting experiment. They were living human people.
downquark1
14-10-2003, 19:35
I did read it; I know the researchers say the babies died due to poor antenatal care of the mother, but this is besides the point (even if it's true, and I'm not convinced it is - they would say that wouldn't they, eh?) surely nature itself (or God, if you like, but I'm not trying to make this a religious thread) designed people to have two genetic parents? Who knows what could happen if we interfere with that? And I still have a problem with the death of the babies involved apparently being treated by the researchers as the unfortunate outcome of an interesting experiment. They were living human people.It was experimentation that led to the first successful open heart operation.
They are probably not religious anyway, so you are criticising them for following their beliefs.
I did read it; I know the researchers say the babies died due to poor antenatal care of the mother, but this is besides the point (even if it's true, and I'm not convinced it is - they would say that wouldn't they, eh?) surely nature itself (or God, if you like, but I'm not trying to make this a religious thread) designed people to have two genetic parents? Who knows what could happen if we interfere with that? And I still have a problem with the death of the babies involved apparently being treated by the researchers as the unfortunate outcome of an interesting experiment. They were living human people.
i understand towny i agree this is not about religion this is about the moral and ethical aspects of IVF although people tend to think a baby is a baby when its actually formed in the womb fully in this case they were between 4-5 months so yes they were humans
Are you against doner eggs then?
Or IVF and other fertility treatments which cause excess embryos to be destroyed?
downquark1
14-10-2003, 19:37
The practice had already been outlawed in Britain, amid fears that it could lead to human cloning, in America and in most other countries. How the hell does this relate to cloning?????????
How the hell does this relate to cloning?????????
Because it makes a good story, adds a little contriversy :grind:
As for the nature/god deeming we should have two genetic parents, what about mitochondrial DNA?
It's an external organism which invaded our ancestors' cells and became incorporated into womens genes.
They do not make you who you are, they just help with the energy functions within our cells, they are not our genes!
Are you against doner eggs then?
no but only if there is a problem with the females eggs
other fertility treatments which cause excess embryos to be destroyed?
that is something i am against i stated before the IVF proccedure which involves the sperm of the husband eggs of the mother is fine but only if it cannot be done naturally
but i dont like third partys getting involved such as what this article describes
B<snip>
It's an external organism which invaded our ancestors' cells and became incorporated into womens genes.
They do not make you who you are, they just help with the energy functions within our cells, they are not our genes!
An interesting theory ... and your proof is .... ;)
downquark1
14-10-2003, 19:49
An interesting theory ... and your proof is .... ;)I don't know personally of any proof, but it is generally excepted by medical science (and I heard it on star trek :D)
no but only if there is a problem with the females eggs
that is something i am against i stated before the IVF proccedure which involves the sperm of the husband eggs of the mother is fine but only if it cannot be done naturally
but i dont like third partys getting involved such as what this article describes
Ok, there are various types of fertility treatment, some involve mixing eggs and sperm together in a test-tube, others involve injecting a sperm into the egg, and others involve mixing the sperm with a doners egg.
All of them involve creating more embryos than will be used.
The excess are destroyed, ie killed, slaughtered, incinerated, whatever way you choose to look at it.
In this case, the woman has problems with her eggs.
So, she can either give birth to a child produced by her husband fertilisinga another woman's eggs, or at least try given that her body may reject the embryo as it's not her's.
Or, her eggs can be injected with DNA from another woman's eggs, then fertilised, thus producing an embryo with the same protein markers as the mother and therefore not likely to be rejected by the mother, increasing the chance of producing a child, you know, life, more chance of, get it?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.