Are 3-parent babies morally right?

Are 3-parent babies morally right?

A few weeks ago, the House of Commons voted to legalise 3-parent babies in the United Kingdom becoming the first country in the world to allow the practice to go ahead outside of the research labs provided any objections from the House of Lords are dealt with. The controversial move means that now, babies with the DNA of 3 people will be born in the United Kingdom in future and this will be legal: although the extent to how much of the DNA of the third person will likely depend on what faulty DNA is being replaced in the child.

The move however does bring up the bigger broader issue of designer babies - are we heading towards a future of test tube babies where by parents will literally be able to design their babies, with the ability to remove not only faulty DNA but also change features in the DNA such as hair colour, eyes, height and so on? Opponents to this would say that as the science is so new, this can create unknown dangers decades from now which we can't know about with hindsight... whilst proponents would argue that it is yet another step to removing the risks of some of the most appalling diseases and conditions that people are sadly born with.

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--...minati-007.jpg
Women who donate their mitochondria would remain anonymous and have no rights over the child.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...bies-explained

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guardian: what are 3-parent babies?

Britain will be on the path to becoming the first country in the world to permit the creation of “three-parent” babies if MPs vote in favour of changing the law on Tuesday.

The procedure replaces a small amount of faulty DNA in a mother’s egg with healthy DNA from a second woman, so that the baby would inherit genes from two mothers and one father. The idea is to prevent certain genetic diseases being passed on to children. Most experts are in favour but a handful have raised concerns, as has the Church of England.

British MPs have been given the right to vote with their consciences. Under current UK law, the procedure is banned because genetically altered embryos cannot be implanted into a woman. If MPs in the House of Commons approve the change in law, the decision will pass to the House of Lords for a vote at the end of February - and if the Lords agree the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority could license clinics to perform the procedure as soon as this autumn – and the first babies could be born in 2016.

---

But what do you think? Should the practice be allowed at all? Should it be severely restricted or completely allowed?

Quote:

---

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

---

The debate is open to you.

I haven't properly done any research on this, but I think it should be allowed. There should definitely be restrictions in place, but at this stage I don't see it as being morally wrong.
I'll do some more reading up on it, but I don't actually have a 'moral' issue with designer babies either.

As long as it's been properly tested and proved to be completely safe, go for it. Especially as the third parent has no rights over the child at all, I don't see what the problem is at all.

I also have no problem with the idea of designing babies in the future although I can't see it becoming legal in my lifetime at all. It sounds odd and shallow but I'd like to have been changed like that before I was born. I can see why some people have a problem with it but I don't see those things as problems at all.

And weed is still a class B drug.

But yeah, why not, it's something new

While full-on eugenics isn't something I'd sponsor, I don't see the problem with giving a child as good a start in life as possible. So long as there's no meddling with the rights of the parents and everyone involved is fully in consent of the procedure then go ahead and make as healthy and good looking an embryo as you want, but I would obviously draw the line at giving them purple scales or 6 eyes

I haven't actually read much into this, so I can't say much. However I am worried about any implications if the third person tries to claim some form of ownership over the child?
--
But if it's proven to help fight against genetic diseases I wouldn't be totally against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Intersocial

I haven't actually read much into this, so I can't say much. However I am worried about any implications if the third person tries to claim some form of ownership over the child?

---

Ahem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Women who donate their mitochondria would remain anonymous and have no rights over the child.

---

So the third woman who donates would have absolutely no grounds to claim any form of ownership over the child at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Empired

Ahem


So the third woman who donates would have absolutely no grounds to claim any form of ownership over the child at all.

---

Soz Mrs. Empired I only skimread the OP , I hope you forgive me x

I believe this practice is fine, with the correct legislation. There should be an exhaustive list of 'faults', that can be modified or replaced within DNA. This would prevent the 'designer baby' occurring and eye colour and height etc. being changed.
There are diseases we still have no cure to, but are known that certain people have immunity, such as certain types of cancer. If this 'immunity strand' could be given to babies then we could drastically lower the money spent on healthcare in a person's life and this could be turned onto other matters such as education etc.

so long as we are creating them and not killing off existing children because they have faults, what are the issues with designer babies?