Tuesday 14 October 2003

Foetus with three parents created

from the BBC Just when you figure there is nothing new under the sun.... This involves a host egg and a donor egg and of course some sperm.
Some women cannot produce a viable egg but otherwise have "sound DNA". I'm thinking this is a bit of a stretch, I mean if someone cannot reproduce isn't that natures way of telling you what is what?

Anyway I guess that is a harsh attitude and not supported by scientific research. If you have a weak egg cell you can take it's genetic material and place it in a healthy strong egg cell that has had it's genetic material removed. Fertilize incubate and you have managed to do what Mother Nature did her best to stop.

I'm all for gene therapy, would love to see genetic illnesses cured such as CF or Crohn's. But when we reproduce those who can't reproduce themselves I have to ask to what end? Is this an inalienable human right? this is also only available for women there is no converse procedure for men, although I would guess in vitro fertilization is how a lazy sperm gets a boost.

I'm pretty much down with adoption. i mean there seems to me to be a whole bunch of children that need loving parents born into the world without them each year, seems a shame not to match up them that wants with them that needs.

Where does the search for personal happiness over ride our responsibility to the species?

Is there a difference between the flesh of my loins and any other child in need?

Posted by Philip at Tuesday 14 October 2003 | TrackBack
Comments