Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Cactus on Friday February 28 2014, @02:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the Kwisatz-Haderach-breeding-program dept.

GungnirSniper writes:

The US Food and Drug Administration is holding hearings to help determine if they should allow oocyte modification of mitochondrial DNA, which could prevent hereditary diseases that cause issues, such as such as seizures and blindness, from being passed on by mothers. In layman's terms, this "three-parent IVF" would allow the mitochondrial DNA of an unaffected woman to replace that of the mother while keeping the main DNA, so the child would still look like the mother and father.

From Scientific American: "Once the mtDNA has been swapped out, the egg could be fertilized in the lab by the father's sperm and the embryo would be implanted back into mom where pregnancy would proceed. The resulting child would be the genetic offspring of the intended mother but would carry healthy mitochondrial genes from the donor."

The New York Times has a shorter version of the story, as well as an opinion column urging ethical and moral consideration of this procedure.

Is this an ethical way to prevent future harm, or the start of a slippery slope to designer babies? Is the creation of designer babies immoral?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by morgauxo on Friday February 28 2014, @10:00PM

    by morgauxo (2082) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:00PM (#8826)

    You seem to be just stating the idea that consciousness makes personhood and adding inteligence to the equation. A computer can have an internal representation of it's state as being on/off. It can also have a form of inteligence. Why is it not a person? I think there has to be more to it.

    I don't know what exactly personhood really is
    I believe I am a person (thus invested in the question)
    I don't believe anyone else knows
    Therefore I gravitate towards a very conservative answer (if it can become a person it is a person)

    Unfortunately that conservative answer conflicts with a desire to see disease eliminated (includeing genetic). Beyond that.. I hope that one day we have genetic advancement making our descendants smarter, stronger, healthier... I want them to live better lives than we do. (Honestly I want that life but I can't have it)

  • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday February 28 2014, @10:45PM

    by melikamp (1886) on Friday February 28 2014, @10:45PM (#8857) Journal

    if it can become a person it is a person

    This does not make a lick of sense. Our common ancestor with roaches could become a person, and in fact it did, so was it a person? You are seriously over-thinking the matter. An embryo is a microbe at best. It's not a person. Being able to transform into a person, given the right circumstances, is irrelevant. If it was relevant, then stardust, which transforms into a person after a long period of chemical and then biological evolution, is a person.

    If we keep following your reasoning, then being able to transform into a non-person would make you a non-person. Anyone is capable of jumping from a tall building and becoming a non-person, so are we all non-persons? No. You are a person while you are alive, and you are very much not when your brain blanks, even if the tubes keep you breathing and your blood running. What you may be in the future is irrelevant for your current personhood status.

    While personhood is indeed mysterious, the non-personhood of things like rocks, roaches, and embryos is not. An intelligent humanoid robot poses a challenge. An organism consisting of a handful of cells does not, especially if it absolutely cannot sirvive outside of a womb-like environment. An implanted embryo is simply a part of the mother. A removed embryo is as much of a person as a hair from her head. You can take the DNA from the detached hair and clone a brand-new person. Does this make hair a person?

    • (Score: 1) by morgauxo on Tuesday March 11 2014, @10:09PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Tuesday March 11 2014, @10:09PM (#14905)

      "If we keep following your reasoning, then being able to transform into a non-person would make you a non-person."

      Nope! My reasoning is that personhood is something none of us are even in a position to fully comprehend. But, as we "I assume" are all people ourselves it is a very important question. Thus, we should err on the side of caution. Your suggested conclusion to my reasoning is the exact opposite of caution.

      "You are a person while you are alive, and you are very much not when your brain blanks"

      So I can infer from this it is all about brain activity for you? The brain is just a bunch of neurons. Is one live neuron a person? If not then how many does it take? Is it the unique pattern that the neurons make that makes it a person? What if this pattern is simulated on a really powerful computer? Is that a peson? If so is it the same person? Or a new one? What if the simulation were started right at the death of the original? Is that the same person now immortalized? What if the copy is made before the original dies? What if there are many copies?

      "An intelligent humanoid robot poses a challenge."

      Yes 'it' does. And that line of thinking is exactly why I don't like the idea of defining personhood as involving brain function. Would an intelligent humanoid robot be a person? I don't know. I hope so.

      If such a robot were built I don't think anyone could truly 100% understand all of it's programming. Different pieces would be written by different people. Much of it would probably be made through some sort of learning algorithms. But... all of the individual pieces would be easily understandable by anyone with a basic understanding of electronics. It would just be a huge mass of digital switches. Everything could be deconstructed down to logic gates. And yet... the sum of it all is a person?

      Our own neurons are more complicated than boolean logic gates. But.. they are still far too simple to grant "personhood" to a single neuron any more than a logic gate is a person (whatever person is). So.. that is why I think there is something more to personhood. Personhood must be more than just the sum of it's parts. Reducing it to brain function just brings it back down to the level of it's parts.

      "especially if it absolutely cannot sirvive outside of a womb-like environment"

      Ok, here is another definition candidate for personhood... "independance". That one is even worse than brain function! First, there is no clear cut line when a fetus/baby is capable of surviving a premature birth. Just look at the babies who were born as part of a failed abortion. One side of the opening and they are discardable fetuses. On the other side they are people? I guess the magic soul fairy shows up right at birth then?

      Babies are still very much dependant on adult care after birth. As are many injured, diseased and old people. I hope we agree that they are people. What's so special about being dependant on a womb?

      "An implanted embryo is simply a part of the mother."

      Umm... because you say so? You just made a convenient definition of embryo and then used your definition as part of your argument. Just because it is inside her doesn't make it a part of her. She isn't born with it. Nor will it remain in her permanently. It doesn't serve any purpose for her body. It doesn't match her DNA. An embryo is no more a part of the mother than is any other parasite living within her body.

      "You can take the DNA from the detached hair and clone a brand-new person"

      Nope. Hair only has mitochrondial DNA. You at least need the follicle to get the rest. Not that this matters to the argument but I thought I would point it out.