‘Designer Babies’ Debate Should Start, Scientists Say

James Gallagher, BBC News, January 18, 2015

Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.

He said huge advances in the past two years meant “designer babies” were no longer HG Wells territory.

Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

Designer babies–genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease–have long been a topic of science fiction.

Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.

In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from the sperm and egg come together.

Dr Perry, who is based at the University of Bath, told the BBC: “We used a pair of molecular scissors and a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut.

“It is approaching 100% efficiency already, it’s a case of ‘you shoot you score’.”

New era

It is the latest development of “Crispr technology”–which is a more precise way of editing DNA than anything that has come before.

It was named one of the top breakthroughs in 2013, hailed as the start of a new era of genetics and is being used in a wide-range of experiments in thousands of laboratories.

As well simply cutting the DNA to make mutations, as the Bath team have done, it is also possible to use the technology to insert new pieces of genetic code at the site of the cut.

It has reopened questions about genetically modifying people.

Prof Perry added: “On the human side, one has to be very cautious.

“There are heritable diseases coded by mutations in DNA and some people could say, ‘I don’t want my children to have these mutations.'”

This includes conditions such as cystic fibrosis and genes that increase the risk of cancer.

“There’s much speculation here, but it’s not completely fanciful, this is not HG Wells, you can imagine people doing this soon [in animals].

“At that time the HFEA [the UK’s fertility regulator] will need to be prepared because they’re going to have to deal with this issue.”

He said science existed as part of a wider community and that it was up to society as a whole to begin assessing the implications and decide what is acceptable.

Time for debate

Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, from the UK Medical Research Council, has been influential in the debate around making babies from three people and uses the Crispr technology in his own lab.

He said testing embryos for disease during IVF would be the best way of preventing diseases being passed down through the generations.

However, he could see such potential uses of “germ-line therapies” for men left infertile by damaging mutations.

While they can have children through IVF, any sons would still have the mutations and would in turn need IVF. Genetic modification could fix that.

It would also be useful in circumstances when all embryos would carry the undesirable, risky genes.

Prof Lovell-Badge told the BBC News website: “Obviously in the UK, this is not allowed and there would have to be a change in regulations, which I suspect would have enormous problems.

“But it is something that needs to start to be debated.

“There has been a blanket ban on germ-line therapy, so there needs to be a debate about that and some rational thought rather than knee-jerk reactions that, ‘No you can’t possibly do that.'”

Such a debate would also have to move beyond therapies into the field of babies designed to have desirable traits.

Some alternations would only require small changes to DNA, such as some changes to eye colour or to make a child HIV-resistant.

The respected Nuffield Council on Bioethics is understood to be considering a report on the issue.

Its verdict in 2012 that it was ethical to create babies from three people formed a core part of the public debate on the issue.

At the time it said a much wider debate on germ-line therapy was still needed.

Complex ethics

Its director, Hugh Whittall, told the BBC: “I think this is a challenge, for all of us, we should get onto looking at this fairly rapidly now.”

He said the field raised questions of social justice around techniques available only to the rich and what constituted identity as well as “issues of governance and regulation”.

Dr David King, from the campaign group Human Genetics Alert, echoed calls for the public to engage with the issue.

He said: “I think it’s pretty inevitable that we’ll get to a point where it’s scientifically possible, certainly these new techniques of genome editing have made something look much more feasible than it did five years ago.

“But that does not mean to say it’s inevitably the way we have to go as a society.”

This is still a matter of science fiction and there is a huge amount of research–particularly on unwanted mutations, efficiency and safety–that needs to be done before any attempt of humans would even be considered.

A spokesman for the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said: “We keep a watchful eye on scientific developments of this kind and welcome discussions about future possible developments.”

He said it “should be remembered that germ-line modification of nuclear DNA remains illegal in the UK” and that new legislation would be needed from Parliament “with all the open and public debate that would entail” for there to be any change in the law.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • TheMaskedUnit

    Without the cooperation of the women … this is all moot. The problem is no babies, not eye color.

    • IstvanIN

      Someone, somewhere, is working on the artificial womb.

      • TheMaskedUnit

        I fear that “cure” would be monstrously worse than the disease. God help those “children”.

        • IstvanIN

          It could, no doubt, become ugly.

      • Sick of it

        Read “World Without Men” by Charles Eric Maine. Quite a horrifying possibility.

        • BillMiller66

          A world without men would work just fine until the oil needs to be changed.

          • meanqueen

            Hey, we like to have you around for other reasons.

      • Texan1st

        Brave New World?

    • LHathaway

      The day may be coming when women will need the cooperation of men. It’s quite possible, white birthrates, in most of the country, will fall drastically.

  • The Dude

    These new possibilities for choosing to pass on or ward off certain traits opens a whole road for eugenics. Certainly, the richest will have the most access to them, at least in the beginning. But after that, more and more middle-class people will be able to afford it.

    We already know that certain genes make people more way more likely to develop certain diseases. If they can be detected, then the embryos that have them will be discarded in favor of those who don’t. It’s natural selection, except that it’s done at the embryonic stage.

    Personally, if I could afford it, I’d do the screenings for certain genes, and try and make sure they are not passed on to my progeny. I’d also make sure all of my children have perfect straight brown to blonde hair and blue to green eyes.

    • dd121

      The left will feel threatened and ban this.

      • The Dude

        I know. They won’t like like that at all. Keep in mind that most people from Europe to the Middle East to North Africa to Central Asia to Latin America do have significant European ancestry, meaning that they can choose to pass on the European traits (hair color, hair texture, eye color) over the negroid or other. If this ever become more accessible to the midde class, which I’m suspecting it might take a while, thing are going to become whiter all around.

        • Sick of it

          “Because you don’t “create” your babies from scratch, you just choose to pass on certain traits and genes you already have over others. It’s about passing on the best combination of both parents.”

          Which means that good looking, intelligent white people should be encouraged to produce as many children as possible. Who cares about the rest? Their DNA is limited.

          • The Dude

            Well, as a general rule, yes. Good-looking, intelligent white people should have as many children as they can afford.

            But in this “designer baby” case, not all of the genes for “looks” and intelligence have been spotted yet by science. One can detect the genes that makes you likely to develop some diseases and malformations and avoid passing them on, or the genes associated with certain eye and hair colors. But I think that’s all that can be done for the time being.

          • Sick of it

            Sure…because they leave race out of the equation. I don’t expect that to change anytime soon.

          • Sha of Communism

            In fact, just giving the baby immunity to most diseases and healthy innards is enough to boost his intelligence quite a bit. Most of us (natural-borns) do not get to exhibit the full potential of our intelligence because of constantly getting sick as a child and some endocrinological imperfections.

            Meet some designer kids (if their parents are open to talk to you about it) in those expensive daycares and private elementary schools. Many of those that appear much smart than their parents are in fact not specifically modified for higher intelligence. It’s some other imperfections have hindered the brain/neuro development for their parents have been removed for their generation.

          • meanqueen

            Thank you for explaining the science behind PGD, and that there is no possibility of truly creating “designer babies.” I find the term incredibly offensive! To my knowledge, and I have some personal/professional experience in this field, no one can choose hair or eye color. Most often, chromosomes are screened for abnormalities, sex selection is used rather frequently, and many genetic diseases can be screened for but this is a much more involved and time consuming prospect than either sex selection or chromosome analysis as gene templates must be created first.

          • Sha of Communism

            Then what do you consider the function of MC1R/MSHR is?

          • meanqueen

            Genes are interesting, but not all of them can be selected in the IVF/PGD process. In the context of IVF, MC1R/MSHR has no function at all.

          • meanqueen

            Sha, that may, and probably will, change in the future. I’m just talking about what is available and legal now.

      • TruthBeTold

        One group of people have been using amniocentesis to screen for tay sachs disease for decades.

        Some people are allowed to practice eugenics.

        • The Dude

          Okay, we all know in which group the Tay-Sachs disease is more prevalent. And no, they haven’t been exclusively allowed to get screened for those genes. Anyone can.

          There are already many fertility clinics that do that in California especially, and to my knowledge, there isn’t a “Jews Only!” plaque on their website or brochures. They’re private businesses and they want to get as many clients as possible.

          • TruthBeTold

            No there isn’t a ‘Jews Only’ issue.

            The reason I brought it up was the double standard we see with some groups.

            The amniocentesis/abortion debate often arises around Downs Syndrome. Have you ever heard anyone bring up Tay-Sachs screening and abortions?

          • meanqueen

            Oh boy. Do you really mean to tell everyone here that you do not see the difference between aborting a Tay-Sachs baby who will ALWAYS DIE in infancy or toddlerhood, after suffering horribly, vs. aborting a Down Syndrome baby who, despite this chromosomal abnormality and some treatable associated medical conditions, can go on to have a happy, healthy life? There is a reason why aborting one is controversial and aborting the other is not (among sane, reasonable, compassionate people, that is). Also, usually Ashkenazi Jewish couples realize they are at risk and most of them get blood tests prior to attempting a pregnancy, in order to determine if they are carriers. If they are, many opt to do IVF with PGD to exclude those embryos that are affected, which means that abortion is not even an issue at all – just another reason why you don’t hear about it. Anyone who would criticize an at-risk couple for trying to prevent the conception or birth of a Tay-Sachs baby, whose only fate is to suffer and die, is a nutter, which may also be why you don’t hear anyone complaining about that (it’s not because everyone loves and protects the dignity of the Jews). Good grief!

        • meanqueen

          Everyone has always been free to have whatever genetic screening is technologically available in fertility laboratories. The Jew hatred around here reaches absurd levels daily.

          • Spikeygrrl

            I could not agree more.
            Upvote × 1,000

          • TruthBeTold

            Believe it or not, and I’m sure you won’t, I don’t hate Jews.

            My comments, as are many of the comments you attribute to ‘hate’ are more about the double standard.

            We’re told how Nazi ‘eugenics’ was a horrible thing but the same people who tell us this also practice it themselves.

            That’s my point. It’s not hate. It’s the double standard.

          • meanqueen

            The difference is that Jewish parents who screen out Tay Sachs disease are trying to prevent their future offspring from suffering a terrible death, whereas Nazis actually murdered people they considered unworthy of living (and maybe did a little torturing before the murder, just for kicks, or for research). Do you see the difference? There is no double standard.

          • 2War Abn Vet

            Meanqueen – I grew up in a small Southern town. Many of our neighbors were Jewish, three families on my block alone. They seemed to have certain traits in common; the fathers were industrious, the mothers were good housekeepers and great cooks, the sons were talented, and the daughters were lovely. First and foremost, they were viewed by one-and-all as fellow Southerners.
            I never knew there was supposed to be some great divide until I left home, and met folks from “up North”.
            You’ll say we had our own problems in the South of the mid-20th century, but “Jew hatred” wasn’t one of them.

      • meanqueen

        No, the left regularly practices it. They are most likely to do IVF with PGD. Many conservatives are religious and some religions are still banning the procedures. Many lesbians at least do sex selection because they only want a female.

        • Who Me?

          “Many lesbians at least do sex selection because they only want a female.”
          ————————–
          That’s all to the good. Can you imagine the misery of the life of a male child raised in the man-hating environment of a lesbian family?

          • Reverend Bacon

            Yes, although I’m not sure I approve of raising a female kid in such an environment, either. I think everyone, lesbians included, should pass a test before they are allowed to be parents. There would be an intelligence component and a misanthrope component.

          • meanqueen

            Unfortunately, sometimes they do still have boys. At my child’s preschool last year, there was a little boy who had several mothers. Every time I was there at drop off/pick up, a different woman was picking him up. He was calling all of them “mommy.” I wondered if they were witches in a coven or something. After a while, I couldn’t control myself any longer and I conferred with some of the other mothers, who gave me the scoop. Apparently there were two lesbians who “had” him. Then they had a very nasty and contentious split up, and each got involved with another partner, so now there were four mothers. Then there apparently were some other split ups, leading to a couple more women entering the family circle. Why they all had to be involved in his school life, I don’t know. There was continuing bad blood between the two originals. Needless to say, the kid was a very angry, unhappy little child and it was sad to see that. He was violent and not overly bright. The various mothers were freaky looking in various ways. One was mannish and dressed in very manly clothes. Another had tattoos and piercings. Another was an ugly bull dyke. Another looked like a transgender – very tall and big and horsey-faced. It made me ill and I didn’t want my own child to be around that or to have to explain why his classmate had so many “mothers.” So we pulled our child out and I have him in a religious school now where we don’t see those kinds of social experiments. Sorry so long – just touched a nerve, I guess.

      • Reverend Bacon

        They may actually not ban it, but use it to require that everyone, regardless of ethnicity, have a “diverse” family. In my mind, this is like the scene in Brave New World where they poured alcohol on the embryos to create the epsilon-minuses. But, life imitates art, and, as Ted Knight so famously said, “the world needs ditch-diggers.”

        • dd121

          I hope you’re not right.

    • Sha of Communism

      Ideally in a politically conservative and economically socialist world, the best genes SHOULD be made available to the public at little to no cost. So everyone can be smart, happy, and well-behaved. The healthcare burden on taxpayers will also be gone.

      Now the problem is that none of the Western governments is really wired to function that way. Some even deliberately keep a part of their population poor by the will of a few ruling elites. If wealth means having the access to the best genes, and poverty means not having the access, I guess the future we face is a very dark one.

      On the few issues you ask. IVF+PGD is not longer expensive these days. It’s about the cost of buying a car. The recent breakthrough also allows you screen the entire genome, not just the few of interest. Blonde hair and light-coloured eyes are really easy to do. It’s just a few genes and most clinics would likely give you that for free as complementary to the programme.

      • meanqueen

        IVF with PGD is very expensive when you consider that each cycle only has about a 50% success rate on average – much less if there is compromised quality in the sperm or eggs.

    • Kenner

      You might be able to pass on a ‘big penis’ to your progeny, but in the current climate, there’s no guarantee he would want to keep it.

  • dd121

    I sure want my future kids to have dead-brown eyes. flat wide nose and receding hairy forehead and callused knuckles to take the punishment as they drag the ground.

  • superlloyd

    I wonder how many libtards will opt to have black designer babies?

    • IstvanIN

      Some would, no doubt. To play basketball.

  • Anglo

    Not all that glitters is gold. Be careful what you wish for. The plan to re-engineer human DNA — transgenics. Where would it stop? Who would control it? What does it really mean? What’s the end game?

    • Whitetrashgang

      Less mud, more snow.

      • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

        No guarantee of that.

  • JohnEngelman

    I view designer babies with apprehension.

    I look forward to the discovery of genes for intelligence and criminal behavior. The discovery of those genes will end the debate on hereditarianism and race realism.

    That discovery will vindicate men like Arthur Jensen, Jared Taylor, J Philippe Rushton, Charles Murray, and Richard Herrnstein.

    • LHathaway

      And Lothrop Stoddard. Any day now he will be vindicated . . . .

      • Reynardine

        You broke my sarcasm meter.

      • Reverend Bacon

        I think Stoddard has long since been vindicated. Most, if not all, of what he predicted has come to pass: Japan as a world power; the rise of Islam as a threat; the migration of non-whites to first-world nations. His mistake was to allow himself to be cast as a white supremacist, when “white separatist” would have sufficed.

    • WR_the_realist

      I don’t view designer babies with apprehension, although I think we’re a long way from having them be a practical reality. Modification of the human genome will first be used to eliminate terrible genetic diseases. The left will oppose this (how dare we see Huntington’s disease or cystic fibrosis as desirable of elimination — that is ableism at its worst!) but then the left is full of vicious and cruel people.

      • JohnEngelman

        The right is also full of vicious and cruel people. Both sides have decent and kind people. Neither side has a monopoly on morality and on moral people. Neither side is immune from being led by emotion, rather than a sober evaluation of the facts.

        • WR_the_realist

          How many people on the right are busy scanning the internet looking for people who say the wrong things so they can force them out of their jobs? You could legitimately say that war mongering neocons are vicious and cruel but I don’t count them among the right. They are just liberals who like war.

          • JohnEngelman

            How many people on the right are busy scanning the internet looking for people who say the wrong things so they can force them out of their jobs?

            – WR_the_realist

            Probably an equal number to the number of those who admire the Third Reich, deny the Holocaust, and look forward to a race war.

          • WR_the_realist

            Most of those people are just living with their fantasies. They’re not actually trying to destroy other people’s lives.

  • David Ashton

    Notice how opponents of eugenics typically say: “But that would mean BLUE EYED & FAIR HAIRED babies”. Pavlov’s dogs.

    • IstvanIN

      In other words, cute, human babies.

      • David Ashton

        I have black hair (and blue eyes, though) but was regarded as cute as a baby, so I am told. All my grandchildren have fair hair and are also very good-looking and intelligent. As in other matters, I am in a small minority because I support eugenic con(tra)ception but not “eugenic” abortion or infanticide. As regards the general point, it is another case of Reductio ad Hitlerum (or Mengelum).

        • meanqueen

          I’m in your minority. I’m not opposed to abortion completely, but see it as an ethical problem. But pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? No problem with that whatsoever. Why not use science to better humanity?

          • David Ashton

            Agreed.

            I remember someone saying to me: “You want to get rid of blind people.” My reply: “No, I want to get rid of blindness FROM people.”

        • IstvanIN

          Of course White babies with black hair, or brown eyes, or other traits are cute!

    • OS-Q

      They are terrified that many would choose to have white babies.

      • Sick of it

        Can you blame them? Envy born of inferiority.

      • italian guy

        Would they be completely White genetically? I just fear non-whites will decide to have babies with European features and that will count as mixed race (therefore not White), that would be disgusting and sick.

        • Ludwig

          Star Belly Sneetches vs. Plain Belly Sneetches. Dr. Seuss explained this long ago.

      • Kenner

        –Terrified that whites would choose to have white babies.

      • Sha of Communism

        I don’t think any opposition of human genetic engineering will last for another century, no matter from the political left or right.

        It is natural selection, like historically how monogamists completely destroyed polygamists by being able to raise higher quality babies.

        • SentryattheGate

          ‘It is natural selection, like historically how monogamists completely destroyed polygamists by being able to raise higher quality babies.’?? What do you mean?

    • LHathaway

      Blue eyes humans must be 5% of the Earths population, and falling. And yet the familiar refrain ‘we must guard against white supremacy’ is the framework within which this issue is viewed, as if the opposite is true. .

  • John Ambrose

    “Designer babies” – I’ll believe when I see it. I remember Amren running an article in late 2001 where Richard Lynn predicted that in 10 years time the Chinese would be using embryo selection for genes related to intelligence. Well here we are in 2015, the genetics of IQ is still poorly understood and the dogma of egalitarianism seems more entrenched than ever.

    • Sha of Communism

      Genetics of IQ is well understood nowadays. Human IQ is controlled by a large amount of genes known as the human intelligence blueprint. They must be all relatively intact for a person to develop high intelligence. A few brokens ones will drastically reduce the person’s intelligence. Hence the saying in the scientific community, that they are stupid genes but there are no smart genes.

      As people are still screening for the blueprint and trying to put together a sample of a perfect blueprint, and few questions remain. Do different races have different blueprints? Is the perfect blueprint the pinnacle of human intelligence (i.e. can we twist a few blueprint genes and make the person smarter)? It is possible to change intelligence specs (e.g. faster memory at the cost of memory retention) by twisting a few blueprint gene?

      One way or another, it is happening.

      • WR_the_realist

        One issue is that we may find that switching off all the “stupid genes” has undesirable side effects. We may find that it makes people more susceptible to autism or schizophrenia, for example. So I expect that intelligence will actually be the one of the last things people will be able to successfully design into babies.

    • LHathaway

      Selecting the ‘best’ sperm is no doubt, already being done. The same is likely true, but less prevalent, regarding women’s eggs.

  • Sha of Communism

    I have observed a very interesting phenomenon from people. It seems that many like to claim that they have no interest in PGD and the likes under the light of the day, but when it comes having babies, everyone suddenly becomes a transhumanist.

    And even after their babies are born, they continue to deny the fact that the babies are designer babies, and tell their close friends like me to keep the secret for them.

    Maybe people are just too smart and want to take advantage from both sides. They want a (artificially-engineered, unnaturally) healthy baby, and no controversy associated with it.

  • pcmustgo

    Nah, I want a baby like ME, god damn’t! Green eyes, auburn red hair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sha of Communism

    Human intelligence has been going downward for 10,000 years. And the reason, you’ve guessed it. It’s that the highly intelligent women tend to have less kids (in an agricultural society where food is reasonable plentiful).

    This IVF+PGD+whatever new stuff out there could reverse that trend. As everyone (who doesn’t reject the idea) wants the best genes from the highest intelligent people, this is effectively letting the less intelligent people bare babies that are partially from the more intelligent people. This is a good thing, don’t ya think?

    • meanqueen

      I don’t think it will work that way, though. People want their own genetic offspring, for better or for worse. Less intelligent people TEND to have children unintentionally and early in their lives, when they are likely to be still fertile, before age affects their sperm/eggs/uterus, before STDs affect their fallopian tubes, and so on. Those using assisted reproductive technologies are usually the higher intelligence, professional people who have either delayed childbearing too long such that they now need medical help, OR, have not delayed childbearing but are consciously trying to get pregnant and are aware right away that they aren’t succeeding, so seek medical evaluation and diagnosis. The lower classes are not going to go to the trouble to deliberately enhance their offspring, just as they don’t take positive, deliberate steps toward anything. It’s the already intelligent couples who may wish to give a further advantage to their offspring by gene selection. I see IVF/PGD being used in the future mostly to wipe out genetic or chromosomal diseases and abnormalities, rather than to increase intelligence or athletic ability or choose an eye color. That’s why I don’t like the term “designer baby” because what we as a society have used PGD for is NOT in any way designing babies, rather, it’s preventing disease and abnormality. I think of “designing” a baby as a frivolous, unnecessary thing, and preventing disease doesn’t fall under that category.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    This is wrong. Whites must have babies the natural way and not through these scientific methods that will cause untold problems in the future. Have the fun way. Have sex within marriage and have many kids.

    • captainc

      I think now Whites can have their fun and children, too. You might call her your wife but your children are not from your seeds, but superior ones.

  • Pelayo

    My father had green eyes and my paternal grandfather had blue eyes. I unfortunately didn’t inherit either but obviously carry the genes for them. I also have low arches, high blood pressure running in the family and, ahem, some ancestral genes I’d rather not pass on. I don’t have children yet but I would like to have a couple of kids provided I have a partner and the financial means to have them. As a gay man it’s a more difficult process what with the surrogate, egg, artificial insemination and the costs associated. Since I’m likely to make kids the artificial way anyway why not enhance them a little? Looking down onto my child and seeing a pair or olive greens or baby blues would make me happy. And knowing my children won’t feel the crippling foot and back pain I suffer from would too.

  • meanqueen

    I once knew a black woman who went quite far with plans to get donor egg and donor sperm from white donors, because she didn’t want her baby to be black and have to face prejudice . . . luckily, her circumstances changed at the last moment and she couldn’t afford to pay the costs. But how many other kids are out there like that? Witness Michael Jackson’s kids. We are all getting caught up in the conversation about way-out-there gene editing and “designer babies” when the lower tech (relatively speaking) options are creating strange changes to society. To be clear, I’m all for science overcoming the failures of nature. If reproductive technology, even donor gametes and surrogacy, can create the kind of families we need in society, that’s fine by me. Meanwhile, the same technologies are being used to produce white children for black parents, or children for homosexual parents.

  • Maximo Partagas

    What is really going to be fun to watch is when or if science ever discovers a homosexual gene. If/ when that happens you will see a huge push from the leftist LGBT proud screaming at the top of their lungs to stop abortion and selective gene manipulation.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    Designer babies are already here. The LGBT Nation citizens have been window shopping at their local eugenics store for decades now. They practice the “good kind of eugenics”, like the tribe; not the White Supremacist kind.

    Well, come to think of it, they do pick white genes (for obvious reasons).

    Isn’t hypocrisy grand? Can’t shame them Libbies.

  • Julius Caesar

    I just can’t see myself getting behind eugenics, at least not at this point in my life. The best and the worst of people, particularly whites, I couldn’t care less how this is used on non-whites, is what makes you YOU. For better or for worse.

  • MartelsGhost

    More evidence that leftists seek only to replace the God they refuse to admit exists………..

  • Magician

    In UK, indigenous white women are determined to have mulatto babies (and consequently have her white genes permanently disappear). It is very trendy for white UK women to date and marry black males and have mulatto babies.

    Look at this beautiful blond UK woman who gave birth to 8 beautiful, beautiful mulatto kids. Not only did she make sure her white genes permanently disappeared, she is badly abusing the benefits system in UK

    http://goo[dot]gl/HnNbZQ

    Whenever I read a white American woman suffered a murder crime or an acid attack in the hands of a black male, she is not relevant to him in any way.

    Whenever I read a white UK woman suffers a murder crime or an acid attack in the hands of a black male, he is her own boyfriend or husband ( Katie Piper who worked as a model until her black boyfriend threw acid on her face )

    • Anglo

      What a very disgusting picture. All of them should be shipped to Africa.

      • Magician

        This article caught my attention

        http://goo[dot]gl/kUFvxG

        We can see that the woman is a white woman and the article reads that that woman was born in UK.

        • Anglo

          I read the article. She is the wife of Djamel Beghal? She does look White. Djamel Beghal is another Algerian. I’ve seen pictures of Hayat Boumeddiene, and she is mixed (North African). An article I read stated: “Boumeddiene is believed to be of Algerian descent but changed her name to make it appear more French…” I knew the two brothers were of Algerian descent.

  • Screamin_Ruffed_Grouse

    I dunno. It’s fascinating subject matter. But it’s also the type of thing that makes my spidey-senses tingle looking out for the Law of Unintended Consequences, of which the possibilities are endless.

    For instance: we’re all talking about “designer babies” like some sort of genetic Build-a-Bear workshop. The assumption being that we would be tailoring our offspring to our own specifications. But would we? Who’s to say that we’ll be the ones doing the designing? Governments and other power hungry types have managed to wrest control of more difficult things from the masses. Why not this? And to what purposes could it be put?

    Just something to think about.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    Almost all Jewish communities have genetic counseling services now and to be approved for marriage by the community you must be genetically tested. The main purpose is to prevent marriages with a high probability of genetic disease.

  • Magician

    Off topic but, I accidentally ran into this page and feel moderately disappointed that majority of them are young white males in working age….

    http://goo[dot]gl/GRgNsh