3 genetic parents = what kind of child?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikekle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikekle

Guest
Im sure most of you have heard of this recent headline, Im just curious what kind of child it will produce? I mean, for ALL of history, going back 1000s of years, 2 parents were the norm to have children, now they are saying someone can have 3 genetic parents, and probably wont stop there, Id imagine if they can make 3 parents work, they could also make a child from 5 parents or more!

Im wondering what the differences will be, Im sure there will be some major ones, as this has NEVER happened in our history, can only imagine what God thinks! Would this ‘child’ have a soul, or…??

Plus, while they did not mention this aspect, Im sure it will be discussed at some point, does a woman have to be involved…what happens if they create a child from 3 men? Now we are getting into some REALLY scary territory!!
 
I think it is difficult to predict the consequences.

If they are able to actually accomplish this (and, in my mind, that’s a big if), I cannot imagine how such a child would not be impacted physically in a myriad of unpredictable ways.

That said, if a human being is created, there will be a human soul. It’s not as though they will create a soulless zombie.
 
All I can say is that if atheist scientists won’t listen to the Church, then they need to watch more Star Trek.

In most science fiction stories, (esp Star Trek) genetic engineering NEVER turns out to be a good idea. Whether it can be done or not physically isn’t the issue. If it physically works, the social consequences will most likely not be good.

The genetically engineered might feel they are better then natural children, especially if they have some kind of advantage. Or they might feel like outcasts if society treats them like “freaks.”

Society or part of society will most likely treat them like abominations and/or freaks. Some might even consider them less than Human.

This is just scary and should be outlawed.
 
Do you think God will really allow people to start “creating” people. Don’t you think that this is getting a bit … ridiculous?

BTW this is not directed at the OP, just the whole three person child thing.
 
ChurchSuffering said:
Do you think God will really allow people to start “creating” people. Don’t you think that this is getting a bit … ridiculous?

BTW this is not directed at the OP, just the whole three person child thing.
Click to expand...
Who would have imagined we would be able to create new life in test tubes!?
 
I feel sorry for any child brought into the world having three parents. The child will be confused and will knowing he or she has been a experiment i guess will feel different than other children and probably get bullied throughout life.
 
phil19034 said:
All I can say is that if atheist scientists won’t listen to the Church, then they need to watch more Star Trek.

In most science fiction stories, (esp Star Trek) genetic engineering NEVER turns out to be a good idea. Whether it can be done or not physically isn’t the issue. If it physically works, the social consequences will most likely not be good.

The genetically engineered might feel they are better then natural children, especially if they have some kind of advantage. Or they might feel like outcasts if society treats them like “freaks.”

Society or part of society will most likely treat them like abominations and/or freaks. Some might even consider them less than Human.

This is just scary and should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
While many scientists may not share the views of the Church, that does not necessarily make them atheist. The purpose of the present ground-breaking technology is to attempt to eliminate debilitating genetic diseases caused by a lack of mitochondrial activity. Although you may believe, based on Catholic teaching, that the end, even if it is for a good purpose, NEVER justifies the means if they appear to be immoral, not every scientist or every religion, for that matter, necessarily sees it that way. At least in the present case, the end is for the purpose of preserving and enhancing the quality of life and the means used does NOT destroy life, as opposed, for example, to an end such as in the case of WW II when the United States actually TOOK the lives of many Japanese civilians to save the lives of more American soldiers. I think if the latter can be justified, the current genetic engineering, which does not destroy life to preserve life, can be justified as well.

I will concede, however, that such technology, if it gets out of hand and is used for purposes other than preserving life, may be dangerous. Science should not be permitted to operate with no moral compass whatsoever, nor without consideration for the health risks that may present themselves in the future. That is, there may be unintended consequences of such genetic manipulation to future generations, of which we have no understanding at present. Some people have qualms today about the risks involved due to the genetic engineering of much of our food supply, and perhaps not without good reason.
 
stcuthberts said:
I feel sorry for any child brought into the world having three parents. The child will be confused and will knowing he or she has been a experiment i guess will feel different than other children and probably get bullied throughout life.
Click to expand...
I think in the present instance, there are only two parents involved in the upbringing of the child. So long as these parents–man and woman, no less–give the child love and discipline, I believe she will be able to adapt. And if the technology becomes more commonplace, there will be others with whom she can identify. Equally important, as mentioned in my prior post, I believe this social experiment has a definite moral purpose, namely, to reduce the number of children who are born with debilitating genetic disorders.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think in the present instance, there are only two parents involved in the upbringing of the child. So long as these parents–man and woman, no less–give the child love and discipline, I believe she will be able to adapt. And if the technology becomes more commonplace, there will be others with whom she can identify. Equally important, as mentioned in my prior post, I believe this social experiment has a definite moral purpose, namely, to reduce the number of children who are born with debilitating genetic disorders.
Click to expand...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Designer babies!

How long till we are tempted to select eye color, hair color, height, nose, … How long till the
movie “Gattaca” comes to fruition?
 
Joe_5859 said:
…if a human being is created, there will be a human soul. It’s not as though they will create a soulless zombie.
Click to expand...
Not a zombie…just a mutant. (That’s not to lessen the reality of the new and unique and special human being - but they will be a mutant). The British vote (which still has to pass the House of Lords), basically allows for the creation of a sub-species of human beings, and their three-parent heritage will be passed in perpetuity to all their own children, until at some point all the descendants fail to to have female children (mitochondria are only inherited from the mother).
phil19034 said:
All I can say is that if atheist scientists won’t listen to the Church, then they need to watch more Star Trek.
Click to expand...
👍

While I think it unlikely that we will see (legal) “designer babies” in the very near future (say in the next decade at least), every well-intention-ed but badly-thought-out regulation like this leads us down that path until society is so accustomed to the idea of fiddling with DNA that it becomes a natural next step.

I can only urge everyone in C.A., who lives in Britain, to email any member of the House of Lords they might be aware of (or even know?). It’s not even a faith-issue; it’s a very much broader ethical one.
 
I find it interesting that there does not seem to be the pushback on genetically modified babies that there is on genetically modified food and other GMOs.
 
oliver927 said:
I find it interesting that there does not seem to be the pushback on genetically modified babies that there is on genetically modified food and other GMOs.
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy is stunning isn’t it!:cool:
 
The medical procedure being discussed here involves sourcing about 1% of the child’s DNA from a 3rd party. I would imagine that this treatment will not prompt, in any meaningful way, the idea that the child has 3 parents, but it is open to that possibility.

The procedure is IVF in nature so is condemned by the Church for that reason. Whether another tratment that introduced a 3rd persons DNA into the make-up of a child (be that pre-conception or post-conception) without IVF would be found to be immoral is another question. Certainly Aquinas made the observation that it is not good for a child to not know the identity of his/her father.
 
While I don’t agree with the ‘three person baby’ on the point of principle that at some point we have to draw a line and say to some people, “Sorry, but this isn’t natural, it’s very sad but you’re just going to have to live with it or adopt”, I can also see the point of view that using the mitochondria from another person could just as easily be thought of like one thinks of an organ transplant, which nobody seems to have any objection to.

In which case, so long as there’s an absolutely reliable guarantee that no pre-existing embryo is ever destroyed for the purpose of creating this new ‘three person’ embryo - i.e. the mitochondria are replaced before the egg itself is fertilised - then there is less objection in my mind. I’m still not keen though, and as there are two ways in which this procedure can take place, the other one being the replacement of a nucleus of a fertilised egg with the nucleus of the egg with the mitochondrial fault, and there doesn’t seem to be any exclusion of this effectively abortion-reliant route in the permissions given. That I could not countenance in any form, and I was very disappointed not to hear any arguments from the politicians along that line - at least none that were publicised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top