J
Jeanne_S
Guest
All of this is in conflict with Natural Law.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
All of it? Is organ donation contrary to law? Perhaps you could expand you post?All of this is in conflict with Natural Law.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I wasn’t referring to organ transplants.I was commenting on the overall idea of bringing in a third person to achieve an ideal baby.That goes against the unitive act because of the IVF and manipulating of the procreative act.To state that this is similar ,ethically to an organ transplant is incorrect.All of it? Is organ donation contrary to law? Perhaps you could expand you post?
R
Rau
Guest
The manipulation you speak of is present in IVF style procedures such as this is currently. Perhaps in the future an equivalently effective procedure (overcoming the initial medical condition) will be possible, administered to one of the parents, and with no IVF style procedure required. The result may still be a portion of 3rd party DNA being introduced. On the surface, that appears to be moral.I wasn’t referring to organ transplants.I was commenting on the overall idea of bringing in a third person to achieve an ideal baby.That goes against the unitive act because of the IVF and manipulating of the procreative act.To state that this is similar ,ethically to an organ transplant is incorrect.
C
CatholicSheila
Guest
If this works as has been presented, I don’t see why the person would be treated any differently than anyone else. The vast majority of people won’t even know they were the beneficiary of such treatment.Society or part of society will most likely treat them like abominations and/or freaks. Some might even consider them less than Human.
M
Murmurs
Guest
I feel similarly, if the unfertilised-egg-technique were the only one used - and if the implantation of fertilised eggs were so efficient that none would ever be discarded, of course.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.
BUT - it is also fundamentally different from an organ donation. If I had a new heart, then, that donor heart would live (as it were) with me and in my body, until my death, and at that point it would be “discarded” in the same appropriate manner as the rest of my body. I don’t pass on the DNA used to make the donor heart to my children, were I to have children after the transplant.
A woman who undergoes this treatment will have not only her immediate offspring with donor mitochondria - but all their offspring too, through every generation thereafter (until or unless there are no female children).
This isn’t even like using a donor egg (one egg from a 3rd party, sperm from the father, and the father’s wife/partner as “host” to that embryo resulting). All the descendants in each generation will carry the DNA of their father, the DNA of their mother, and the mitochondrial DNA of the donor mother from however many generations ago. Unlike organ or even egg/sperm donation, this technique represents a fundamental change to human heritability.
My heart bleeds for the would-be mothers with mitochondrial disease - but I think there has to be a point beyond which we as a society should not go, however heartbreakingly. Creating a new distinct group of humans I think is it.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I guess it comes down to what they are actually doing. The headlines make it seem like people are creating designer babies with three parents via gene splicing. What you are talking about seems more akin to fixing a broken DNA strand before conception to help the baby. Those are two very different things.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.
Obviously, as IVF is involved, they would both be immoral. But if they found a way to tinker with some broken DNA and still conceive in the normal way, then I could see it possibly being morally licit. The devil would definitely be in the details, though.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Agree!I guess it comes down to what they are actually doing. The headlines make it seem like people are creating designer babies with three parents via gene splicing. What you are talking about seems more akin to fixing a broken DNA strand before conception to help the baby. Those are two very different things.
Obviously, as IVF is involved, they would both be immoral. But if they found a way to tinker with some broken DNA and still conceive in the normal way, then I could see it possibly being morally licit. The devil would definitely be in the details, though.
C
Cone
Guest
How does this happen? Is it the result of an orgy?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
This made a headline back in the 80s or 90s. An egg donor, sperm donor, and a donor for the nucleus of the egg. Alternative means of conceiving a child led to the changes in some California laws so that they apply to “intended parents” instead of “parents.” A case I recall involved a couple that payed a surrogate to have a child. Then the couple divorced and had no interest in the child. In this case there were main participants in the conception of that child; the surrogate, the two people that ordered the child, and the two donors of the genetic material. The surrogate didn’t have the right to give up the child for adoption since it wasn’t hers. She had to go to court to get custody of the child after it was born (you can’t do this before it was born) and after she was awarded custody she had the right to give the child up for adoption.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!
In a similar case the ex-wife wanted to keep the child, the ex-husband did not. The wife felt the ex-husband had a responsibility to support the child. He disagreed. A court finally decided that since the couple was jointly involved in the conception of this child even though they were not the biological parents they were the intended parents. So all the laws that applied to children that were conceived naturally would also be applicable here. The ex-husband had to pay child support.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
No, happens in a lab. See my message above.How does this happen? Is it the result of an orgy?
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, its not ‘IF’ anymore, they can apparently do this right now.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.
While they didnt mention this specifically, I have a feeling the LGBT people will all be getting in line to be the first in history for either 2 men or 2 women to create ONE child…this is freaking scary!!
I cant imagine God will allow such an abomination to take place though, and if he does, then I think we have very serious problems.
Plus if this is whats happening present day, I cant even begin to imagine what they will doing 20-50 yrs from now…LOL, will it common to create human/animal hybrids by then, or some other crazy combination?
C
ChurchSuffering
Guest
If they can successfully mix three random humans, imagine what else they could mix…Well, its not ‘IF’ anymore, they can apparently do this right now.
While they didnt mention this specifically, I have a feeling the LGBT people will all be getting in line to be the first in history for either 2 men or 2 women to create ONE child…this is freaking scary!!
I cant imagine God will allow such an abomination to take place though, and if he does, then I think we have very serious problems.
Plus if this is whats happening present day, I cant even begin to imagine what they will doing 20-50 yrs from now…LOL, will it common to create human/animal hybrids by then, or some other crazy combination?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I doubt that. People thought the same thing about “test tube babies.” Now, having said that, I think this idea is a bad one. Just because science has the means to do something, it doesn’t mean they should. It’s just weird, imo.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.
.
W
weller2
Guest
And that’s a problem because? Do you intend to discriminate against such people?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).
A
AngelusDomini
Guest
Thankfully someone has read the full story! As stated the baby is not really a product of three parents.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.
A similar procedure was carried out in America I believe but only about 50 children were born using it.
The reason the Bishops in England and Wales are against this procedure is not just because it’s a form of IVF but also because embryos may be destroyed as part of the procedure. Also there are concerns about the health of the child and safety of the mother.
B
Bspencer
Guest
it seems that most agree that it is wrong to replace a defective piece of genetic information from the “wife” with a normal piece of chromosome from a female donor in order to conceive a chromosomally normal child with the “husband”
what about: husband and wife concieve a child that has this chromosome abnormality. in utero a genetic procedure is done that removes the defective piece of chromosome from the fetus and replaces it with a normal piece from a donor. is that wrong?
what about: a child is born with a lethal kidney abnormality. he is given a donor kidney, and now is able to live a normal live. is this wrong?
what about: husband and wife concieve a child that has this chromosome abnormality. in utero a genetic procedure is done that removes the defective piece of chromosome from the fetus and replaces it with a normal piece from a donor. is that wrong?
what about: a child is born with a lethal kidney abnormality. he is given a donor kidney, and now is able to live a normal live. is this wrong?
R
Rau
Guest
The procedure in question draws catholic opposition primarily because it is IVF in nature - the act of conception is achieved with participation of doctors and test tubes etc.it seems that most agree that it is wrong to replace a defective piece of genetic information from the “wife” with a normal piece of chromosome from a female donor in order to conceive a chromosomally normal child with the “husband”
what about: husband and wife concieve a child that has this chromosome abnormality. in utero a genetic procedure is done that removes the defective piece of chromosome from the fetus and replaces it with a normal piece from a donor. is that wrong?
what about: a child is born with a lethal kidney abnormality. he is given a donor kidney, and now is able to live a normal live. is this wrong?
The other medical treatments you nominate do not have that failing.
P
phil19034
Guest
Note: I was referencing genetic engineering and more concerned with future applications. If they can alter/replace mitochondria, then how long until genes can be directly altered or swapped out? When do we draw the line?I doubt that. People thought the same thing about “test tube babies.” Now, having said that, I think this idea is a bad one. Just because science has the means to do something, it doesn’t mean they should. It’s just weird, imo.
First it’s: we can change mitochondria
Next: swap out genes that cause some kind of deadly medical condition
Then: we can adjust the genes to make the child more intelligent and increase their bra(name removed by moderator)ower
Then: make them physically stronger than normal children
Age slower once adults, etc
When is enough enough? When does it become bad for society? At what point does the technology get abused?
M
mikekle
Guest
The result from such a thing would not be a ‘person’ though, it clearly says in the bible a person and/or child, is created by ONE man and ONE woman, anything created other than this this ‘equation’ would not be a person in Gods eyes (imo anyway).And that’s a problem because? Do you intend to discriminate against such people?
But honestly I doubt anyone from biblical time would have ever thought it would be possible to create a living breathing human by any other means than the normal man/woman method.
What is scary here, is the basic idea that we can create living breathing human beings out of any number of people now, what would be the result if they tried to create a human out of 100s of people? Plus, what happens when they create a human child using just 2 men as the parents? This is getting into some dark areas…Im shocked God has allowed this to progress as far as it has, (while I heard about this on the news recently, I assume this has probably been taking place already, or they have already done it, as usually by the time something reaches the news, its already happening or been happening for awhile.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.