3 genetic parents = what kind of child?

[jtauke]

How does this happen? Is it the result of an orgy?

If this is a serious question…then wow. Just…wow.

The process transplants mitochondrial DNA into the egg in order to eliminate genetic disorders that are/could be passed on to the child from the mother.

The chromosomes of the child aren’t altered and the child turns out the same as if the two parents had naturally conceived the child, just minus a horrific genetic disorder.

The child doesn’t have a 3rd parent, like people seem to insist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I look at the procedure as similar to an organ donation. Only with organelles instead or organs.

 

[weller2]

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,

Citation please.

anything created other than this this ‘equation’ would not be a person in Gods eyes (imo anyway).

The Bible also says that God has storehouses of snow and hail (Job 38:22-23). Should we reject the observation that snow an hail are formed by condensation and cooling of water vapor?

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.

And so they have never covered the subject.

Plus, what happens when they create a human child using just 2 men as the parents?

Nothing?

Let’s do a thought experiment. Say a mad scientist takes your DNA and produces a clone of you. Then he takes your DNA and the clone’s DNA (which are identical) and splices them together, puts the resulting DNA (identical with your own) into an ovum and grows a human. The procedure produces three genetically identical organisms: you, your clone, and the clone/yourself mix. Which of them is not human and why?

 

[mikekle]

Citation please.

The Bible also says that God has storehouses of snow and hail (Job 38:22-23). Should we reject the observation that snow an hail are formed by condensation and cooling of water vapor?

And so they have never covered the subject.

Nothing?

Let’s do a thought experiment. Say a mad scientist takes your DNA and produces a clone of you. Then he takes your DNA and the clone’s DNA (which are identical) and splices them together, puts the resulting DNA (identical with your own) into an ovum and grows a human. The procedure produces three genetically identical organisms: you, your clone, and the clone/yourself mix. Which of them is not human and why?

Personally in that scenario, I think I would be the only human, since I was created by God, something humans create in a lab is not the same thing as God breathing life into a fetus, and really if we reach a point where mankind is able to ‘mass produce’ living breathing people, and God allows it, then, something is majorly wrong. Just my opinion though

While we may not be able to tell the difference between a human and something that men have created in a lab, Im sure God can tell the difference, since he did not create it.

 

[ChurchSuffering]

Personally in that scenario, I think I would be the only human, since I was created by God, something humans create in a lab is not the same thing as God breathing life into a fetus, and really if we reach a point where mankind is able to ‘mass produce’ living breathing people, and God allows it, then, something is majorly wrong. Just my opinion though

While we may not be able to tell the difference between a human and something that men have created in a lab, I’m sure God can tell the difference, since he did not create it.

Unless God creates it, it wont have a soul. And I am positive that we aren’t just gonna have soulless zombies walking around

 

[mikekle]

Unless God creates it, it wont have a soul. And I am positive that we aren’t just gonna have soulless zombies walking around

Well, if we start creating people, we surely will have soulless zombies walking around.

Im curious what the difference between a person with a soul and one without one will be, I mean, will they have ZERO emotions, will they have a conscious, telling them basic right from wrong? IDK…? Plus, I dont think they would have any motivation to obey and/or follow any laws or rules, since it would make no difference to them either way.

 

[ChurchSuffering]

Well, if we start creating people, we surely will have soulless zombies walking around.

Im curious what the difference between a person with a soul and one without one will be, I mean, will they have ZERO emotions, will they have a conscious, telling them basic right from wrong? IDK…? Plus, I dont think they would have any motivation to obey and/or follow any laws or rules, since it would make no difference to them either way.

I am positive that God would never let that happen

 

[davidv]

Well, if we start creating people, we surely will have soulless zombies walking around.

Im curious what the difference between a person with a soul and one without one will be, I mean, will they have ZERO emotions, will they have a conscious, telling them basic right from wrong? IDK…? Plus, I dont think they would have any motivation to obey and/or follow any laws or rules, since it would make no difference to them either way.

A body without a soul is a dead body. It is not a person.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A body without a soul is a dead body. It is not a person.

How could you tell if you were standing with a soul person or a soulless humunculous if their behaviours are similar?

Once again people thought the same thing about the first in vitro child and 36 years later she is still indistinguishable from a person conceived without medical assistance.

 

[mikekle]

How could you tell if you were standing with a soul person or a soulless humunculous if their behaviours are similar?

.

This is what Id like to know, no way to know for sure tho, but imo, there would probably be some big differences, but not sure if they would be immediately recognizable, plus, would original sin be a factor with them, since God did not really create them?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Joe 5859;12723140]I think it is difficult to predict the consequences.

It always is when the time variable isn’t understood or respected and when there is a clear agenda in mind; in this case an obssesion by the PC crowd to “help” GLBTQ persons who want to be parents and so make themselves look “cool, neat, enlightened and tolerant”.

However, this doesn’t further the argument of so-called gay “marriage” in any fashion. :nope:

 

[ChurchSuffering]

This is what Id like to know, no way to know for sure tho, but imo, there would probably be some big differences, but not sure if they would be immediately recognizable, plus, would original sin be a factor with them, since God did not really create them?

Okay this thread is creepy

 

[SuperLuigi]

I look at the procedure as similar to an organ donation. Only with organelles instead or organs.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Personally in that scenario, I think I would be the only human, since I was created by God, something humans create in a lab is not the same thing as God breathing life into a fetus, and really if we reach a point where mankind is able to ‘mass produce’ living breathing people, and God allows it, then, something is majorly wrong. Just my opinion though

While we may not be able to tell the difference between a human and something that men have created in a lab, Im sure God can tell the difference, since he did not create it.

My children, created in a lab through IVF, are most certainly human

 

[Usagi]

Well, if we start creating people, we surely will have soulless zombies walking around.

We have always been “creating” the bodies of our children, through the usual method of conception. It’s a biological process that does not require direct intervention from God in every case, and which God noticeably does not prevent even when the act that results in the conception is against His will (whether that be fornication or adultery or rape).

The soul of every child is created individually by God at the moment of conception and has nothing to do with the biological process that produces the body.

The parents have nothing to do with providing the soul; God usually has no direct role (beyond being the First Cause of everything, of course) in producing the body. Your distinction between children “created by God” and children “created by men” is faulty, as all children have contributions from both.

Therefore we may not assume that children created by a different process (but still by combining the usual chromosomes together) will not have souls. The process by which the body is produced has nothing to do with whether God provides a soul. In every example we have so far, God does not deny children souls because their parents (or doctors/scientists assisting their parents) sinned in bringing them into the world. The children of adultery have souls. The children of IVF have souls. Why would the children of IVF-plus-a-genetic tweak suddenly not have souls?

Furthermore, of course, in Catholic theology you can’t have a body walking around and thinking and talking without a rational soul. A “soulless” person would either be a corpse (if it has no soul at all) or the equivalent of an animal or plant (if it has a sensitive or vegetative soul but not a rational soul). In either case it would be easily distinguishable from a normal human.

Usagi

 

[SuperLuigi]

Well, if we start creating people, we surely will have soulless zombies walking around.

Im curious what the difference between a person with a soul and one without one will be, I mean, will they have ZERO emotions, will they have a conscious, telling them basic right from wrong? IDK…? Plus, I dont think they would have any motivation to obey and/or follow any laws or rules, since it would make no difference to them either way.

We’re not creating people. “An organelle transplant is like an organ transplant” is what someone else on here said, and I tend to agree.

It’s really more of excuse for someone to claim to be the child’s parent because of genetics.

 

[SuperLuigi]

My children, created in a lab through IVF, are most certainly human

They are, but I would urge you to not to do that anymore.

Also, “cafeteria Catholicism” is not the best thing for the soul. We must all strive to be Catholic with no exceptions.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And that’s a problem because? Do you intend to discriminate against such people?

That’s your first reaction to this, weller? Worrying about discrimination?

I’ve got news for you: discrimination happens ALL the time, and it isn’t always a bad thing.

 

[mikekle]

Just want to make it clear, Im referring to children literally created, born, grown in labs, not IVF, or similar, where a women actually still needs to carry and give birth to the child. I know its a stretch, but more akin to the ‘6 day’ type of cloning (Arnold Schwarzenegger film), where ‘human blanks’ are created, stored, and then used to make living breathing people.

I realize real cloning today is not as mass production as it was depicted in that movie, but this still happens in labs I imagine.

 

[treesrhard]

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.

Unfortunately, the creation of this life using the DNA of three parents does result in the destruction of the egg of the mother who is donating her mitochondria. Here is an explanation of the IVF procedure:

The mother with the mitochondrial disease gene contributes her egg, the father provides his sperm, and a third woman donates a healthy egg. The lab carefully removes the nuclear DNA from the second egg, leaving the healthy mitochondria intact. The lab then injects the nuclear DNA from the mother. A single sperm is injected into the new, healthy egg, and the embryo is implanted into the mother’s womb. This embryo then will have the nuclear DNA from one mother, nuclear DNA from the father, and mitochondrial DNA from a third parent.

As you see, the egg from the mitochondria donor is destroyed when all of the nuclear DNA is removed, except for the healthy mitochondria.