3 genetic parents = what kind of child?

[Listener]

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.

Yes, this is a good explanation. Some children were born using this method, and I’m sure they were real humans. Only the nuclear DNA provides the characteristics the child will have, such as hair and eye color, body type, etc., and the child gets that from both of the parents as usual. Mitochondrial DNA allows energy to be created. It is the cell’s powerhouse. Mitochondrial DNA is normally passed from mother to daughter, and the daughter passes it to her children. Men have it too. They couldn’t live without it. Men get it from their mothers, but they can’t pass it on to anyone, because their sperm does not have any. It sounds to me like each woman had part of her egg destroyed, but no embryo was destroyed. The child will still look like the mother and father.

It is a scary process anytime you’re fooling with someone’s genes, but I’m not sure that that it is any more immoral than regular in-vitro fertilization. By doing this, they saved the child from inheriting a terrible disease.

 

[jtauke]

I am positive that God would never let that happen

I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. God won’t “let” it happen??

I think if Godly intervention were needed we have some times in the last 100 years that were more important than stopping replacement of mitochondrial DNA…like say, stopping 6 million Jews from being slaughtered in the holocaust.

The list goes on.

 

[Pat_Payne]

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

Sigh. Not THIS again… :banghead:

That child, even if illicitly created, is a person. Full stop. Once we start going down that road, then we get to “it’s not a person, it’s an ‘it.’ We can kill it.” And then we’re well on the way to being no better than Planned Parenthood, with their “it’s not a human, it’s an ‘it’ because it is nothing but a zygote/fetus/lump of cells in the woman’s womb…” song and dance.

That child would still be a life, and therefore ensoulled and loved perfectly by God just as surely as a test-tube/IVF baby, or clones, or any child conceived in other than perfect marital union circumstances.

You want biblical proof? Read Wisdom 11:24-25: The author says to God “You love everything that exists and hate nothing that you have made; had you hated anything you would not have formed it. How could anything endure if you did not will it? And how could anything last that you had not willed?”

 

[Usagi]

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.

True enough, but discrimination based on “that individual isn’t REALLY human” has historically always been the bad kind. And the way some people are talking in this thread, it is something to worry about if kids like this become more common.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

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.

As yet, there is no functioning artificial womb technology, so IVF, cloning, and all the rest still have to involve a woman carrying the child, whether it is biologically related to her or not.

I still think you are drawing a poor distinction, though. Before it seemed you were talking about the means of conception as the factor that makes a person human in your eyes. Now it seems that anyone gestated and born in a uterus counts, but not anyone who might be born after we figure out how to gestate a child outside a woman’s womb.

Pretty sure God has already created the child’s soul before the point of implantation into the uterus (whether naturally or artificially – that’s one argument we have with folks who want to define pregnancy as starting at implantation rather than conception), so it’s not like a kid transferred to an artificial womb would retroactively lose his or her soul.

Usagi

 

[weller2]

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

Yes. Human genetic engineering is here to stay, like it or not.

I’m particularly sensitive to this issue, inter alia because Polish bishops are on the record with statements which border on hate speech regarding IVF children:

slideshare.net/VictoriaKamasa/the-polish-catholic-church-on-ivf-critical-discourse-analy
rhm-elsevier.com/article/S0968-8080(12)40647-4/fulltext
worldcrunch.com/culture-society/why-poland-039-s-first-ivf-child-has-kissed-the-catholic-church-goodbye/polish-ivf-catholic-assisted-fertility-in-vitro/c3s12714/#.VOYrl_nF9jI

 

[Rau]

Yes. Human genetic engineering is here to stay, like it or not.

I’m particularly sensitive to this issue, inter alia because Polish bishops are on the record with statements which border on hate speech regarding IVF children:

slideshare.net/VictoriaKamasa/the-polish-catholic-church-on-ivf-critical-discourse-analy
rhm-elsevier.com/article/S0968-8080(12)40647-4/fulltext
worldcrunch.com/culture-society/why-poland-039-s-first-ivf-child-has-kissed-the-catholic-church-goodbye/polish-ivf-catholic-assisted-fertility-in-vitro/c3s12714/#.VOYrl_nF9jI

One of these links leads to an add for an iPhone. One is mostly in another language. The 3rd says very little, none of it bordering on hate speech, but rather comes across as being written from the perspective that “anyone who opposes IVF must be a hateful person”.

There was one strange statement from one priest about IVF kids being recognisable.

But even that article ends with:

"Bishops conference spokesman Father Jozef Kloch said the Church "does not stigmatize IVF children. Every child deserves to be fully accepted and loved, and they are all equally loved by the Church.”



Could you quote the statements from the Church which “border on hate speech”. Do they appear in well-known credible sources? If such have been made, I will happily join the condemnation of it.

 

[weller2]

One of these links leads to an add for an iPhone.

Everything loads correctly here and is in English. Please check your computer for spyware and install adblock.

Anyway, let me quote another overview:

What seems to be relatively new is that many representatives of the Catholic Church criticize not only methods of assisted reproduction, and infertile people who decide to undergo such procedures, but they also stigmatize children born after IVF. They propagate the view that as a rule they are physically weaker, prone to certain diseases, and suffer from a range of psychical abnormalities.11 The utterance of the bishop Tadeusz Pieronek serves as a instructive example of this line of reasoning. In a widely commented interview12 he compared children born through IVF to Frankensteinian creations, explaining that such an analogy is justified as in both cases a new life is created in artificial and unethical manner. In his view, children born after IVF are being “produced” or “manufactured” to fulfill their parents egoistic wishes, which explains why they supposedly differ from “normal” ones; why they are physically, emotionally and socially deficient13.

You can see excerpts of the interview here (Translated via Google, but perfectly readable). The whole thing is no longer available unfortunately, because it caused so much outcry that it has been taken down by the publisher after 3 hours, inter alia because the Bishop was asked what if someone said during confession that they have an IVF baby:

I would say the same thing I would say to someone who committed abortion or murder

Bipshop Pieronek’s later retraction has made things even more mysterious (same source):

In the interviews that followed, Pieronek stressed that the church does not condemn children born with the help of IVF, but attempts at saving them.14 He insisted however, that they are most often physically and emotionally deficient. This view is also propagated by the Catholic media.

As he failed to explain how exactly he would like to “save” the IVF children, and why exactly they need saving in the first place. I must say that I find this concept – that IVF children must be “saved” – very intriguing. An image which comes to my mind is how the Spanish Inquisition was “saving” heretics.

Then we have an official document of the Episcopate on bioetics (Polish), which contains the following gems:

IVF is another human experimentation. It is a “production” of a human, a form of taking control of human life.

the sperm is obtained from the father in an act of masturbation [lit. self-abuse], mother’s body is repeatedly manipulated, and the child becomes a “product”

[IVF] does not cure anything – the infertile [parents] remain so, and they outsource “production” of child to the strangers

Sorry, I cannot come up with anything more dehumanizing than calling someone a “product”… and an “outsourced product” at that, adding insult to injury. (And why the scare quotes?)

There was one strange statement from one priest about IVF kids being recognisable.

It wasn’t any priest, it was a member of the Episcopal Expert Team on Bioethics, and the statement was by no means isolated, but corresponded to the prevailing tone how IVF is covered in Catholic media in Poland. Continuing from the same article:

This strategy is probably most vividly expressed in the **utterance of the member of the Episcopal Expert Team on Bioethics, Franciszek Longchamps de Bérier, who went on record, claiming that morphological differences between “normal” and “test-tube” children are often so obvious that “there are doctors who can tell that a child has been conceived through IVF just by the look at her/his face. It is possible because their faces are marked by a furrow, typical to specific syndrome of genetic diseases.”**17 This utterance is hardly an exception, as the lists of morphological deformities, which according to the Catholic media “IVF children” suffer from is long, and includes a range of physical abnormalities that makes them different at a first glance, such as “deformed organs, drooling, trembling of the limbs, chewing movements, limited speech, dangling tongue, wide and protruding forehead, eyes improperly set and sticking out, asymmetric body, and much more” (Walkowska-Radkowicz 2012).

Walkowska-Radowicz’s paper is here. (And since Elsevier charges author’s institution $1000-1500 for an open access publication, it is ad free ;-))

"Bishops conference spokesman Father Jozef Kloch said the Church "does not stigmatize IVF children. Every child deserves to be fully accepted and loved, and they are all equally loved by the Church.”

I have a lot of sympathy for Fr. Kloch, because his job involves repeated damage control after one of Bishops speaks his mind openly.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Everything loads correctly here and is in English. Please check your computer for spyware and install adblock.

It’s a pop_under ad integrated into the page. If I access it from an Android phone I’ll see an ad for an android ap. From an ios device I will see an ad for an ios app. In either case there is a continue button in the ad that will close it and show the article.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Rau]

Weller, I have no firsthand knowledge of statements made by church representatives in Poland nor do I have sources I know to be reliable on this subject.

However, the 3 “gems” you quoted, apart from poor English, are not the insulting statements you suggest if understood properly. It is not those statements that deem the child created by IVF a product, but rather the attitude of those embrace the process - that’s what is being said. Your suggestion that the child is being dehumanised by the persons making those statements is nonsense and a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of what is being said.

IVF does involve masturbation.
IVF does involve manipulation of the female body.
IVF is in the nature of a laboratory process to create a child.
IVF has a high failure rate, akin to experimentation.
IVF is not a cure for an affliction. It is a laboratory based procedure to produce s child.

But for all the above, the child is a child, no less deserving of respect and love than any other child. And I anticipate the parents (assuming they are the ones who will bring up the child) will love the child as much as any parent loves their child.

 

[weller2]

However, the 3 “gems” you quoted, apart from poor English,

You have the source text, you can obtain another translation if you do not like mine.

are not the insulting statements you suggest if understood properly. It is not those statements that deem the child created by IVF a product,

This is the original text:

in vitro jest kolejnym eksperymentowaniem na człowieku. To [jest] „produkcja” człowieka,

word-by-word:

jest - is
kolejny - another, subsequent
eksperymentowaniem - experimentation
na - on
człowieku - (on a) human
to - it
produkcja - production, manufacturing
człowieka - (of a) a human

…a dziecko staje się „produktem”.

a - and, while
dziecko - child
staje się - becomes
productem - product

niepłodni takimi pozostają, a „wyprodukowanie” dziecka powierzają obcym.

niepłodni - infetile ones
takimi - as such
pozostają - remain,
a - and, while
wyprodukowanie - production, manufacturing
dziecka - of a child
powierzają - they subcontract
obcym - to strangers

but rather the attitude of those embrace the process - that’s what is being said.

The third quote, in context:

Chrześcijanin musi troszczyć się o prawdę. Dlatego jego zadaniem jest też demaskowanie kłamstw, wśród których szczególnie wiele szkody czynią sugestie, jakoby zapłodnienie pozaustrojowe było leczeniem niepłodności. Ono niczego nie leczy – niepłodni takimi pozostają, a „wyprodukowanie” dziecka powierzają obcym.

Translated:

*A Christan must defend the truth. That’s why his task is exposing lies, and particularly damaging lies are the suggestions that ART cure infertility. It does not cure anything – the infertile ones remain as such, and subcontract “producing” the child to strangers. *

The document contains an objective statement statement (repeated 3 times) that IVF children are produced/manufactured.

IVF does involve masturbation.
IVF does involve manipulation of the female body.
IVF is in the nature of a laboratory process to create a child.
IVF has a high failure rate, akin to experimentation.
IVF is not a cure for an affliction. It is a laboratory based procedure to produce s child.

All that is of course true. Still, saying that “the child becomes a product”, and referring to the process as “production” is at minimum insensitive.

 

[weller2]

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.

Are any ethical concerns regarding destruction of unfertilized eggs?

 

[ahs]

You have the source text, you can obtain another translation if you do not like mine.

This is the original text:

in vitro jest kolejnym eksperymentowaniem na człowieku. To [jest] „produkcja” człowieka,

word-by-word:

jest - is
kolejny - another, subsequent
eksperymentowaniem - experimentation
na - on
człowieku - (on a) human
to - it
produkcja - production, manufacturing
człowieka - (of a) a human

…a dziecko staje się „produktem”.

a - and, while
dziecko - child
staje się - becomes
productem - product

niepłodni takimi pozostają, a „wyprodukowanie” dziecka powierzają obcym.

niepłodni - infetile ones
takimi - as such
pozostają - remain,
a - and, while
wyprodukowanie - production, manufacturing
dziecka - of a child
powierzają - they subcontract
obcym - to strangers

The third quote, in context:

Chrześcijanin musi troszczyć się o prawdę. Dlatego jego zadaniem jest też demaskowanie kłamstw, wśród których szczególnie wiele szkody czynią sugestie, jakoby zapłodnienie pozaustrojowe było leczeniem niepłodności. Ono niczego nie leczy – niepłodni takimi pozostają, a „wyprodukowanie” dziecka powierzają obcym.

Translated:

*A Christan must defend the truth. That’s why his task is exposing lies, and particularly damaging lies are the suggestions that ART cure infertility. It does not cure anything – the infertile ones remain as such, and subcontract “producing” the child to strangers. *

The document contains an objective statement statement (repeated 3 times) that IVF children are produced/manufactured.

All that is of course true. Still, saying that “the child becomes a product”, and referring to the process as “production” is at minimum insensitive.

Yep, that sounds exactly like what Rau was responding to. The Church is talking about the reality of the procedure, not about the humanity of the child produced by it.

Weller, I have no firsthand knowledge of statements made by church representatives in Poland nor do I have sources I know to be reliable on this subject.

However, the 3 “gems” you quoted, apart from poor English, are not the insulting statements you suggest if understood properly. It is not those statements that deem the child created by IVF a product, but rather the attitude of those embrace the process - that’s what is being said. Your suggestion that the child is being dehumanised by the persons making those statements is nonsense and a misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of what is being said.

IVF does involve masturbation.
IVF does involve manipulation of the female body.
IVF is in the nature of a laboratory process to create a child.
IVF has a high failure rate, akin to experimentation.
IVF is not a cure for an affliction. It is a laboratory based procedure to produce s child.

But for all the above, the child is a child, no less deserving of respect and love than any other child. And I anticipate the parents (assuming they are the ones who will bring up the child) will love the child as much as any parent loves their child.

 

[ahs]

All that is of course true. Still, saying that “the child becomes a product”, and referring to the process as “production” is at minimum insensitive.

No it isn’t. It’s a statement of fact based entirely in reality and does nothing at all to diminish the dignity of the human person.

 

[Rau]

All that is of course true. Still, saying that “the child becomes a product”, and referring to the process as “production” is at minimum insensitive.

Insensitive - perhaps it is. If delivered in a lecture to a group of IVF children, definitely. But it is what those who embraced the process have chosen. The truth sometimes hurts.

 

[mikekle]

Insensitive - perhaps it is. If delivered in a lecture to a group of IVF children, definitely. But it is what those who embraced the process have chosen. The truth sometimes hurts.

Good point.

 

[jtauke]

Good point.

No, it’s not a good point. They are ensouled human beings and should NOT ever be reduced to an “it” or “product”.

The casual lack of respect by some on this forum is, frankly, disturbing.

 

[Rau]

No, it’s not a good point. They are ensouled human beings and should NOT ever be reduced to an “it” or “product”.

The casual lack of respect by some on this forum is, frankly, disturbing.

You need to direct your remarks at those doing the reducing. They are not on this forum (to my knowledge). I explained who (perhaps oblivious to the fact…) does the reducing.