Posted on 09/28/2016 7:26:00 AM PDT by plain talk
It’s a boy! A five-month-old boy is the first baby to be born using a new technique that incorporates DNA from three people, New Scientist can reveal. “This is great news and a huge deal,” says Dusko Ilic at King’s College London, who wasn’t involved in the work. “It’s revolutionary.”
The controversial technique, which allows parents with rare genetic mutations to have healthy babies, has only been legally approved in the UK. But the birth of the child, whose Jordanian parents were treated by a US-based team in Mexico, should fast-forward progress around the world, say embryologists.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
How can he be saved
From the eternal grave?
Musing on salvation of a 3 parent baby human. Like in Genesis 6 hybrids do they have salvation?
Muzzie parents...all that inbreeding must lead to all kinds of genetic trash. Should be a popular procedure for a lot of wealthy muzzies.
Right?! Wouldn’t it be kinder, easier to adopt? I know, out of date thinking. Sigh
Thanks for the information.
So, would it be correct to say that no current IVF procedure avoids producing unwanted embryos?
“Not to mention the wrath of God we are about to endure...”
We are well past the most deviant and ungodly things that God pounded the Old Testament Jews for committing.
Heather Has Two Mommies and a Daddy.
Interesting.
From a Catholic perspective (so if you’re not Catholic this may not interest you) anything but the “marital act” is considered immoral and hence unacceptable.
So, for example, if a couple thinks one may be infertile, fertility tests are prohibited (at least for a man) as it necessitates sexual stimulation outside the marital act.
However I do know that there is one fertility test permitted, which uses a condom to collect the sperm during the act (the condom is perforated so as to not be a barrier to conception itself) and then the collected sperm is tested.
So maybe the procedure you detail above might be permissible in Catholicism, using the same technique described above to collect the sperm.
I doubt it though as the Church is pretty adimate about the marital act being the only way the generation of new life may occur licitly. In fact I may be wrong about the “approved” fertility test I described above. (I don’t think I am though).
So I conclude as I started by saying, “Interesting”.
Yes, as far as I know, IVF always results in extra fertilized embryos.
All I can say after reading the article is “Prepare”. . . Although we don’t know the date or the hour when God makes His final move regarding this earth, everyone will to answer to the Lord. . .for some it is in the next second, minute, hour, day, year. . . .the main thing is the main thing. . .BE PREPARED. As one preacher stated...there are no fence sitters in heaven. http://www.patburt.com
I believe your IVF statement is true but I do not know for certain. I only know that one counterexample for ‘artificial insemination.’
I am not a medical professional though I am pretty good at diagnosing my own ailments using search engines:)
What do they call them Panda people?.
Agreed.
And just like w/ robotics and AI, it's as if none of these people have read any Sci-Fi.
Don't they know this never works out well?
According to http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/resources/upload/Reproductive-Technology-Evaluation-Treatment-of-Infertility-Guidelines-for-Catholic-Couples.pdf it is not in accordance with Catholic teaching except under circumstances you mentioned. No mention in the article about relative gravity of the sins of IUI vs IVF which I would expect to be quite disparate. If you find something ping me.
Good find thanks.
To me, the document you found seems very helpful with regards to the issue of IUI. It says that procedure is neither “approved” nor “disapproved”, so, as far as I understand Canon Law (disclaimer: I’m no Canon lawyer), it would be acceptable for a Catholic in good conscience to elect such a procedure, after close consultation with a trusted priest and much prayer.
Pinging someone who may have some educated insight to add.
Shep Smith and Anderson Cooper decide they want a child together so they both provide sperm samples which are mixed together in a turkey baster, then some poor junky woman was inseminated.
Nine months later they stood at the nursery window, arms around one another admiring their newborn son.
Unfortunately he was bawling his head off.
Concerned, they stop a frazzled nurse who explains to them:
“He does this every time we pull the pacifier out of his bottom.”
I’m a very big proponent of technological advancement. This disgusts me.
I believe in marriage and conceiving children the old-fashioned way and trusting that God will not place burdens upon us that we cannot bear. I have a good friend who is a volunteer NFP educator. In his professional life, he is employed by EWTN. I do not doubt his Catholicism but I do think that promotion of NFP is a mistake. Whatever the arguments for it and the pretty and soothing language, it is still birth control. The Church has authority. I don't but I harbor the hope that the Church will reconsider as to NFP. Acceptance of a contraceptive mentality (however "natural") has done more damage to the Church than any other modern mistake.
Is the kid half man, half bear, and half pig?
Who’s going to be held to account when these designer babies exhibit horrific health and psychological problems later in life?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.