Posted on 03/10/2014 6:51:24 PM PDT by Coleus
The bioethics movement grows ever more radical. In the reproductive field, many activists promote a near-absolute right to have a baby, the kind of baby we want, via any means we desire. The UK’s John Harris is a major voice in utilitarian bioethics discourse, who believes that killing so-called human non persons is A-OK. He has now written in favor of creating children using a process known as IVG–in vitro gametes–using stem cells to create eggs and sperm, and then fertilizing via IVF.
Harris extols the possibilities. For example, a single person could “self breed,” making a baby with only their own cells. Another use would be by same sex couples who could both be genetically related to a baby, rather than only one. Once “safe,” Harris also would permit IVG for those in polyamorous ”sentimental relationships” (!!!) to create a baby genetically related to all participants. From “Multiplex Parenting,” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
IVG could permit instead a much more substantive sharing of genetic kinship, through what is in essence a generational shortcut. Imagine that four people in a relationship want to parent a child while being all genetically related to her. IVG would enable the following scenario: first, two embryos would be generated from either couple through IVF with either naturally or in vitro generated gametes. hESC lines would be then established from both embryos and differentiated into IVG to be used in a second round of IVF.
In other words, the couples create two embryos and then destroy them for their embryonic stem cells. These cells would then be used to create egg and sperm, which would be joined in IVF:
The resulting embryo would be genetically related to all four prospective parents, who would technically be the child’s genetic grandparents. In light of the developments we have anticipated above, several variations are possible over this scheme, including trios and same-sex partnerships, though in the case of trios the extent of inbreeding would need to be dealt with on a par with that outlined above for self-reproducers using the process to make a baby solely from your own .
Harris’s essay demonstrates that current radical reproduction proposals–we are already close to authorizing 3-parent embryos–would not ultimately be about allowing people with genetic diseases to procreate. Ameliorating health issues are as much pretext as purpose. The ultimate goal is enabling an anything goes culture in which extreme biotechnology is put to the use of fulfilling personal desires–especially those that shatter commonly denigrated ”traditional values.”
I have opined against permitting 3-parent IVF for safety and ethical reasons–and was ludicrously branded “anti-science“ for my trouble. Let me just add to what I have previously written that I don’t see how we can have a true “society” if the only commonality among us is ”anything goes.” Yes, I suspect that Harris hopes to shock and pull the chains of supposed dinosaurs like yours truly. But radicals such as Harris truly are deeply committed to remaking society along the lines that relativism’s creator Joseph Fletcher proposed.
If they succeed, it will lead to a dramatic increase in the social chaos that we are already experiencing. Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
God Forbid!
In some bizzaro version of the future babies can be manufactured from strands of DNA. Then a cult of 1000 whackos can each have bits of their DNA stapled together to create a child that they all share genes with.
There will be unintended consequences. God will not be mocked.
God save us....
It’s technology. You can’t stop technology; you can only go with it or ban it. If it’s possible with technology, people’ll do it. That’s a given.
Don’t know what to do about that, myself.
This kind of this is going to FORCE the legalization of polygamy as much as anything will.
If a kid has 3 or 4 or more genetic parents, they will all have a claim as that kid will also have a birthright claim to inheritance, etc.
With “technology” the scientists keep wanting to make “something” that is close to human yet not human so they can do medical testing. By declaring “it” subhuman, they do not have to recognize basic human rights.
Nepotism in the workplace is going to become that much more common. You think "race" based discrimination is bad, just wait until those with the "code" give theirs special preferential treatment.
Bump
This is going to make one funny episode of South Park.
Figuring out which grandparent you favor has become much more complicated
That’s a theory. I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone admit to it, but it sure is plausible.
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.