Sodom and Gomorrah? Unnatural? But it’s the progressive way.
Federal health regulators will consider … whether to green light a provocative new fertilization technique that could eventually create babies from the DNA of three people, with the goal of preventing mothers from passing on debilitating genetic diseases to their children. …
Scientists claim that their goal is completely benign. They want only to do whatever they can to eliminate mitochondria-propagated diseases:
Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov … is seeking FDA approval to begin testing in a handful of women who carry defective genes that can lead to devastating diseases in children, including blindness, organ failure and epilepsy.
An estimated 1 in 5,000 U.S. children inherit such conditions because of defective DNA in their mitochondria, small energy-producing organs found in the cell. Unlike most DNA — located in the nucleus of the cell — mitochondrial DNA is passed along only by the mother, not the father.
The experimental technique, if approved for use, would allow a woman to give birth to a baby who inherits her normal nucleus DNA but not her defective mitochondrial DNA.
To accomplish this, researchers would remove the nucleus DNA from a healthy female donor’s eggs and replace it with the nucleus DNA of the prospective mother. After fertilization, the resulting child would inherit the mother’s nucleus DNA — which contains most inherited traits like eye color and height — but the donor’s healthy mitochondrial DNA.
The doctor has already perfected the technique on monkeys. Let’s guess where this one is heading.
Further redefining of the nuclear family. (Pun intended.)
Today, it’s a technique to eliminate genetic disease. Tomorrow, it’s a huge money-making industry that creates a lot of jobs, not to mention GMHs (genetically modified humans). There are patents to be obtained on proprietary techniques. Billions and billions and billions to be made. Surely the researchers and the institutes that pay them aren’t going to give away this technology out of the goodness of their hearts. Just as surely, We the People are going to pay for this research, only to see well-connected businessmen and companies cash in.
Imagine the future: Parents (as many as you like) can custom design their babies. What a Brave New World it will be:
[The book Brave New World] doesn’t, and isn’t intended by its author [Aldous Huxley] to, evoke just how wonderful our lives could be if the human genome were intelligently rewritten. In the era of post-genomic medicine, our DNA is likely to be spliced and edited so we can all enjoy life-long bliss, awesome peak experiences, and a spectrum of outrageously good designer-drugs.
Yes, DNA can and will be “spliced and edited” so that, for example, a practitioner of polygyny will no longer have to choose a wife with whom to procreate. All co-wives can contribute to the genetic stew.
Heather has eight mommies!
Similarly, women engaged in polyandry will find that scientists can combine sperm from multiple partners, so that
Winston has six daddies!
Better yet, and you know this is coming. (How not, considering LGBT politics?) Multiple same-sex partners can have a baby to share amongst themselves.
Lenina has three daddies and no mommies, only an anonymous no-nucleus-egg donor, because she was incubated in a lab-grown uterus!
What’s not to like? Why worry?
The FDA says we should “experiment” first and worry about ethics and philosophy later:
[B]efore the FDA considers the philosophical implications of genetically modified children, its first concern is the safety of any patients enrolled in experiments. In documents posted ahead of this week’s meeting, the agency said it will seek public input on how to monitor the safety of women who undergo the fertilization process. The agency also wants to hear proposals for long-term follow-up of any children produced via the process.
Stanford University Professor Hank Greely says the FDA is taking the right approach by focusing on the immediate safety concerns, rather than speculating on whether this could lead to a “Brave New World” scenario of biologically engineered humans.
“We constantly live on slippery slopes and it’s our job as moral humans to hold a good position on the slope,” said Greely, a law professor who studies medical ethics. “If you’re worried about then you try to stop that, you don’t try to stop medically useful interventions because you’re worried that 17 steps down the line it will turn into something we don’t like.”
What an idealist. Try. Try to stop it after the ball is rolling, rolling, rolling. What could go wrong? What was it Yoda said?
DO. Or DO NOT. There is no TRY.
Can we as a society dare to take the risk that some imagined future “try” ends up failing? Can we take the risk that we “do not” succeed in stopping the creation of “genetically engineered monsters or superheroes?”
Progressives always seem to misunderestimate the law of unintended consequences.
On second thought, perhaps what most would consider to be noxious unintended consequences are exactly the consequences that progressives might prefer.
Regardless of what society at large wants, progressives are intent upon nudging everyone into the New World Order (their Brave New World), whether or not we want to go there. Whether or not we want to live there.
Our government must consider the moral, ethical, and “philosophical implications of genetically modified children” now, before it funds or approves these techniques.
Laws must be carefully written to ensure that no designer baby industry comes to pass, especially one that further erodes the nuclear family.