Skip to comments.Stop fretting about 3-parent embryos and get ready for “multiplex parenting”
Posted on 03/09/2014 3:58:52 PM PDT by NYer
The controversy over three-parent embryos could soon be old hat. Writing in one of the world’s leading journals, one of Britain’s best-known bioethicists has outlined a strategy for creating children with four or more genetic parents. He calls it “multiplex parenting”.
John Harris, of the University of Manchester, and two colleagues, César Palacios-González and Giuseppe Testa contend in the Journal of Medical Ethics (free online) that this is one of many exciting consequences of using stem cells to create synthetic eggs and sperm. (Or as they prefer to call them, in vitro generated gametes (IVG).)
After the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells in 2007, theoretically any cell in the body can be created from something as simple as a skin cell. Mice have already been born from sperm and eggs created from stem cells. Harris and his colleagues believe that the day is not far off when scientists will be able to do the same with humans. In their paper, they spin an ethical justification for this and outline some possible uses.
First, is it ethical? Of course it is, so long as experiments on mice show that it is safe. After all, they write, this is already a much higher ethical bar than the one used for the first IVF babies. “If impractically high precautionary thresholds were decisive we would not have vaccines, nor IVF, nor any other advance. Nothing is entirely safe.” Besides, any children brought into the world are better off than if they never existed.
Second, there are many potential uses. The first four are familiar from the world of IVF: men who cannot produce viable sperm; women with premature menopause; people who have lost gonads or their fertility due to cancer treatment; and people who have been involuntarily sterilised (rare, but they do exist).
Many clients for such a service would be gay and lesbian couples who could have children who are genetically related to them both. “There is nothing morally wrong with same-sex competent caring people using IVG for satisfying their legitimate interests in becoming genetic parents of their children,” they say.
Another would be “single individuals, who may wish to reproduce without partner and without resorting to gamete donation”. This would be the most intense form of incest – an individual effectively mating with himself – so its safety is not guaranteed. But if it were safe, it might be permissible.
Finally, “multiplex parenting”, an option which Harris and his colleagues tackle with great enthusiasm. This is “a radical expansion of reproductive autonomy that allowed more than two persons to engage simultaneously in genetic parenting”.
“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. The resulting embryo would be genetically related to all four prospective parents, who would technically be the child's genetic grandparents.”
But it could be far more than four parents. An Australian bioethicist has discussed how children with even more progenitors could be created as a form of in vitro eugenics. By creating gametes from embryonic stem cells, it would be possible to create 20 or 30 generations of Petri dish humans in as little as ten years. So four parents might be a conservative estimate. “The in vitro compression of generational time appears thus like the most transforming feature of IVG derivation,” they write.
An ethical defence of this scenario is tall order. But Harris et al are up to it. In the first place, arguments drawn from what is “natural” are obviously irrelevant as there is no such thing as “natural” ways of acting. Hence, what can be wrong with opening up genetic kinship to a wider range of people than one father and one mother?
If there are some drawbacks, the child can hardly complain. It exists, and existence is better than non-existence. In any case, even today, parenting involves many different individuals from different generations. The use of IVGs merely gives this reality a genetic component. “Prospective parents will be able to choose among a hitherto unimaginable variety of potential children,” they write.
Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of a specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person". (POPE JOHN PAUL II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. 14: AAS 74 (1982) 96.)
IVF, as predicted, is another slippery slope, from two parents to three and now to multiple. The intent of this technology has rapidly shifted from addressing infertility to ensuring a "healthy" baby. It is only a matter of time before these procedures will be mandated by universal government healthcare as the only option for reproduction in order to contain healthcare costs. Don't believe it? Mark my words. Catholic ping!
These people have lost their way
Go ahead. Take a bite of the fruit. He’s lying to you. It will make you like gods, yourselves!
I agree. This is just wrong and there will be unintended consequences. And judgment.
How about the 7 part fertilization? or a fertilization law that requires every possible racial/ethnic combination possible is put into each egg; thus outlawing normal human coitus? (sarcasm today, political reality next year)
I’ve speculated that this will come to a bad end when one of these diabolical processes results in a strain of humans that carries some kind of freak genetic mutation that runs amok in our DNA.
What about custody? Sooner or later that issue will rear its ugly head.
Anti asked: “What about custody?” The state has custody of course.
All of your children are belong to U.S.?
The Germans may have lost World War II, but with every passing day it becomes more obvious to me that the Nazis won.
Boy that’s gonna mess up his citizenship status even worse!!!!
Yep, the united soviet states of obamaerica
“Orgy-porgy” - Aldous Huxley
Oh, all the parents. Especially the ones who have money.
Not something that would really occur to me.
Anything but the normal way is an abomination.
Not to fret, H.G. Wells.
This has already been handled on an island somewhere.
I’m going to guess the real thrust of this reaearch is to provide a steady supply of vicims for peophile / homosexual parents or enable them to reproduce thir own kind so that natural conception won’t occur anymore unless approved by the government. What they won’t expect is when their genetically coded for homosexuality children start having feelings for people of the opposite sex due to a “genetic defect”.
Can you own genetically engineered humans, just like Monsanto Owns genetically engineered plant seeds?
With no (or multiple) parents, who (if anyone) has custody? The manufacturer?
Huxley is spinning in his grave.
If Hillary says it takes a village to raise a child, her fans must think it should take a village to make a child.
Look for mega-parent children. Heather has 12 daddies and 12 mommies! Oops! What a homophobe and hetero-privileged person I am! I should have said Heather has 24 mommies.
The “mating with yourself” is rather foolish. Every bad recessive you have could match up, and it is estimated we all have half a dozen, most of which are so rare it can’t cause trouble except via incest.
But if “mating artificial sperm and egg by your own stemline” is acceptable, cloning then becomes the safer option because it is at worst your own genetic copy without any defects you don’t already have, and your medical history and development is known.
Wither by Lauren DeStefano is based on this concept.