# Baby Born From Genetic Material of Three Parents



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 28, 2016)

Re:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/

Summary:

*Two women, one man and a baby*

"A Jordanian couple has been trying to start a family for almost 20 years. Ten years after they married, she became pregnant, but it ended in the first of four miscarriages.

In 2005, the couple gave birth to a baby girl. It was then that they discovered the probable cause of their fertility problems: a genetic mutation in the mother’s mitochondria. Their daughter was born with Leigh syndrome, which affects the brain, muscles and nerves of developing infants. Sadly, she died aged six. The couple’s second child had the same disorder, and lived for 8 months.
Using a controversial “three-parent baby” technique (see main story), the boy was born on 6 April 2016. He is showing no signs of disease."
​
What are the theological implications of such a technique? Could this be a forerunner of eugenics? The Muslim parents in the situation above did not want to use a method that resulted in the destruction of an embryo. Was the technique actually not a destruction of the embryo?


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Sep 28, 2016)

Sounds like something from Brave New World. God help us all.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 28, 2016)

God alone has the prerogative to open and close a womb. When we meddle with such affairs, we are out of bounds.


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2016)

As a devil's advocate...God alone has the prerogative to give healthy kidneys. When we meddle with such transplants we are out of bounds. 

So is there a difference between replacing a faulty kidney and faulty mitochondria?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 28, 2016)

Logan said:


> As a devil's advocate...God alone has the prerogative to give healthy kidneys. When we meddle with such transplants we are out of bounds.
> 
> So is there a difference between replacing a faulty kidney and faulty mitochondria?



Not to my mind. Our kidneys are a true part of our bodies, and they will be raised with us the last day. Shorter Catechism 16 teaches that our bodies are united to Christ even in the grave. That means that a dead Christian's kidneys are united to Christ. Our bodies are to be treated with dignity, not as machines with interchangeable parts.

In other words, our organs are not ours to donate. "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor 6:19).


----------



## earl40 (Sep 28, 2016)

I understand many will draw inferences that we should not donate organs from one to another but I have never read "Thy shall not give a kidney to thy neighbor"...Our Lord gave up all His body for His children.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 28, 2016)

Earl, with due respect, I would need scriptural warrant for cutting up human bodies and fusing the parts of one to another.

Christ was yielding himself to the Divine prerogative in his actions. I would be doing the same if I were to give myself for the sake of Christ or in defense for another.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 28, 2016)

I also want to state that I mean no disrespect and no lack of compassion toward those who have been in difficult circumstances in which they had to make a difficult decision regarding transplants. I only mean to state what I believe the Scriptural limits to our prerogatives are. It would be painful indeed to know that a family member could be saved through a procedure which is perfectly acceptable so far as society is concerned, but which I believe is out of bounds. 

Given that we are to use all lawful means necessary to preserve life, diligence should be given to discern what means are lawful; otherwise we may sin by not preventing death one hand, or by preventing it by unlawful means on the other.


----------



## Logan (Sep 28, 2016)

To be clear, I believe that God opens and closes a womb. However I also believe difficulty conceiving is an effect of the fall and does not automatically preclude trying to overcome its effects. This technique is interesting and more respectful of life than many. I'd have to think more but I don't want to immediately assume it's wrong to try to fight the fall's effects.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 29, 2016)

To quote:



> involves fertilising both the mother’s egg and a donor egg with the father’s sperm. Before the fertilised eggs start dividing into early-stage embryos, each nucleus is removed. The nucleus from the donor’s fertilised egg is discarded and replaced by that from the mother’s fertilised egg.



Therein lies the problem...fertilizing two eggs and using one for spare-parts and then discarding it. Perhaps we could also impregnate poor folks and then use the material from the spare poor fetus to cure the babies of the rich and then induce abortion once we are done.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 29, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Earl, with due respect, I would need scriptural warrant for cutting up human bodies and fusing the parts of one to another.
> 
> Christ was yielding himself to the Divine prerogative in his actions. I would be doing the same if I were to give myself for the sake of Christ or in defense for another.



Love thy neighbor as thy self would be my warrant. If I may borrow what you wrote with one addition in the ( ). If I donate an organ to my neighbor "I would be doing the same if I were to give myself (or donate and organ) for the sake of Christ". I said there is no scriptural warrant that I know of that precludes organ donation. Of course I understand the reason some may think it is sinful though even if I understand why does not mean I agree.  

May I ask you if you think it is OK to donate blood which "fusses parts" of one to another?


----------



## Logan (Sep 29, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Therein lies the problem...fertilizing two eggs and using one for spare-parts and then discarding it.



You've selectively read the article. It said that was the method approved in the UK. The next sentence says:
"But this technique wasn’t appropriate for the couple – as Muslims, they were opposed to the destruction of two embryos. So Zhang took a different approach, called spindle nuclear transfer. He removed the nucleus from one of the mother’s eggs and inserted it into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg – with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor – was then fertilised with the father’s sperm."


----------



## OPC'n (Sep 29, 2016)

I don't see how it could be abortion of the discarded egg since it was never fertilized. This is really good news for ppl who carry defective genes and want to have children.


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 29, 2016)

This is tricky. Obviously, the fact that this child has three parents is tricky enough. But, I think we have to also take into account what is done with the fertilized egg before it is implanted back into the mother. Is it put in a freezer? If so, we have to do deal with the ethics of essentially creating a child who then orphaned to a freezer holding cell until given to the mother. And we would have to deal with the ethics of the chances of that child dying while frozen. If this is all done sort of "on the spot" with high levels of success that don't result in the death of many numbers of children, than perhaps, in one sense, this is a great step in the direction away from IVF and other means that orphan children to freezer at high rates of death. Very tricky, though. 



TylerRay said:


> I would need scriptural warrant for cutting up human bodies and fusing the parts of one to another.



Tyler, what about skin grafting? Or really any other means of surgery where the body is manipulated in order to save a life or increase quality of life. Just trying to think through your argument. I don't see how the text you are quoting is relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Logan (Sep 29, 2016)

"Three parents" is a clickbait title. A kidney recipient has more DNA from a third person than this baby (which as far as I understand, is none).

I'm not necessarily for or against the procedure at this point, but I feel like there's a number of assumptions being made without actually reading the article.


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 29, 2016)

Logan said:


> "Three parents" is a clickbait title. A kidney recipient has more DNA from a third person than this baby (which as far as I understand, is none).
> 
> I'm not necessarily for or against the procedure at this point, but I feel like there's a number of assumptions being made without actually reading the article.



Exactly. Mitochondrial DNA serves a different function than does nuclear DNA. So its not quite the idea of splicing different DNAs in the nucleus.
That said, I am still unsure about it.


----------



## timfost (Sep 29, 2016)

Technically the child has two parents. Genetics is not the only factor, otherwise, my adopted children would be in trouble. 

If the genetic material is taken from an unfertilized egg, what's the problem?

I see no moral issue with the matter. The thing that is unsettling is the potential for unintended consequences when you permanently alter genetics, as this will be passed down to the child's eventual progeny.


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 29, 2016)

timfost said:


> Technically the child has two parents. Genetics is not the only factor, otherwise, my adopted children would be in trouble.
> 
> If the genetic material is taken from an unfertilized egg, what's the problem?
> 
> I see no moral issue with the matter. The thing that is unsettling is the potential for unintended consequences when you permanently alter genetics, as this will be passed down to the child's eventual progeny.



At the same time mitochondria is from the mother. It has its own DNA, it replicates on its own. So the baby does have 3 different parental DNAs but not in the same sense that we are thinking of.


----------



## mgkortus (Sep 29, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> At the same time mitochondria is from the mother. It has its own DNA, it replicates on its own. So the baby does have 3 different parental DNAs but not in the same sense that we are thinking of.



The mitochondria are from the donor, not the mother. That is the point - the mother has mitochondria that contain the mutated gene. Thus, they need a donor egg that contains mitochondrial DNA that lacks the mutation. 

Thus, the baby has:
23 chromosomes of nuclear DNA from the father.
23 chromosomes of nuclear DNA from the mother.
For a total of 23 chromosomal pairs from the actual parents. 
Mitochondrial _DNA_ from the donor. 

Thus, I agree with Logan:



Logan said:


> "Three parents" is a clickbait title. A kidney recipient has more DNA from a third person than this baby (which as far as I understand, is none).


----------



## mgkortus (Sep 29, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> This is tricky. Obviously, the fact that this child has three parents is tricky enough. But, I think we have to also take into account what is done with the fertilized egg before it is implanted back into the mother. Is it put in a freezer? If so, we have to do deal with the ethics of essentially creating a child who then orphaned to a freezer holding cell until given to the mother. And we would have to deal with the ethics of the chances of that child dying while frozen. If this is all done sort of "on the spot" with high levels of success that don't result in the death of many numbers of children, than perhaps, in one sense, this is a great step in the direction away from IVF and other means that orphan children to freezer at high rates of death. Very tricky, though.



This all assumes that a fertilized egg is a child. I think a strong argument can be made in favor of the view that only a fertilized egg _attached to the wall of uterus_ constitutes a child. A fertilized egg in a petri dish has no potential for life. It can undergo only a certain number of divisions. 
In addition, Psalm 139:13-14 speaks of God covering us while we are in our mother's _womb_.
Furthermore, no couple could possibly know the number of the children that they really have if a fertilized egg constituted a child. For it occurs regularly that an egg will become fertilized by way of intercourse, but implantation never happens. Thus, this fertilized egg ("child") is merely passed the next time the woman uses the restroom.


----------



## Edward (Sep 29, 2016)

mgkortus said:


> Thus, they need a donor embryo



Not an accurate statement, if the linked story is true. 

"He removed the nucleus from one of the mother’s eggs and inserted it into a *donor egg* that had had its own nucleus removed. The *resulting egg* – with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor –* was then fertilised* " (emphasis supplied).


----------



## mgkortus (Sep 29, 2016)

You are correct - I used use the wrong term. I have edited my post accordingly.
Egg = unfertilized.
Embryo = fertilized



Edward said:


> mgkortus said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, they need a donor embryo
> ...


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 29, 2016)

mgkortus said:


> arapahoepark said:
> 
> 
> > At the same time mitochondria is from the mother. It has its own DNA, it replicates on its own. So the baby does have 3 different parental DNAs but not in the same sense that we are thinking of.
> ...



Basically what I meant. From a donor mother of sorts...so the baby's mitochondrial DNA and genetic history will be traced from the donor and not the actual mother.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 29, 2016)

Does the removal of the nucleus from the mother's egg effectively destroy the egg and similarly the donor's egg with its nucleus removed? Is this akin to the poor analogy of moving the yolk from one egg to another egg that has had its own yolk removed?


----------



## Edward (Sep 29, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Does the removal of the nucleus from the mother's egg effectively destroy the egg and similarly the donor's egg with its nucleus removed? Is this akin to the poor analogy of moving the yolk from one egg to another egg that has had its own yolk removed?



More like removing the germinal disc from the yolk.


----------



## Nate (Sep 29, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Technically the child has two parents. Genetics is not the only factor, otherwise, my adopted children would be in trouble.
> ...



Trent is right: mitochondria are passed through the mother only. This current example was selective to males. Of note though, this same procedure was performed in the US several times resulting in the birth of healthy children back in the 90s. Some of these children were female, and thus will pass along genetic material from three individuals in a unique way if they produce children.


----------



## Nate (Sep 29, 2016)

mgkortus said:


> arapahoepark said:
> 
> 
> > At the same time mitochondria is from the mother. It has its own DNA, it replicates on its own. So the baby does have 3 different parental DNAs but not in the same sense that we are thinking of.
> ...



As a real-life mitochondrial biologist, I have to disagree (it's been a while since we've had a good biology debate, Matt ). The donors mitochondrial genetic material (which does only encode 13 proteins) will be ubiquitous in every mitochondrial bearing cell in the boy's body. Any defect in the donor's mitochondrial DNA will have systemic effects in the boy, and would require an equally systemic intervention. The kidney example refutes itself. A malfunctioning kidney can be removed and replaced to restore close to normal life. Bad mitochondrial DNA has no cure.


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2016)

The "ethical" difference between the kidney and this particular case is the fact that there is a potential individual being affected by the process who cannot express consent or give an opinion. The medical world predicts unforeseen consequences. It is one thing for consenting individuals to accept those consequences, but quite another to decide them for the individuals to come.

For social ethics you have the whole Frankenstein problem.

In political ethics there will be an aim to protect against slippery slopes, since law is concerned with precedents.

And for Christian ethics, "Love the Lord thy God" should respect His rights as Creator; and "love thy neighbour" should take into consideration the possibility that what is immediately "good" might eventually prove to be evil for one's neighbour and progeny, which means some distinction of "goods" must be made.


----------



## Nate (Sep 29, 2016)

MW said:


> The "ethical" difference between the kidney and this particular case is the fact that there is a potential individual being affected by the process who cannot express consent or give an opinion. The medical world predicts unforeseen consequences. It is one thing for consenting individuals to accept those consequences, but quite another to decide them for the individuals to come.



This is a really important point that helped lead to the ban of the procedure in the US in the 90s and which was discussed when the UK recently OK'D it. However this has been left out of a lot of the discussion following the current birth.


----------



## mgkortus (Sep 30, 2016)

Good point Nate. 



Nate said:


> mgkortus said:
> 
> 
> > arapahoepark said:
> ...


----------



## earl40 (Sep 30, 2016)

[,,,


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 30, 2016)

mgkortus said:


> This all assumes that a fertilized egg is a child. I think a strong argument can be made in favor of the view that only a fertilized egg attached to the wall of uterus constitutes a child. A fertilized egg in a petri dish has no potential for life. It can undergo only a certain number of divisions.
> In addition, Psalm 139:13-14 speaks of God covering us while we are in our mother's womb.
> Furthermore, no couple could possibly know the number of the children that they really have if a fertilized egg constituted a child. For it occurs regularly that an egg will become fertilized by way of intercourse, but implantation never happens. Thus, this fertilized egg ("child") is merely passed the next time the woman uses the restroom.



I completely disagree. 

How do all of those things prove that a zygote is not a child until attached to the uterus? Is there something magical about the wall of a uterus that breathes life/a soul into a fertilized egg that did not previously have it?

If I am not mistaken, that zygote has a completely different DNA from its parents. So what is it? Your argument that it has "no potential for life" presupposes that life isn't already present. Location and potential for death are not the deciding factor for being human at other stages of development, so why so for the zygote? There are plenty of places that I could be put into that would cause me to die if left alone. A newborn placed alone in a crib for a month will .... die, it has no potential for sustaining life. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't previously alive.

Psalm 139 does say that we are knit together in out mothers womb, but that doesn't mean that we didn't exist before implantation. I think that is going beyond the text. 

Likewise, just because a couple doesn't know how many children they have had, doesn't mean they didn't have children. It may be crazy to think that we could enter eternity and meet with a dozen children that were lost in the earliest stages of development, but I honestly think that this is a glorious and joyful thought. 

I honestly think any notion that denies the personhood of a child _after fertilization_ is 'ageist'. It is discriminating against a human being based off of their level of development, location, age, etc.


----------



## mgkortus (Sep 30, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> How do all of those things prove that a zygote is not a child until attached to the uterus? Is there something magical about the wall of a uterus that breathes life/a soul into a fertilized egg that did not previously have it?
> 
> ...



First of all - I did not say that the evidence I provided _proves_ the position. I merely said that a case could be made. Furthermore, I understand both sides of the argument. However, there are aspects of each side that make me uncomfortable.

In answer to your question: No, there is nothing magical about a uterus that breathes life into a fertilized egg. However, I am uncomfortable about referring to a fertilized egg in a petri dish or unknowingly flushed down the toilet by a woman as a "child." Such a fertilized egg will never go beyond a certain number of cell divisions.

We do not, for example, refer to seeds as living organisms. It is not until a seed is placed in the right environment (soil) and begins to grow that it can be considered living. 

At the same time, I am also uncomfortable about attachment to the uterus wall being the definitive moment when life begins. Or even saying the first cell division in that context marks the moment that life beings. I share this view with you. It is much more tidy to believe that life begins at the moment an egg becomes fertilized.

That said, if life begins the moment an egg becomes fertilized, then man is capable of creating life. This too makes me uncomfortable. God alone is the creator of life. If a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a child, then it must have a soul. This means that man has the capability of dictating when God creates new souls. Again, this makes me uncomfortable. 

Thus, as I said, I understand both sides of the argument, and I am content to reserve judgment on the matter. Since I have yet to be convinced one way or the other, I simply pointed out that your previous comment was making the assumption that life begins at fertilization. Thus, I suggested that this is not _necessarily_ the case.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 30, 2016)

earl40 said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Earl, with due respect, I would need scriptural warrant for cutting up human bodies and fusing the parts of one to another.
> ...



I'm undecided about blood transfusions, because our blood is not a permanent part of our bodies.

Regarding donation of body parts, etc., I'll post a new thread to open up discussion on the subject. I don't want to hijack Patrick's thread.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2016)

Nate said:


> This is a really important point that helped lead to the ban of the procedure in the US in the 90s and which was discussed when the UK recently OK'D it. However this has been left out of a lot of the discussion following the current birth.



It might end up being the only ethical leg which a Christian has to stand on.


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 3, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Re:
> https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/
> 
> Summary:
> ...




Interestingly, the three-parent possibility has been around for as long as humanity has been around, except that we didn’t know about it until recently.

It turns out that we don’t need technology of any kind to “create” a child with three parents. A three-parent (two-father) child could happen thanks to a rare condition known as chimerism, which geneticists estimate roughly forty persons on earth carry. 

Chimerism starts when two (or more) eggs are released by a woman's ovaries at more or less the same time -- a set-up for twins. Next, both eggs are fertilized (the old-fashioned way). So far we're still on the path to twins. But then something unusual happens. The two fertilized eggs -- we're talking about embryos here -- fuse together in the womb. The new fused embryo develops normally, but with two distinct sets of human DNA. 

This still doesn’t give us a person with three parents. But if a woman releases two eggs and then happens to have sex with two different men in quick succession, and each man fertilizes a different egg (this is known as superfecundation, and believe it or not it actually happens), and finally if the two fertilized eggs from the different fathers fuse together, the resulting child would have two fathers. I was told by a specialist in genetics (see below) that there’s absolutely no reason why the two fertilized eggs couldn’t fuse together despite being fertilized by different men. 

So with a combination of superfecundation (not, sadly, as unusual as we’d like to think) and chimerism (highly unusual but definitely real), a child could be born with two fathers. 

(My email to the genetics guy)

Is it possible for chimerism and superfecundation to combine so that a person has two fathers? In other words, if two eggs are fertilized in the same cycle, each by a different man (superfecundation), and then the two embryos fused together (chimerism), wouldn't the person born of the fused embryo have two fathers? Or is chimerism only possible with one father?

(His response)

Well, there's a question you don't get every day!

There's nothing to biologically prevent it from happening. I have never heard of any cases of heterpaternal superfecundation combined with chimerism, but there is no reason why it COULDN'T happen. It's just UNLIKELY, because the two events are each very uncommon individually, and the odds of hitting a "double jackpot" would be geometrically greater. To use a baseball analogy, it's possible for a player to pitch a perfect game, and it's possible for a player to hit four home runs in a game. So, logically, it is possible that one player could throw a perfect game AND hit four home runs in the same game, but the odds of that happening at the major-league level are exceedingly slim (and not just because pitchers are lousy hitters).

So, yes, it is theoretically possible for a single individual to have two fathers. Some of the cells in his body could have DNA from Friday's husband, some from Saturday's one night stand.

In an even more bizarre scenario, it might even be possible for one individual to have, genetically speaking, two fathers AND two mothers. If your mother was herself a chimera, with cells of two different genetic codes living in her ovaries, she could produce two eggs with different DNA, which could be fertilized by two sperm with different DNA (different fathers), which could then fuse together to become another seriously mixed-up chimera.


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2016)

ThomasT said:


> and then happens to have sex with two different men in quick succession



At that point the immorality of the action is apparent from the Christian point of view. If this is used as a parallel to the case of the OP it would only indicate that something immoral would have to happen in order for this to occur "naturally."


----------



## ThomasT (Oct 3, 2016)

I don't think I was drawing a parallel; I was trying to broaden the scope of the discussion to show that the three-parent problem isn't dependent on the accident of modern technology.

As for superfecundation being immoral, I'm not sure I agree. Superfecundation normally involves fornication or adultery -- but it needn't always. Suppose a woman is married and has sex with her husband. Later that evening he dies. The next day she marries another man (she lives in a society that's at war, and at war in the utmost extremity, so the customary period of mourning can't be observed). She has sex with her new husband, and the unusual biological processes I highlighted in my last note do their work. She gives birth to a child with two fathers, and yet she hasn't sinned. That this is an extremely unlikely scenario can't be denied. But it's possible nonetheless.


----------

