Bi-maternal/Bi-paternal Babies

[Salvador]

Three regions, those involved with genetic imprinting, were removed from a haploid embryonic stem cell with the use of genetic editing from CRISPR/Cas9. This edited stem cell from one female mouse was then put into the egg of another female mouse. This procedure using genetic editing to remove genetic imprinting from haploid embryonic stem cells that were then transferred from one female mouse into the egg of another female mouse resulted in the birth of healthy female mice having the DNA of two biological female parents.

Haploid embryonic stem cells having only a male parent's DNA were modified to delete seven key imprinted regions. The edited haploid embryonic stem cells were then injected—along with sperm from another male mouse into an egg cell that had its female genetic material removed with the removal of the egg's nucleus. This resulted in an embryo containing only genomic DNA from the two male parents. This bi-paternal DNA crafted embryo was then transferred along with placental material to a surrogate mother who successfully carried the 2-dad mouse fetus to full term and birth.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mouse-pups-same-sex-parents-born.html#jCp

If bi-maternal or bi-paternal offspring of mice can be produced, then it seems within the realm of possibility that the bi-maternal or bi-paternal offspring of other mammalian species, like say bi-maternal or bi-paternal humans could be produced.

What if this technique of genetic editing to remove genetic imprinting from haploid embryonic stem cells of a man that are then transferred into an enucleated oocyte with the sperm of another man; then were to result in a bi-paternal fetus developing in a surrogate mother's womb where after full embryonic development, a viable bi-paternal baby is born?

Well, of course, this would mean that 2 gay lovers could have a biologically child together with the shared DNA of each man from this gay couple?

Would that be immoral for a child to have the DNA of two fathers, but no DNA from a mother?

 

[columbus]

I cannot answer your post.
You left out an important option.

I have a big problem with artificial babies. Doesn't matter if their parents are same sex or not.
The world has altogether too many human babies as it is. Artificially creating one more, just to satisfy the parents, at a cost that could raise 100 ordinary kids out of poverty, is insanity.
IMNSHO.
Tom.

 

[Salvador]

I cannot answer your post.
You left out an important option.

I have a big problem with artificial babies. Doesn't matter if their parents are same sex or not.
The world has altogether too many human babies as it is. Artificially creating one more, just to satisfy the parents, at a cost that could raise 100 ordinary kids out of poverty, is insanity.
IMNSHO.
Tom.

Good point...the costs of genetic edited babies would certainly be a very important consideration.

 

[LuisDantas]

I voted "no", but I wish I could be offered a more emphatical wording.

 

[columbus]

Good point...the costs of genetic edited babies would certainly be a very important consideration.

And not just in the sense of it probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to artificially create said child. When children around the globe are dying because they didn't get a bag of rice, a mosquito net, a vaccination, and clean drinking water.

It's also about the likelihood that the child of superrich and self indulgent parents are probably going to grow up into rich and self indulgent people.
Tom

 

[Salvador]

I voted "no", but I wish I could be offered a more emphatical wording.

Sorry, sometimes I wish I were more empathetic. I am an Aspie, ( I've been diagnosed as having Asperger's Syndrome) I often do struggle to be tactful.

 

[columbus]

Let me point out another big problem with your OP poll.

Same sex parents are demonstrably more capable of raising healthy children.
At least, here in the USA. The stats are available on line.

It's not because gay people are inherently better. It's because all kinds of obstacles are put in the way of gay parents. We have to really want to provide for a child!

Straight people commonly wind up parents because they are just not responsible enough to use birth control or wait until they are truly "willing and able" to be responsible parents.
It's a really sad thing for children. They often get stuck growing up with parents who were clueless when they procreated.
Tom

 

[Liu]

Considering the poll question as it is stated, and the information we have, who would not vote for the 2nd option? I mean, the first is "it is certainly harmful to the child", the second is "perhaps it is not harmful". We don't know, so I of course voted for the second one.

But I agree with the other replies here about why we nevertheless might not want to use this technology, independent on whether it harms the child itself or not.

And technically, this doesn't even have to do with the question of homosexual parents, since it just asks about the conception, not about who raises it.

 

[Salvador]

And not just in the sense of it probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to artificially create said child. When children around the globe are dying because they didn't get a bag of rice, a mosquito net, a vaccination, and clean drinking water.

It's also about the likelihood that the child of superrich and self indulgent parents are probably going to grow up into rich and self indulgent people.
Tom

I used to be a bit skeptical same-sex couples overall could raise children as well as straight couples, but you make good arguments in favor of families led by loving gay couples. ...