There is a new tool in the biotechnology tool belt that may revolutionize the way medicine treats a host of diseases. It is called CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR uses a bacterial enzyme to precisely edit DNA, and scientists all over the world are using it to transform cells in hopes that one day these genetically-altered cells may cure disease.
Scientists in China are hoping CRISPR will successfully treat lung cancer, and they are launching a first-of-its-kind clinical trial in 10 patients who have exhausted other treatment options. Researchers have edited the patient’s own immune cells to attack lung cancer.
For the third year in a row, my commentary has placed at the Catholic Press Awards. This year they won second place in the “Best Regular Column – Spiritual Life" category. In 2015, I won third place in the "Best Regular Column - Culture, the Arts, and Leisure." In 2014, my commentary won first place in same category. I think I can say it is a Three-Peat.
I am sincerely grateful to the Register for giving my labor of love a home. There are few places that have the insight and vision to appreciate the importance of the topics I write about. Please give them your support.
COMMENTARY: Volunteering our bodies for non-therapeutic enhancement and experimentation isn’t patriotic.
I will admit the question was loaded. I asked various Catholics, through my blog and social media, who was a better role model: Captain America or Ironman?
The answers weren’t surprising. The overwhelming choice was Captain America. Steve Rogers isn’t only a paragon of courage and patriotism, he’s an all-around nice guy, a champion for the weak and an example of self-sacrifice. Tony Stark, on the other hand, is a greedy narcissist whose philandering nearly everyone finds repugnant.
The question seemed outright ridiculous to some. Captain America was the obvious choice.
But being a role model doesn’t just hinge on personality traits. Captain America is a quietly subversive character. His origin is morally problematic. Rogers was an otherwise healthy soldier who was experimented on by his government — to make him a weapon of war. He was irrevocably changed by enhancements to his body.
The Catholic Church is very clear that genetic enhancements are unethical. Genetic engineering to cure or treat disease is good, but genetic engineering of a healthy person to make him stronger, faster or smarter is morally wrong. The “Charter for Health Care Workers” by the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance states:
“In moral evaluation, a distinction must be made between strictly ‘therapeutic’ manipulation, which aims to cure illnesses caused by genetic or chromosome anomalies (genetic therapy), and manipulation, ‘altering’ the human genetic patrimony. A curative intervention, which is also called ‘genetic surgery,’ will be considered desirable in principle, provided its purpose is the real promotion of the personal well-being of the individual, without damaging his integrity or worsening his condition of life.”
The document continues:
“On the other hand, interventions which are not directly curative, the purpose of which is ‘the production of human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities,’ which change the genotype of the individual and of the human species, ‘are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being, to his integrity and to his identity. Therefore, they can be in no way justified on the pretext that they will produce some beneficial results for humanity in the future.’ ‘No social or scientific usefulness and no ideological purpose could ever justify an intervention on the human genome unless it be therapeutic; that is, its finality must be the natural development of the human being.’”
Captain America’s enhancements may not have been genetic in nature, but the goal of the experimentation he endured was certainly not “the natural development of the human being.”
It matters not that he volunteered for the good of his country. It was still wrong.
It was a first in the United States. A woman, only identified as Lindsey, received a uterus from a deceased woman. Lindsey was born without a uterus, and she was hoping this transplant would enable her to get pregnant. At a press conference at the end of February, Cleveland doctors announced it was the first successful uterus transplant in the United States. Only days later, Lindsey suffered complications and had to undergo another surgery to remove the organ.
The Cleveland team of doctors has been given permission to experiment with uterus transplants in nine other women, and a few other clinics will also attempt the procedure.
In Sweden, doctors have performed nine uterus-transplant surgeries on women who were missing wombs, and these have resulted in four births. All of these organs came from live donors. All of the children were premature and were delivered by cesarean section.
In every case, whether successful or not, uterus transplants are only temporary. The women have to take immuno-suppressive drugs to prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. The plan is to only allow one or two pregnancies before the women undergo a final surgery to remove the organ. This is to minimize their exposure to the immune-suppressing drugs.
Also, in all of the uterus transplants to date, the Fallopian tubes are not connected. This means that conception cannot take place naturally; in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the transfer of embryos to the transplanted uterus, is required. The women can use their own eggs or use donated eggs from another woman to create embryos.
Many Catholics are wondering if uterus transplants are ethical. As they stand right now, the answer is: No, simply because IVF is required to create embryos, and the Catholic Church teaches it is morally unacceptable to separate procreation from the marital act. But what if the uterus transplant can be modified to link the Fallopian tubes to the ovaries, allowing natural conception to take place?
In this episode of BioTalk, Chelsea and I discuss genetic enhancements, and how they spell the loss of freedom and personal autonomy for future generations. They are "a biological arms race no one can win."
This week a committee of scientists and ethicistshave recommended to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that they approve three-parent embryo techniques for use in IVF in the United States. The committee calls it mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) because the goal is too "replace" defective mitochondria in woman with mitochondrial disease so they do not pass their genetic mutation onto their children.
We all have genetic material outside our nucleus in our mitochondria called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA solely from our mother. The mitochondria we inherit are in our mother's egg.
There are two MRT procedures that the committee endorsed. One takes a donor egg and removes its nucleus, replacing it with the nucleus of the egg of a woman with defective mtDNA. This creates a hybrid egg with the genetic material from two women. That genetically modified egg is then fertilized with sperm.
The second technique is a step further, manipulating not eggs but embryos after fertilization. It requires two embryos. One embryo with defective mitochondria and one "donor" embryo with healthy mitochondria. The nucleus of the healthy embryo is removed, and it is replaced with the nucleus of embryo with defective mtDNA. Two embryos are taken apart and destroyed to make a hybrid third embryo.
Both techniques are genetic engineering. Both techniques create embryos with genetic material from three people. Both are germ-line modifications, meaning they will be passed on to future generations by any female children made with these procedures.
In fact "mitochondrial replacement" is a misnomer. Actually all MRT procedures are "nuclear replacements." In other words, the mitochondria are staying put. It is the nucleus that is being transferred. So in reality these techniques are practically similar to cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) where the nucleus of an egg is replaced with a nucleus of a somatic cell and a cloned embryo is produced. It is well known that SCNT causes major birth defects and maternal mortality in animal models. Because of the invasive nature of nuclear transfer, MRT carries many of the same risks as cloning.
Last year the U.K. changed the definition of "genetically-modified" to circumvent the law and then approved MRT for use in fertility clinics. This committee agrees that the U.S. should also bring MRT to the IVF clinic but has some recommendations for restrictions that U.K. does not have. These restrictions are particularly telling.
The report is clear that MRT is to satisfy the "desires" - not "needs" - of a woman to have a genetically related child. This is an important point I will refer to later.
The committee recommends that MRT only be used for woman with serious, life-threatening mitochondrial disease. They are aware that there are other applications for MRT, including treatment of infertility in older women. The panel recognizes that there is a very slippery slope here that can quickly turn from procedures where the intent is to help the child, into procedures where it is the parents that benefit and the child carries all the risk.
They also recommend that the FDA require long-term follow up with these children to make sure they are healthy and do not suffer from long-term negative effects. This means that the committee is aware that there is serious potential for negative health affects, but they are willing to disregard those concerns for the "desires" of the mother to have a genetically related child. This also means that the child is the experiment. This is not mouse or primate models. This will be tried on real children, and they will be guinea pigs their entire lives.
The most telling and most insidious recommendation is that only male embryos be transferred to their mother's uterus. The committee is concerned about negative effects not just for the children produced but for their children and grandchildren. They want the modification to stop with the child modified. Since mtDNA is passed from mother to child, transferring only male embryos ensures that the modification isn't passed on. But the committee doesn't mention what should happen to the female embryos. Make no mistake - female embryos will be made. They may be tossed out. More likely they will be frozen for future research. They certainly won't get to finish out their lives.
Where are the feminists? Not only does MRT require donor eggs, which puts young women's fertility and healthy at risk in the donation process, but the implied recommendation is to cull the girl embryos or sacrifice them to research.
The fact that the committee recommends only transferring male embryos sends a clear message that they are worried about unforeseen negative consequences, consequences that might be passed down to future generations. My question is, if you are so concerned about such risks why even allow it for male embryos? Are they not people as well? Do we not care about their well-being over the "desires" of a mother to have a genetically-related child?
This inherent sex-selection is simply a "feel-good" measure that is an attempt to mitigate serious concerns. Concerns that should put a stop to the whole thing.
The committee held a briefing and the video is on YouTube. At the end they took questions. The questions were excellent. One man pointed out that MRT is similar to cloning and another questioned the recommendation of sex selection. The committee dismissed both concerns; rather ineffectively in my opinion. And in the opinion of the interrogator, I think.
The bad news is that a powerful committee has recommended that the FDA approve germ-line genetic engineering of children in the United States.
The good news is that, as of now, the FDA cannot approve MRT. Just this year Congress passed language as part of the latest funding bill that prevents the FDA from approving “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” Dr. David Prentice at TownHall.com, calls this only a “pause” and not a permanent solution.
That restriction can be removed in the next funding bill, so it is imperative the U.S. enact some kind of legislation regulating germ-line genetic engineering in humans. The U.K. has moved forward with MRT and has now approved gene-editing of the nuclear DNA of embryos.
This genetic engineering slope is more slippery than a greased watermelon. It is time to get control of it before it is too late.
A recent headline in the United Kingdom’s Independent shouts that the first genetically modified human embryos could be created in Britain in just a few weeks.
The article by Steve Connor reports that scientists have submitted a proposal to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government’s fertility regulatory body, asking to edit the genes of “leftover” IVF embryos to try to treat infertility. Just today it was announced that the researchers have been given permission to move forward.
The Independent headline is meant to shock and surprise, but if you are someone who is even remotely following recent advances in genetic engineering, this headline should leave you scratching your head. The “first” genetically modified human embryos?
Even if you don’t follow genetic engineering research, you may have seen a headline from 2014 claiming that the first genetically modified babies are now graduating from high school, or an article from 2001, titled “World’s First GM Babies Born,” that made its way around social media in 2012.
So which is it? Are the first genetically modified embryos about to be made? Or has that genie already escaped the bottle?
It depends on how you define “genetically modified."
All of my daughters are athletes. It isn't always easy when my daughter's varsity basketball team plays after the boys, and the once full gym empties as the girls start their game. It is heart breaking, but they understand. Women are by nature not as athletic as men and so, for many, not as exciting to watch.
But sport is still important for young women everywhere. My girls continue to learn valuable life lessons from pushing themselves physically and working together with other girls toward a common goal.
A headline I read yesterday may signal the end of women's sports. The Olympic Committee has changed the rules on transgender athletes. Previously, an athlete had to undergo sex reassignment surgery to participate in the games. I suppose the rule was there to ensure an athlete's commitment to their chosen "gender."
Now men only need to declare themselves a female, have low testosterone levels for one year and they can compete as a woman.
Last month in Washington D.C., scientists from around the world met to discuss whether or not to use new, cutting-edge gene editing techniques to alter the DNA of embryos. The stakes are very high because any editing done that early in development would be considered a germ-line modification, one that will be incorporated into egg and sperm cells and then passed down to future generations. So any genetic engineering done at the embryonic stage will affect not just that embryo, but his or her children, grand children and great-grandchildren.
Many of the scientists at this meeting are concerned. We should all be. Not only are we just now barely understanding how complex human genetics really is, but these proposed changes to the human germ-line, even if for a good purpose, may resonate for generations to come.
A good portion of researchers agree that we should have a voluntary moratorium on the editing of DNA in human embryos. The risks are just too great. Instead they propose we use these techniques to cure disease in a somatic fashion - treating individual patients in the cells that need it and in a way that will not be inheritable. This is a smart approach, where we can benefit from the technology to treat disease, but eliminate any risk of unforeseen side effects to further generations.
Of course there are those who want to move forward, disregarding the safety of future human beings. Sir Mark Walport, chief scientific advisory to the U.K. government, thinks genetically engineering embryos is something the Britain should pursue. The British are already making children from three-genetic parents, so making human embryos with specific edits to their genomes is not that much farther down the road.
“Is it a generically a good thing or not? It's a silly question. You need to ask for what particular gene, for what purpose, and for what potential benefits and risks. It's absolutely clear that more research is needed. We need to know you are modifying the gene you want to and you aren't modifying other things as well, whether this is a magic bullet or whether there will be off-target effects. “But are there circumstances where that might be acceptable I think many people would say that there are.”
Here is the problem genetically engineering embryos even to fix a genetic disease. The research requires the manipulation and destruction of human embryos. Many embryos will not survive. Many more will be discarded. The ones deemed healthy enough for gestation will be monitored carefully while in the womb and will likely be aborted if there are any abnormalities. Any children that are born will have to watched carefully in case any unforeseen side effects develop later on in life. And the health of their children and grand-children will also need to be monitored.
It is a lovely idea - fix genetic disease in a family for generations. But to achieve that goal, there will have to be humanbeings sacrificed on the altar of science.
There is a better and safer option. We can use these techniques to treat individual patients, one at a time. This means that each generation can choose for themselves what medical interventions they want, and they can avail themselves of any new advances that are made. They will not be force to live with the technology, and the choices, of their great-grandparents.
It was very cold and very wet, but it was worth it. This weekend I spoke alongside Walter Hoye at the Walk for Life Northwest. He and his wife are amazing witnesses for life. I am so privileged that I got to met them.
The organizers likely asked me to speak because of my work with biotechnology, but I threw them a curve ball. Instead of talking about my normal fare, I decided to the crowd about my experience with unplanned pregnancy. Here is the video.
Sherri Shepherd, celebrity host of The View, and her now-ex-husband, Lamar Sally, hired surrogate Jessica Batholomew to carry a child conceived with Sally’s sperm and a donor egg. Before Bartholomew could give birth to Lamar Jr., however, Shepherd filed for divorce and abandoned the boy both socially and financially. Batholomew was legally considered Lamar Jr.’s mother. She was left to cover her own medical expenses and was on the hook for child support.
After a long legal battle, Shepherd was officially placed on the child’s birth certificate and ordered to pay monthly child support.
Shepherd is not happy with that and is appealing her case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. TMZ reports:
Sherri Shepherdis going all the way to the Supreme Court ... of Pennsylvania to get off the financial hook for the kid she and estranged husband Lamar Sallyhad last year through a surrogate.
According to legal docs obtained by TMZ, Shepherd's asking the highest court in the state to relieve her from paying up to $4,600 a month to Sally until their son turns 18. Her reason? She says the first judge overstepped his boundaries in using a surrogacy contract to make her the mom ... even though she's not biologically related to the child.
Lamar tells TMZ ... it's ridiculous Sherri spent nearly $100k to bring their kid into the world, yet wants nothing to do with him. He says it's unfortunate one day the baby will be able to read the lengths Sherri went to in order to be out of his life.
The Supreme Court has yet to make a decision on whether or not to hear Sherri's appeal.
I am collecting data for my next commentary by taking an informal poll of Catholics. I would be very much obliged if you would comment with your opinion on this question:
Who is a better role model, Iron Man or Captain America?
If you happen to read my stuff and know how I would answer, please don't let that influence yourcomment.
Last week in Washington D.C., scientists from around the world met to discuss whether or not to use new, cutting-edge gene editing techniques to alter the DNA of embryos. The stakes are very high because any editing done at early in development would be considered a germ-line modification, one that will be incorporated into egg and sperm cells and then passed down to future generations. So any genetic engineering done that the embryonic stage will affect not just that embryo, but his or her children, grand children and great-grandchildren.
Many of the scientists at this meeting are concerned. We should all be. Not only are we just now barely understanding how complex human genetics really is, but these proposed changes to the human germ-line, even if for a good purpose, may resonate for generations to come.
A good portion of researchers agree that we should have a voluntary moratorium on the editing of DNA in human embryos. The risks are just too great. Instead they propose we use these techniques to cure disease in a somatic fashion – treating individual patients in the cells that need it and in a way that will not be inheritable. This is a smart approach, where we can benefit from the technology to treat disease, but eliminate any risk of unforeseen side effects to further generations.
Of course there are those who want to move forward, disregarding the safety of future human beings. Sir Mark Walport, chief scientific advisory to the U.K. government, thinks genetically engineering embryos is something Britain should pursue.
This could be the most important thing I have ever written. Please share it with your family and friends.
The Siren Song of Genetic Enhancement: Promoted as ushering in a new era of progress and freedom, genetic enhancements actually lead to coercion and the loss of human dignity.
Two recent magazine covers together give us a glimpse of the possible future of humanity. They seem completely unrelated. Next to each other on a coffee table, most people would never make the connection. Yet they are inextricably linked, jointly warning us to take action before it’s too late.
The first, which appeared on the cover of the Aug. 22 issue of The Economist, is about the possibilities of using new genetic-engineering techniques to enhance our children. The second, which appeared on the June 29 cover of Time, is about plastic surgery.
With the advent new DNA editing technology, many people are already fantasizing about creating designer babies. Some parents are salivating over the ability to make their children just how they desire: smart, athletic, tall, strong, beautiful.
What parents do not realize is that it is a futile endeavor; a battle no parent will ever be able to win. Whatever upgrades they put into their child will be obsolete in ten years, maybe even five years. Designer children means obsolete children - children in constant need of more upgrades just to keep up. This is a horror I hope we never experience.
Unfortunately, once one group of parents start upgrading, the rest of us will feel compelled to do the same. Having a natural child just won't be acceptable. No parent wants their child to start off day one already at a disadvantage.
Paul Knoepfler is a stem cell scientist who is by no means a conservative, but he clearly gets what is at stake when we talk about germ-line genetic enhancements. He gave this TED Talk in Vienna that is fantastic. I will let him walk you through the "what if" of genetically enhanced children. Note his subtle implication that enhancements are incredibly coercive.
So this is happening. I feel like when your face is on a flyer with Rev. Walter Hoye, that's a big deal. Well, it is for me. If you are in the Pacific northwest, consider joining me for the 2016 Walk For Life Northwest.
If i have any readers left, I know I have not been posting much of late. I actually am struggling with some serious lower back issues that make it nearly impossible for me to sit at the computer for any length of time and write. I want to give you my thoughts on the recent summit in Washington D.C. on human gene editing, but I want to do it justice and simply cannot do that right now. Please pray that I get better soon!
The news on the day the U.S. Supreme Court released Obergefell v. Hodges was filled with same-sex couples standing in front of microphones expressing their joy at the court’s decision to redefine marriage in all 50 states. One interview struck me more than the others: two women making a statement on how they could finally change their children’s birth certificates to include both women’s names — and only their names.
In the months that have followed, I have noticed more and more mention of something I have honestly thought little about — the birth certificate. There is a push to revise birth certificates to legally institute two men or two women as birth parents. An op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times argued that, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, “The battle over LGBT equality is far from over.” Douglas Nejaime regrets that “marriage equality doesn’t immediately erase all attachments related to biological, dual-gender child-rearing.”
Traditionally, states have made the assumption that any child born to a married woman was fathered by her husband. So married couples automatically had their names placed on a birth certificate as biological parents to a child born to a married woman. Of course, there were certainly cases when a woman’s husband was not the genetic father, but it was a reasonable assumption by the state that a woman’s husband was the father of her children.
Nejaime contends that because married same-sex couples are not automatically placed on a child’s birth certificate in every state, this is relegating same-sex couples to “second-class status.” He points out that this “marital presumption is emerging as a battleground.”
Nejaime is right that marital presumption for same-sex couples is developing into a battleground.
When I was in my teens, my parents were editors of the International Review of Natural Family Planning. They would sit across the kitchen table from each other and read out each article word by word, punctuation by punctuation, making sure that the typeset matched the original manuscript before publication. This meant that every day after school, while I was making a PB&J, I was bombarded by words like "coitus" and "mucus." It was an interesting experience to say the least.
Looking back I am proud that my parents were part of a movement focused on women's health. A movement that spent years researching the menstrual cycle and gave us the fertility awareness techniques we enjoy today.
Those techniques are getting even more tech-savvy. Similar to the Fit Bit which tracks daily activity and sleep patterns, there are new wearable technologies that will use natural family planning methods to help us women track our cycles. From Wearable.com's very unfortunately titled "The Quantified Woman":
Over the past few years, fertility tracking apps, like Clue and Glow, have been slowly evolving from souped-up calendars to holistic data centres. Instead of collecting a list of dates and filling our screens with pink butterfly designs, they are now smart, usable and effective; more recently employing the help of separate wearable devices to make data tracking even more accurate....
The United Kingdom has taken one step closer to creating children with three genetic parents. Last week legislation that will allow fertility clinics to conduct “mitochondrial replacement” in human embryos went into effect.
“Mitochondrial replacement” (MR) is a group of techniques that aim to genetically engineer embryos to be without certain types of mitochondria disease. Mitochondria are organelles in our cells that produce energy. They have their own DNA called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA, which is separate from the DNA in the nucleus of the cells, only from our mother. If a woman has a mutation in her mtDNA that causes disease, she cannot help but pass that on to her children.
MR techniques essentially create embryos with the genetic material from three people – two women and one man. In one MR procedure, a donor egg is emptied of its nucleus leaving healthy mitochondria behind. The nucleus of the woman with mitochondrial disease is placed inside and that genetically-engineered egg is fertilized with the father’s sperm.
MR is considered germ-line genetic engineering because any girl conceived with this technique will pass this modification onto her offspring. Germ-line genetic engineering is illegal in the UK. Earlier this year, Parliament voted to allow MR in fertility clinics despite that ban on germ-line genetic engineering. Last week that change took effect.
I cannot believe that I have been at this for ten years. My youngest child is ten, which means I was a novice blogger furiously typing over her adorable little body while I was nursing. I am sure I had unrealistic dreams of glory and fame. Crazy.
In my very first post in August of 2005 I wrote:
Recently, I was discussing stem cells and cloning with an older gentleman at a family party. He was very knowledgeable about biotechnology, but was surprised about many little-known and quite misleading facts. He asked where I had gathered those facts, and I told him I was reading every pertinent scientific reference I could get my hands on. He looked me in the eye and said, “Young lady, it is not good enough to read, you must do something!” I found out later he was a former U.S. congressman from California.
Indeed, I began to notice a general lack of understanding about contemporary issues in genetics, genetic engineering, and reproductive technology, issues that have shaped, and will continue to shape, the future of humanity, for good or ill. I work with professionals whose business is medical genetics, and even they are confused about the pragmatics, not to mention the ethics, surrounding cloning, stem cells, and recent advances in genetic engineering. If professionals could be confused, I feared that the average Catholic would feel lost amidst the scientific jargon and, unfortunately, the hype.
I decided to start marymeetsdolly.com to try and provide Catholics with solid, pertinent resources and clear, plain commentary so they could be more conversant with the issues proffered by the newest of the "brave new world" movements.
I think I have succeeded some what in my goal: to help everyday Catholics understand the science and ethics that surround all of the modern biotechnology that seems to move faster and faster every year.
It hasn't been an easy decade. Many times I threw my hands up in frustration and nearly quit. If I have learned one thing about the Catholic blogging community is that we don't always treat each other as Christians should. I have realized that some times I don't need enemies when I have friends like these.
It hasn't been all bad, of course. Many of you have written to me to thank me for tackling difficult and sensitive subjects, and for telling it like it is in plain and simple English. I am very lucky to have the support of the National Catholic Register, LifeNews, and Creative Minority Report. These very special people see the need to not hide our heads in the sand when it comes to big, scary, biotech, and I appreciate that they have given me a voice.
For a decade, I have rejected ads on my blog and have never had a "Donate" button. I felt blessed to have found what I feel God has intended for me. That has been enough to keep me going. In the past, I have only asked for your prayers.
But since I feel this is an auspicious time, I have placed a donate button below. If you have ever really loved one of my pieces and feel like you would like to contribute to my work, please feel free to donate. As the kids get older (and more expensive) and bills pile up, it is getting harder and harder to justify working so hard on a ministry that pays so little. Any amount will help me to continue doing what I do everyday.
What I need most are your prayers. Prayers for grace, wisdom, persistence and most importantly peace.
May God bless you all. Here is to another ten years!
The University of San Francisco (USF) is my alma mater. My name is on a plaque in the chemistry office for my academic exploits while I was there. Along with a degree in chemistry, I also got a whopping student loan debt that may never get paid off, but that is another topic for another time.
When people ask me if they should send their children there, I answer with an unequivocal "No!" USF should be a shining light in a city hell-bent on self-destruction through decadence. This Catholic university is called to be a literal foghorn calling out the truth in darkness. Instead it is no more than a child mimicking her surroundings simply so that she can fit in.
This is the age of the non-invasive prenatal tests, called NIPTs for short. NIPTs look at minute quantities of fetal DNA floating in a pregnant mother’s blood. With these small pieces of DNA scientists can look for genetic abnormalities in the fetus. The tests are “non-invasive” because they only require a blood sample from mom.
Sequenom, an California company that offers NIPTs, has just announced that they now offer a NIPT that looks at the entire fetal genome, all 46 chromosomes, searching for genetic anomalies, even ones that are so extremely rare. Sequenom calls it MaterniT GENOME.
It was only a matter of time before prenatal genetic testing got to this level of scrutiny. And the earlier the test results – Sequenom’s new test can be performed as early as 10 weeks – the easier it is for parents to terminate any “abnormal” fetuses.
That is the goal, of course, for such a comprehensive genetic screen. It isn’t to provide any needed health care to the growing baby, which should be the focus of any prenatal testing. The end game is to provide information so that parents can choose to get rid of any “imperfections” as quickly as possible.
The UK’s Daily Mail, asks in a recent headline about Sequenom’s MaterniT GENOME, “Would YOU have the baby screening test that could wipe out EVERY genetic defect?”
Let us get something very clear. This screen in no way shape or form “wipes out genetic defects.” In conjunction with abortion, it “wipes out” people with “genetic defects.”
The Catholic Church is perceived to be anti-science. That perception is completely false, of course. The Church is one of the few institutions left that actually looks at human biology and acknowledges the facts. And I am not just talking about the fact that a new genetically distinct human organism is created when fertilization is complete. (In layman's terms, new life begins at conception.)
In our hook-up culture, the Church also acknowledges that it is called the "reproductive" system not the "recreation" system for a reason. Biologically speaking, sex is not a recreational activity.
The Church is also one of few voices that warns about the dangers of surrogacy. Even if done altruistically, surrogacy turns women and children into objects: the woman is just an oven; the child is just a bun.
And yet, the biology of carrying a child in your womb simply cannot be denied. Those precious months are designed to have mother bond with child, even if the woman knows the child is not hers. The damage of severing that bond at birth can last a lifetime.
The UK's Daily Mail has published some anonymous confessions of surrogates that are quite illuminating. Even though these women know that they have to give the child away, they cannot help but become attached.
replacement techniques (MRT) because the goal is too "replace" defective mitochondria in woman with mitochondrial disease so they do not pass their genetic mutation onto their children. 
Shepherd filed for divorce and abandoned the boy both socially and financially. Batholomew was legally considered Lamar Jr.’s mother. She was left to cover her own medical expenses and was on the hook for child support. 
