IVF and the possibility that adverse changes to mitochondrial DNA persist into future generations , MRT is often attacked by the “ pro-life ” side of the abortion debate . Representatives Robert Aderholt and Harold Rogers , who are the most vocal of MRT ’ s opponents , argue that the usage of MRT does not favor preservation of the embryo , primarily citing their ethical concerns of the risk of permanent effects of gene editing .
Despite its empirical success in other countries , MRT ’ s murky political future in the U . S . should motivate further investigation of its costs and benefits . Even beyond our limited understanding of MRT on a biological level , MRT raises several key ethical concerns . If three individuals are contributing biological components to a child , then who counts as a parent ? Who has rights over the progeny ? 4 And taking a step beyond the murkiness of parenthood , how and where should scientists draw the line in determining when technologies like MRT should be applied ?
For the Christian , this question raises a larger one : how does our faith guide our usage of technology in a manner that respects human creation ? In medicine , the usage of technology is often categorized into two main purposes : restoration of baseline proper function and changes that are not necessary for proper function ( e . g . selection of embryos with specific traits for non-medical reasons ). But who determines this distinction ? Try to fit MRT into this paradigm , for example . From a biological perspective , we see that mitochondria are restored to their proper , baseline function ; however , some Christians may interpret MRT as something which interferes with God ’ s natural creation .
According to these Christians , the human body is sacrosanct , with Scripture proclaiming that God is the Creator , making every individual in His image . Thus , the human body must be treated with utmost respect , in all of its different forms ( Psalm 139:14 ). Oftentimes , this perspective has been used in pro-life arguments against abortion to assert that both the egg and the sperm need to be preserved as they are and that human life begins at conception . Because MRT utilizes the cellular materials from two eggs instead of one , as in traditional conception , MRT apparently violates the above principle . The idea is
4 While the concept of parenthood will not be discussed at length in this piece to avoid oversimplification , the discussion can be further explored in this resource : Adashi Eli Y ., Cohen I . Glenn . “ Ideology v . Beneficence .” that by using it , we are interfering with and disrespecting the proper plan that God originally had for life , as He created it in the womb .
Unfortunately , this perspective misses the crucial element of human redemption through the compassion of Jesus Christ . God is not a disinterested Creator who watches creation from afar ; rather , He sent His one and only Son to die on the cross to redeem His human creation ( John 3:16-17 ). This truth changes our posture , focusing our attention on alleviating the suffering of others . We can see this in Scripture through Jesus ’ s encounter with a blind man . When Jesus first meets him , He defends him against charges of sin , showing that the man was born blind in order to bring glory to God ( John 9:3 ). At first glance , this sounds like God predestined this man to blindness for His glory . This mindset could suggest that we should remain complacent when it comes to disease — because what if an individual ’ s struggle with a disease is a part of God ’ s plan ? In some sense , the verse seems to strengthen the anti-MRT perspective . If difficulties in life , such as disease , were tools to bring glory to God , then any type of unprecedented intervention , such as MRT , may interfere with God ’ s plan and purpose . But the story does not end on this note . Instead , the focus is on Jesus ’ s love and compassion for the suffering of others , on his goal as the Savior to redeem and save the world of sin by sacrificing Himself on the cross . Ultimately , Jesus healed the blind man as a testament to God ’ s power , restoring His creation without hesitation . Withholding this potential gift from others in this present day would not reflect Christ ’ s compassion .
Though we cannot perform miracles as Jesus did , God has given humans the ability to support and promote human life ( James 1:17 ). As He states in Genesis 1:26 ( ESV ), God has “... [ made ] mankind in [ His ] image , in [ His ] likeness .” God has granted humans the means to heal through technology and science . Thus , restoration of a biological condition , especially if feasible and under the consent of the individual , is an expression of compassion , similar to that of Christ when he “ had compassion on [ the crowds ] and healed their sick ” ( Matthew 14:14 ). Science can provide us with the tools to innovate and develop new technology to heal others , but it is only by emulating Christ ’ s grasp of intense suffering and empathy for the suffering of humankind that technology , such as MRT , can be guided properly .
9