The British House of Commons passed a bill Tuesday allowing for the creation of babies using the DNA of three people. Before we delve into this uncharted territory, we should ask ourselves: Where will this all lead, and should we necessarily consider this a good thing?
The vote wasn’t even close, 382-128, and if approved by the House of Lords, “it would make Britain the first country in the world to allow embryos to be genetically modified,” the Associated Press reported.
“This is a bold step to take, but it is a considered and informed step,” health minister Jane Ellison said of the bill.
It was approved with the best of intentions — to prevent mothers from passing defective genes onto their offspring. But we all know what’s said about good intentions — the road to hell is paved with them.
Will this “bold step” lead to the continued erosion of the definition of marriage, and with it, the bedrock of any society — the family? In short, will it pave the way to multiple-partner marriages?
In six short years, public perceptions of same-sex marriage have changed. When President Barack Obama first entered the White House, he was against it, but has since made an about-face on the issue.
But that doesn’t mean it’s good for society — just ask the children of gay marriages.
Children raised in same-sex unions recently submitted briefs and affidavits to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stating that “growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant,” the Washington Times reported. Here are some examples:
Dawn Stefanowicz said her gay father was so preoccupied with sex that when she was in high school and brought home a male classmate, both her father and his lover propositioned him for sex.
B.N. Klein said her mother and lesbian partner disdained heterosexual families completely, and she didn’t have a clue about the daily interactions of a husband and wife until she went into foster care.
Robert Oscar Lopez said his two lesbian mothers were conscientious about his upbringing, but he became so emotionally confused that he turned to gay prostitution as a teen and gay and bisexual relationships as an adult.
The natural progression of legalizing same-sex marriage and “creating” life from the DNA of three donors is to allow for polygamous marriages. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly made that claim years ago and I thought he was crazy. Now I’m not so sure.
What’s next? Combining the DNA of a favored pet with its owner?
This is what I call “the Jurassic Park Principle,” and anyone who has either seen the film or read the book will know what I mean: Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.
Here’s that O’Reilly argument.
Latest posts by Michael Dorstewitz (see all)
- ‘Act like a grownup’: Drunk driver sobs when she loses plea deal by coming 4 hours late to court - July 23, 2017
- ‘I would’ve fired her the day I met her’: Glenn Beck reveals more about Tomi Lahren mess - July 23, 2017
- Canadian thug beats 74-year-old cyclist bloody with a club in road rage fit– and they say US is more violent? - July 23, 2017