As a society, we have all come into this world through different means. Some were the conceived by two parents, some were conceived through in-vitro, or outside of the body, and others were conceived through a sperm donor and surrogate, yet the journey in which one was born can not be determined by the human eye nor offers much significance in the rest of their lives. Yet, a new manner in which one could potentially be conceived was legalized in Britain, in which babies will be conceived via in-vitro with three parents instead of two.
A child is naturally conceived by the impregnation of the sperm from a male into an egg from a female, however this new procedure takes an egg’s nucleus and adds it to a second egg, which had its nucleus removed and then fertilize the egg with sperm and implants it into a woman’s uterus. A second, more difficult method fertilizes both the mother’s and donor’s eggs and then discards the embryo in the donor egg and inserts the mother’s genetic information into the donor’s egg instead.

While this newly developed process is controversial and horrifies many bystanders, scientists have legalized the new idea to potentially end inherited conditions and birth defects that can be passed down by a mother’s defective mitochondria in her eggs. A mother that suffers from this rare condition will have a hard time carrying a child to full term and if she does, the child will be born with potentially life-threatening damage done to its organs including heart, kidney, and liver failure as well as muscular dystrophy. They will most likely not survive into adulthood.

This new process, like all, faces both supporters who see the legalization as a way for mother’s to birth a healthy child genetically related to them, regardless of the defective mitochondria. Others believe it is an unethical trial foreshadowing the future in which parents choose particular traits they want their child to possess, even if it means mixing other couple’s genes with their own, which has keyed the term “designer babies.” However Professor Doug Turnbull of Newcastle University “estimated that the technique could reduce the risk of mitochondrial disease transmission for around 2,500 women in the UK, potentially saving 150 babies from such diseases each year.” For those who fear the consequences resulting from a third women’s DNA consisting in the makeup of a child, babies will only have 0.1% genetic makeup from the second woman. An article from The Washington Post also touches on the fact that many people around the world are already exposed to genetic material from more than two people. The U.S. produced around 100 babies in the nineties due to a similar technique and those who have endured transplants, such as bone marrow, will have DNA from a third person in their bodies.

Those against the newly legalized procedure are skeptical over the possibility that genetic changes that may arise in a child not born yet and does not have a voice in whether or not they are conceived through this method. A second point made that steers away from using three separate genes to create a child is the fact that it is uncertain whether mitochondria has any role in determining the child’s personality. “Mitochondrial manipulation” or “three-parent IVF” could also have negative affects for the mothers involved. Extracting the eggs requires surgery and hormone injections, which is a risk for any person. A religious standpoint on the matter looks at the destruction of a newly conceived life during the second possible method as murder and they take a pro-life ground, which was stated in an article from The Washington Post.

Society as a whole will never see eye-to-eye on a single issue and will continue to debate their separate beliefs, but for right now the UK is continuing in the process of getting their new procedure approved and creating the first child through three-parent IVF. Only time will tell if and how this procedure will expand.