I Prayed have prayed
Lord, protect the families in this nation who align with Your Word. Help us to stand against evil and proclaim Your truth to this world. Thank You that You have the victory!

Consider the following scenario: Anna and Nicole, 36 and 39 years old, have been close friends since college. They each dated various men throughout their 20s and 30s, and had a smattering of romantic relationships that didn’t quite work out. But now, as they approach midlife, both women have grown weary of the merry-go-round of online dating and of searching for men who might — or might not — make appropriate fathers for the babies they don’t yet have. Both Anna and Nicole want children. They want to raise those children in a stable, nurturing environment, and to continue the legacy of their own parents and grandparents. And so they decide to have a baby — a baby that is genetically their own — together.

Such an idea may sound fantastical. But technologies that could enable two women (or two men, or four unrelated people of any sex) to conceive a child together are already under development. If these technologies move eventually from the laboratory into clinical use, and the history of assisted fertility suggests they can and they will, then couples — or rather, co-parents — like Anna and Nicole are likely to reshape some of our most fundamental ideas about what it takes to make a baby, and a family.

To date, most major advances in assisted reproduction have been tweaks on the basic process of sexual reproduction. Artificial insemination brought sperm toward egg through a different, nonsexual channel. I.V.F. mixed them together outside the woman’s body. . . .

Humans are reproducing in ways that would have been truly unimaginable just several decades ago: Two men and a surrogate. Two women and a sperm donor. An older woman using genetic material from a much younger egg.

Each development has, in many ways, been deeply conservative, intended to extend or re-create life’s most basic process of production. But as these technologies have expanded and evolved, their impact has become far more revolutionary; they’ve forced us to reconceptualize just what a family means, and what it can be.

For most of human history, after all, families across the Western world were defined in largely biblical terms: one man, one woman, with children conceived through sex and sanctified by marriage. . . .

Things first began to change in the 1960s, as a combination of shifting mores, accurate paternity tests and greater access to contraception prodded courts in the United States and elsewhere to expand the legal definition of parenting to include a genetic relationship, regardless of marital status.

Then, in the 1990s, as reproductive technologies became better and more widely available, the legal norms shifted again, allowing parents to be defined in many cases as those who had desired to create a child, regardless of either their marital status or the child’s genetic origins. In the infamous case of Baby M, a New Jersey judge ruled that a married couple who had employed a surrogate to carry their child had full parental rights to the baby, even though the surrogate was the child’s genetic mother and had gone to extreme lengths to retain custody. . . .

The most recent shift — and arguably the most crucial — occurred in 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court famously extended the right of marriage to same-sex couples. The implications of this decision are well known, as is the long history of activism that prompted and preceded it.

What’s less well known is the role assisted reproductive technologies played in the fight for marriage equality. Because much of what drove the court’s decision in the landmark case of Obergefell v. Hodges was the right of the plaintiffs to give their children the benefits of being raised in a “loving and nurturing home.” Or as the California Supreme Court similarly stated in striking down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage: “[A] stable two-parent family relationship … is equally as important for the numerous children in California who are being raised by same-sex couples as for those children being raised by opposite-sex couples.” What the Court didn’t say was that the vast majority of these children had been conceived via assisted reproduction. They were the children of technology, and it was the circumstances of their births that helped propel their parents’ marriages. . . .

We have separated sex from reproduction, and multiplied the various pairings that can together produce a child. And soon, a technology known as I.V.G. (in vitro gametogenesis) could push this process even further along. In theory, I.V.G. could allow individuals like our fictional Anna and Nicole to manufacture their own eggs and sperm, mixing and matching between genders and genes, and enabling more than two people to create a child together. And in the process, our basic notion of families is liable to get upended as well.

Here’s how I.V.G. works. Under natural conditions, the body produces gametes — eggs and sperm — at puberty, taking nondifferentiated stem cells (with 46 chromosomes) and instructing them to split into more specialized cells, each containing just 23 chromosomes. In young men, the process occurs in the testicles and these specialized cells become sperm. In women, it takes place in the ovaries and the cells become eggs. Both these processes are known as gametogenesis. In vitro gametogenesis, therefore, is precisely that: creating gametes outside the body, and in the laboratory instead. More specifically, over the past decade scientists have begun to find ways of coaxing human stem cells to produce eggs and sperm. To put it more bluntly: I.V.G. can theoretically allow anyone to manufacture an egg or sperm cell from a tiny sliver of their own skin.

Thus far, I.V.G. has worked only in mice. And making the leap to humans will not be easy or straightforward. . . .

But, with very few exceptions, recent history suggests that advances in reproductive technologies nearly always jump eventually from the animal world to humans. If we can figure out how to make babies, and to configure their creation in more precise ways, we do it. We did it with I.V. F., despite howls of biothethical criticism; we’ve pressed on even when things have gotten messy — when we’ve discovered sperm donors who have fathered hundreds of children, for instance; and we are likely to do the same again with I.V.G.

If the techniques of I.V.G. prove feasible, therefore, would-be families could theoretically begin by creating their own gametes. A single woman, for example, might mix her egg with sperm fashioned from the genetic material of her two best male friends; the resulting child would have three genetic parents. Or, she might mate her egg with a carefully selected donor sperm, using genetic testing to eliminate any risk of the cystic fibrosis that runs in her own family. Stem cells derived from the resulting embryo could then yield a next generation egg to be paired with her best friends’ similarly well-conceived sperm, yielding a child with four parents. And so on. The implications are enormous.

If the revolution of I.V.F. was to liberate reproduction from sex, then the even bigger revolution of I.V.G. is to dismantle completely the reproductive structure of heterosexuality. Once upon a time, defenders of heterosexual marriage could argue that marriage was intrinsically a sexual union of husband and wife, because those were the only unions that could produce a new life. If I.V.G. comes to pass, that will no longer be true. Instead, two men could make a baby. Four sexually unconnected housemates could make a baby. And that changes everything we’ve ever known about sex and babies and marriage.

In the early days of I.V.G.’s adoption, the most obvious users of the technology are likely to be same-sex couples who, for the first time in history, could conceive children who are wholly and genetically “theirs.”

But single women could also choose to employ it, creating eggs to match with sperm derived from friends or family members. . . .

I.V.G. will never replace sexual reproduction of course. And poly parenting, as I like to call it, will never become the norm for most families. But once we start imagining, and then living in, a world of fluid parenting, it becomes increasingly likely that we will also undo or at least revise our centuries’ old conviction that procreative unions — like Noah’s animals — come only in pairs. . . .

I.V.G. alone, of course, can’t create that world. And it will take a long time to dismantle norms of marriage and parenting that have been around for millenniums. But the history of assisted reproduction is powerful and clear: Once we create new technologies for conception, we embrace them. Yes, we go through some stages along the way: We worry about mucking with nature. We fret about designer babies or the possibility of some madman hatching Frankenstein in his backyard.

Then we discover that it’s just the nice couple next door, using an increasingly common technology to create children they love; children who become far less scary as they move out of the world of scientific abstraction and into the realm of the real. Over a remarkably short period of time, we have grown accustomed to those nice parents in our neighborhood being a couple of men, or women, or a single one of any sex. We will get used to them being a threesome or foursome as well. And then we’ll see the new normal as simply the real, and we’ll forget that it was technology that changed this world.

(Excerpt from The New York Times. Article by Debora L. Spar. Photo from Flickr.)

What are your main concerns about poly parenting? How do you think this change what families look like? Share your comments. . .

Comments (16) Print


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Ms. Rita Franklin
August 22, 2020

One wonders then if the offspring may or may not be owned by the person who patented the technology and joined the new creation. Dangers also arrive by crossing animal species. The very thing that created giants and dwarfs. Very unhealthy from many perspectives. God created the genetic pool. Man doesn’t know the results from dicing and splicing.

Phyllis Park
August 18, 2020

This is why I believe the end is near. God is about to say ENOUGH!, just like in Noah’s day. Humanity can only go so far before God steps in, and I believe we’re there.

August 18, 2020

You are our strong tower and our deliverer. I confess that I hate fasting, but it’s time. Lord we need to be confessing our nation’s sins, repenting and worshiping. You alone are a wise God. You are the God of love and truth. We need You! If we don’t hold to our convictions in prayer, fasting and repentance, it will be on us if we lose this country. Help your people who are called by Your name to turn from our wicked ways and follow You with an undivided heart. In Jesus name, so be it LORD!

Victoria Tucker
August 18, 2020

Mother’s are legally allowed to murder as many babies as they want and can even let those babies be harvested all in the name of creating medicines that will help people. Now they say we don’t need men and women to have babies just do it in a lab somewhere. Doesn’t matter if the child never knows who it’s parents are. They will get used to it eventually. right???
We don’t need God I quess because the media and radicals are working overtime to tell us we must get rid of all things pertaining to God. right????
Just look around and see how well things are going and tell me we don’t need God and HIS plan. And by the way…..if we all forget…..God will have HIS plan with or without us.
If this article doesn’t stir fear in hearts then we have all lost our heart and soul and God help us all.

August 18, 2020

Ok, I am a Type 1 diabetic. At first, I injected insulin from pigs and cows, then a decade or so later, artificially created insulin. Now treatments are availible, which are not insulin, to achieve “better management”.
Type 2 diabetes is a pandemic in it’s own right and is completely
controlled and
manipulated by a powerful industry.
Artificial people, through I.V.F. tech., is the goal of an even more powerful industry.
Pandora’s Box has not only opened, but greedily

dorothy helmuth
August 18, 2020

makes me think of the tower of Babel. Once mankind steps too far out of the way God steps in. It’s in His hands.

    Gwen Y.
    August 18, 2020

    Indeed, since God is sovereign EVERYTHING is in His hands. This doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility to pray and act consistent with His expressed will in His word (Genesis 1:27-28, Matthew 19:4). Just because we CAN do a thing doesn’t mean we SHOULD do it!

August 17, 2020

Abba Father, have mercy O Lord, have mercy. Open up the eyes of our understanding. You are the only answer. Lord, bring a mighty revival to our land. Lord, the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Lord of the harvest, send forth laborers. Send me, send us, raise up the body of Christ to be a living, breathing army filled with your spirit. Help us to win souls for that is wise. Open doors for the spreading of your good news of great joy which shall be to ALL people. Sound the trumpet in Zion for our God reigns! Rule and reign over our land. In Jesus name we pray, Amen.

August 17, 2020

Really scary… playing god.
Children with no sense of connection…
So glad God is still in control.

Sandie C
August 17, 2020

What are my concerns ? It offends and grieves our Eternal Father, our Creator. We’re under so much judgement already.

August 17, 2020

“They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them NOR HAD IT ENTERED MY MIND THAT THEY SHOULD DO THIS ABOMINATION, to cause Judah to sin” (Jer 32:35).

August 17, 2020

What was wrong with the way God set things up? With the number of abortions being performed why don these people ADOPT a child? Why think of novel ways to make babies when so many babies are being trashed? The whole thing is demonic.

    Karen E. Kendrick
    August 17, 2020

    Exactly..this is what happens when men want to be in control of their own lives and believe we’ve “evolved” from other species..they want to be their own God..
    Need to go back to adoption..so many in the foster care system who need loving parents and adopt out instead of aborting..
    It only takes 1 with no common sence to ruin it for the rest of us..why there is communism and Nazism and Marxism etc..God help us..

Carol Frink
August 17, 2020

My perception of this concept of bringing a life into this world is that it is altogether WRONG!! God never intended for human beings to be a scientific experiment or project!! God knit’s us together in our mother’s womb…He is the Giver of life!! People who believe this is OK are standing on sinking sand.

Sandra Mears
August 17, 2020

People are playing with fire!! We are not God, we are created in the womb by our great Creator, and anyone that fools with that is in judgement from all righteous holy God!Job 9:34, PS 73:19

August 17, 2020

Yes, thank You that we do have the victory in You, Father. Be glorified in our lives! Strengthen us, embolden us to speak truth and to love one another like Jesus❣


Partner with Us

Intercessors for America is the trusted resource for millions of people across the United States committed to praying for our nation. If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.

Dave Kubal
IFA President
Become a Monthly Partner


Click below to share this with others

Login to Join the Conversation

Create an IFA account or login to comment, pray and interact with our community.