ixyam Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's on the way to became reallity , since scientists are trying to coax male stem cells into eggs and female stem cells into sperm . Check the last new scientist issue where I am quoting from. Wow! Think about the implications , we truely live amazing through extraordinary times.
FrenchCanadian Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's on the way to became reallity , since scientists are trying to coax male stem cells into eggs and female stem cells into sperm . Check the last new scientist issue where I am quoting from. Wow! Think about the implications , we truely live amazing through extraordinary times. Having a child with my partner... For sure I would like that. Now about the process that you just described, it's the first time that I've heard of it, I'm not sure. First, because it will sure take some time to go from the trying phase an approved process. Then it will surely cost a lot. Then, there's the matter of is it right. I'm not a christian fundamentalist against everything that is stem cell research, far from it, but I'm still not sure about it,, I would have to think about it some more
Tiger Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's on the way to became reallity , since scientists are trying to coax male stem cells into eggs and female stem cells into sperm . Check the last new scientist issue where I am quoting from. Wow! Think about the implications , we truely live amazing through extraordinary times. That would truly be a dream come true. I think that's something we all want. It would make things so much easier. It would also take away the whole aspect of lack of procreation from the religious right, which makes it that much sweeter.
Menzoberranzen Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 There are more than enough unwanted children in this world. If I ever felt the desire to be a parent, I would adopt. I see no need to bring more life into an already overpopulated world. Menzo
Tom Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 There are more than enough unwanted children in this world. If I ever felt the desire to be a parent, I would adopt. I see no need to bring more life into an already overpopulated world. Menzo Menzo, I agree...then again? One child from my partner would be wonderfull...then I want a full house I don't see anything wrong with doing both as long as every child is given all the love and support you can
AFriendlyFace Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Well it's on the way to became reallity , since scientists are trying to coax male stem cells into eggs and female stem cells into sperm . Check the last new scientist issue where I am quoting from. Wow! Think about the implications , we truely live amazing through extraordinary times. Well this is certainly nifty! Thanks for the info, Ixyam! Then, there's the matter of is it right. I'm not a christian fundamentalist against everything that is stem cell research, far from it, but I'm still not sure about it,, I would have to think about it some more Hmm, failing some sort of odd, painful, destructive process of which I am unaware, I can't imagine objecting to this on moral grounds. (I mean I can't imagine finding it objectionable...I can't imagine certain other individuals not finding it so) There are more than enough unwanted children in this world. If I ever felt the desire to be a parent, I would adopt. I see no need to bring more life into an already overpopulated world. Menzo, I agree...then again? One child from my partner would be wonderfull...then I want a full house I don't see anything wrong with doing both as long as every child is given all the love and support you can LOL, I'm so bi-polar on this issue. You'd be hard pressed to find a more vociferous proponent of (over)population control than myself...and yet I undoubtedly agree more with Tom than Menzo in terms of what my personal feelings would be in the situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for adopting, and see it as a noble and worthy thing. Indeed the chances I'll some day undertake it are quite high...still for whatever reason my own biological child does hold a certain appeal Take care all -Kevin
rknapp Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 My first thoughts were, "Ow, how would a guy give birth to a child??" Logically a willing uterus would still be needed even if the genes of the child come solely from it's two male parents (lesbians wouldn't have that issue).
Krista Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Hmm.. the genetic match is the aspect that is appealing I guess? I don't see any difference in adopting than having one of your own. It is still with the person you live with, love, etc.. Anyway, science involving reproduction is something that is concerning. Genetically modified children would be something I'd not support. Krista
AFriendlyFace Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Anyway, science involving reproduction is something that is concerning. Genetically modified children would be something I'd not support. As Tom said, I think all children should be supported. Seriously though, I can understand your hesitation, but once we get over the initial shock would really be that much different from test tube babies or infertility treatments? (which of course I happen to support) -Kevin
FrenchCanadian Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 As Tom said, I think all children should be supported. Seriously though, I can understand your hesitation, but once we get over the initial shock would really be that much different from test tube babies or infertility treatments? (which of course I happen to support) -Kevin no, it wouldn't be any different from test tube babies and infertility treatments. And I'd be alright with it as long as we are sure that it is all safe for the baby.
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 9, 2008 Site Administrator Posted February 9, 2008 no, it wouldn't be any different from test tube babies and infertility treatments. And I'd be alright with it as long as we are sure that it is all safe for the baby. I disagree. It is a degree further along than IVF. IVF is allowing the natural process of fertilisation to occur in a non-natural environment (the proverbial test tube), but that is just the environment, not the fertilisation itself. We already have unnatural environments (heating houses in Winter, for example), so that's not too much of stretch. What we're talking about now is going one level deeper and manipulating the components that form a baby, not just allowing the components to interact naturally. The major concern I have is the success of that manipulation. Using cloning as an example, current clones do not appear to be the equivalent of natural fertilised eggs -- the clones have genetic issues at a lot higher rate than natural fertilised eggs. I wouldn't want to even consider this until there was a large body of evidence that the offspring produced were the equivalent, medically and intellectually, of natural offspring. That is going to take decades of research, since they'll have to raise a couple of generations, at least, of monkeys (as an example) to ensure that there is no essential difference between these offspring and their natural born compatriots.
Tiger Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 I disagree. It is a degree further along than IVF. IVF is allowing the natural process of fertilisation to occur in a non-natural environment (the proverbial test tube), but that is just the environment, not the fertilisation itself. We already have unnatural environments (heating houses in Winter, for example), so that's not too much of stretch. What we're talking about now is going one level deeper and manipulating the components that form a baby, not just allowing the components to interact naturally. The major concern I have is the success of that manipulation. Using cloning as an example, current clones do not appear to be the equivalent of natural fertilised eggs -- the clones have genetic issues at a lot higher rate than natural fertilised eggs. I wouldn't want to even consider this until there was a large body of evidence that the offspring produced were the equivalent, medically and intellectually, of natural offspring. That is going to take decades of research, since they'll have to raise a couple of generations, at least, of monkeys (as an example) to ensure that there is no essential difference between these offspring and their natural born compatriots. The largest impediment for human cloning is religion. Over the centuries, Christians have thwarted advancements in science as much as possible. They used to say that the planet was flat. They were wrong. They say the same thing about evolution. They will most likely be proven wrong once again. Scientific theories are not the only scientific advancements they fight. They are against stemcell research, eugenics, and cloning. In my opinion, these things will make our planet a better place to live. Science is the future of humanity. It's time for people to accept science as our new religion and be happy about it.
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 9, 2008 Site Administrator Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) The largest impediment for human cloning is religion. Over the centuries, Christians have thwarted advancements in science as much as possible. They used to say that the planet was flat. They were wrong. They say the same thing about evolution. They will most likely be proven wrong once again. Scientific theories are not the only scientific advancements they fight. They are against stemcell research, eugenics, and cloning. In my opinion, these things will make our planet a better place to live. Science is the future of humanity. It's time for people to accept science as our new religion and be happy about it. Some Christians.... There are also Christians in favour of stemcell research. As for eugenics, I can't think of many people, religious or not, who are in favour of it. The Nazis gave it a very bad reputation in the middle of the last century. Re: cloning, there are Christians who are in favour of therapeutic cloning, but the cloning of human beings to bring them to birth... well, I don't know personally of anyone who has suggested this. Science isn't a religion and it shouldn't be treated as one. Science is also not the future of humanity. It is a tool to help humanity's future -- no more, no less. Science, like most things, can be used for good or evil. It doesn't guarantee a better future, it just offers the opportunity for a better future. It also offers the opportunity for the end of humanity (I don't think I need to start giving scenarios for this one -- there are certainly enough to choose from). From an ethical point of view, I would actually prefer this new advance to human cloning. Human cloning to me is largely (though not totally) a selfish act. The exception is the cloning of a child or young adult who died in tragic circumstances. Otherwise, it is denying the opportunity for new individuals from the mixing of new genetic material. This new advance eliminates that objection. I still wouldn't approve it until the technology has been well researched and evaluated, but I don't have any significant objections to the basic concept. Edited February 9, 2008 by Graeme
Tiger Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 From an ethical point of view, I would actually prefer this new advance to human cloning. Human cloning to me is largely (though not totally) a selfish act. The exception is the cloning of a child or young adult who died in tragic circumstances. Otherwise, it is denying the opportunity for new individuals from the mixing of new genetic material. This new advance eliminates that objection. I still wouldn't approve it until the technology has been well researched and evaluated, but I don't have any significant objections to the basic concept. That is true. This particular type of cloning would allow lesbians and gay men to have children together. It is also a possibility for a straight couple with fertility issues. I believe that is much better than "traditional" (for lack of a better word) cloning.
AFriendlyFace Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 I'm most certainly with Graeme on this one, on all points! Eugenics, while it might sound good on paper, can be a very dangerous and destructive thing in practice. Obviously, as Graeme pointed out the Nazi's did horrible things in the name of eugenics. I think we would also be foolish to think that gay people could never fall victim to eugenics if the rich, powerful, and homophobic had their way. I don't know about you guys, but I would find it remarkably appalling and all around blood boiling if people attempted to eliminate gay people from the gene pool, even if they didn't do anything to existing gays. Anyway, I think we (I) have gone off topic. I think Graeme's also quite right in that we would need to be certain that the children would be as healthy and safe as traditionally conceived kids. However, I most definitely support the idea in general as well as the (ethical of course) research in this area! I think it's wonderfully exciting! People often get up in arms when things are done to prevent or encourage conception that wouldn't normally take place. However, I most definitely favour this completely as long as the practices are safe. People should have kids when they're ready to and when they really want to, and they really shouldn't when they're are not. Just my thoughts, Kevin
jfalkon Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Fascinating topic! Stem cell research is definetly a tricky issue but the technology is amazing. There is one interesting point that no one seems to have explained or explored. In the case of 2 females having a child the child would have to be a female. XX form one parent and XX from the other can only recombine to give the child 2 X chromosomes. In the case of 1 male and 1 female having a child you start with XX (mom) and XY (dad). The child can get either XX (girl) or XY (boy). In the case of 2 males having a child you start with XY and XY. In theory you could get three outcomes from the recombinations XX (girl) XY(boy) and YY(?) What would a YY be? X seems to be some kind of default. What happens when you have no X's at all? Would such a creature be able to live? What would it be like if it did survive? I have never heard an explanation for this but maybe its out there.
BeaStKid Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 including having my own child, I would love to go for an adoption...there are too many unfortunate kids around us to not take care of them...
Site Administrator Graeme Posted February 9, 2008 Site Administrator Posted February 9, 2008 In the case of 2 males having a child you start with XY and XY. In theory you could get three outcomes from the recombinations XX (girl) XY(boy) and YY(?) What would a YY be? X seems to be some kind of default. What happens when you have no X's at all? Would such a creature be able to live? What would it be like if it did survive? I have never heard an explanation for this but maybe its out there. My understand of genetics would be that a YY would either not be a viable embryo, or it would be severely crippled. The Y chromosome doesn't have enough active genes to cover those in the X chromosone and that are necessary for human life. There are indications that the Y chromosome is slowly reducing in size, and that the genes on it are very limited in scope.
BeaStKid Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 My understand of genetics would be that a YY would either not be a viable embryo, or it would be severely crippled. The Y chromosome doesn't have enough active genes to cover those in the X chromosone and that are necessary for human life. There are indications that the Y chromosome is slowly reducing in size, and that the genes on it are very limited in scope. Yup... my genetics class (in 10th grade) says that YY is not possible. There are just two stable codings for the 23rd pair in a karyotype defining the sex and that is either XX or XY for girls and boys respectively.
AFriendlyFace Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 My understand of genetics would be that a YY would either not be a viable embryo, or it would be severely crippled. The Y chromosome doesn't have enough active genes to cover those in the X chromosone and that are necessary for human life. There are indications that the Y chromosome is slowly reducing in size, and that the genes on it are very limited in scope. That would be my understanding of YY as well. Yup... my genetics class (in 10th grade) says that YY is not possible. There are just two stable codings for the 23rd pair in a karyotype defining the sex and that is either XX or XY for girls and boys respectively. Hmm, that's not completely true. I mean it is, but it's not the whole story. Variations do occur such as triple X syndrome (also known as Trisomy X) or XYY syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome But yeah, as far as I know I don't think YY would be viable. In other words I don't think a YY baby would be carried to term. I could very easily be wrong of course. **shrug** -Kevin
BeaStKid Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 That would be my understanding of YY as well. Hmm, that's not completely true. I mean it is, but it's not the whole story. Variations do occur such as triple X syndrome (also known as Trisomy X) or XYY syndrome or Klinefelter's syndrome But yeah, as far as I know I don't think YY would be viable. In other words I don't think a YY baby would be carried to term. I could very easily be wrong of course. **shrug** -Kevin Kevin, those are all Genetic disorders and all of them atleast have one X in them. The base of XX or XY is always there. Same is the case with effeminate men or tom boys....for fems, they have XY and a streak of X on their Y. And for tom boys, they have XX with a streak of Y on their X. The basic structure of the 23rd pair is always XP where, P defines the sex (X or Y)... Any other, is a genetic disorder. And again....I may be wrong... But I am just quoting what I have been taught two years ago... **shrug** BeaStKid
Jack Frost Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I don't think giving birth through my penis is one of my life goals.
Krista Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I don't think giving birth through my penis is one of my life goals. Lol... rest easy it wouldn't deal with that. The way I understand the process it would be taking genes of both 'fathers' and removing the genes of the mother in the egg. The process remains the same after that.. you will still need the egg. A woman will still need to be the surrogate, so in a sense you're creating a Designed child. I could be wrong though.
Adrian Michaels Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 As a person who's pretty interested in medical ethics, and stuff like that... I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. It sure sounds promising though. I guess we'll just have to see what more research finds. Very interesting to think about though...
FrenchCanadian Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I don't think giving birth through my penis is one of my life goals. I'll have to give the answer of my best friend on this one. "I'll have a c-section"
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now