User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 21

  1. #1
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default Study: Stem Cell Breakthrough Opens Door To Same-Sex Couples Having Their Own Babies

    Study: Stem Cell Breakthrough Opens Door To Same-Sex Couples Having Their Own Babies

    Excerpt from article:

    A stem cell research breakthrough achieved by Cambridge University shows the first fully “manufactured” baby can be created from the skin cells of two adults of the same gender – potentially opening the door to same-sex couples having their own babies.
    ...
    The team says it is possible to make human egg and sperm cells from the skin of two adults of the same gender – prompting interest from people with infertility diseases and gay couples.
    It seems a bit strange to me that the article focuses on same-sex couples having a biological child, but I understand why it is brought up so much. They have shown it is possible to generate either sex cell from an individual person, essentially making the original gender of the person a moot point.

    This is wildly exciting for a multitude of reasons. We are getting better and better each day at controlling biology and what it's capable of. While it's nice that homosexual couples could have a biological child, this is more of a "cosmetic" thing. Compared to individuals who are infertile, diseased, or in some other regard unable to have a child of their own. This opens the doors significantly. We now have another new method of creating a child for individuals who otherwise can't.

    This does bring up some ethical concerns, briefly mentioned in the article that many will call into question.

    Discuss.


    ----------------------------------
    I suspect (though I am not certain) I will not enjoy the "ethics" debate that's likely to come up in this thread. Partly because those are debates that never have a conclusion of an agreed upon solid answer. I have little patience or interest in those debates. But, I do have strong opinions on matters like this that I have a difficult time holding in. As such, I'll say my piece on it and see what happens from there:

    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Dopa liked this post

  2. #2
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    "We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us except the ones who are dead." ~ GLaDOS

    Likes Hard liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    I dont think this sort of thing should be done on humans, at least in a long time until they can reliably show that the babies develop normally to an adult(there is still a lot that we dont know about human development, for example i could see that the babys immunity system might be compromised). Then to test it they would need to make one, which i dont approve, but maybe decades of animal research(maybe on apes) on topic could give convincing enough results. But because they will most likely do it anyways, i think its a great thing that same sex couples will be able to have children with their genes, however i think adoption would be a better choice since there are already too many babies in need of a new home.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #4
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I dont think this sort of thing should be done on humans, at least in a long time until they can reliably show that the babies develop normally to an adult(there is still a lot that we dont know about human development, for example i could see that the babys immunity system might be compromised). Then to test it they would need to make one, which i dont approve, but maybe decades of animal research(maybe on apes) on topic could give convincing enough results. But because they will most likely do it anyways, i think its a great thing that same sex couples will be able to have children with their genes, however i think adoption would be a better choice since there are already too many babies in need of a new home.
    I think adoption is great too, and I'm an adoptive parent -- but I think to be consistent then you should be advocating for all people to not have their own children and just be adopting. After all, those kids are still there whether it's het or gay people procreating; it's the exact same situation.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #5
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think adoption is great too, and I'm an adoptive parent -- but I think to be consistent then you should be advocating for all people to not have their own children and just be adopting. After all, those kids are still there whether it's het or gay people procreating; it's the exact same situation.
    But the thing is that if you are male couple, you can "rent" a womb from some woman. Or if you are lesbian couple, you can find some guy to give you seeds. Its perfectly natural, so i dont have any problem with that. However making a baby from skin cells is not, and since its basically playing with human lives and there are most likely many unknown risks, so i dont think its okay to play with human lives like that. Therefore if you dont want to do it the old fashion way, the only other acceptable option would be adoption. Adoption would imo be morally better choice than making new babies(when we already have plenty of them around in need of parents), but then again i can understand that people want to keep their blood lines alive for future generations(hence the first option is also morally acceptable imo). Personally i wouldnt want to adopt because i want to keep my genes alive, that is unless it was the only option. Like if it turns out that im infertile, even in that case i would prefer someone else to get my hypothetical wife pregnant, so that i could at least keep her genes alive. But i think its cool that you adopted, much respect, even tho its not something i would do.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  6. #6
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    But the thing is that if you are male couple, you can "rent" a womb from some woman. Or if you are lesbian couple, you can find some guy to give you seeds. Its perfectly natural, so i dont have any problem with that. However making a baby from skin cells is not, and since its basically playing with human lives and there are most likely many unknown risks, so i dont think its okay to play with human lives like that.
    One issue: Why are you focusing on gay people? You should be referring to both het and gay couples because your logic applies to both -- the only criteria is that they be a couple who cannot conceive. Instead, you're singling out gay couples. Is this just an oversight on your part? (I mentioned this in my last post, so I figured you would have corrected it if you had not meant it this way.) Let's face it, this technology is not just for gay couples, it could be helpful for any couple where one was sterile.

    Therefore if you dont want to do it the old fashion way, the only other acceptable option would be adoption.
    Oh come now, what's wrong with the "old-fashioned" baby black market? It's a time-honored tradition, firmly established in the annals of various human cultures.

    Adoption would imo be morally better choice than making new babies(when we already have plenty of them around in need of parents), but then again i can understand that people want to keep their blood lines alive for future generations(hence the first option is also morally acceptable imo).
    What's the basis of your morality? You keep referring to the "moral thing" but I'm not clear on what that is.

    Personally i wouldnt want to adopt because i want to keep my genes alive, that is unless it was the only option. Like if it turns out that im infertile, even in that case i would prefer someone else to get my hypothetical wife pregnant, so that i could at least keep her genes alive. But i think its cool that you adopted, much respect, even tho its not something i would do.
    I'm confused. You're advocating adoption for gay couples, saying it's wrong for them to pass on their genes, while also clearly stating that you would not want to adopt because of your need to pass yours on? I guess the only difference is that you think sex or artificial insemination of a donor is "morally acceptable" but using a stem-cell technique on other body cells is not "natural" and thus immoral? Just trying to clarify here. Various types of stem cell technology are already being used to cure illnesses and replace organs to sustain life; it's not like the technology isn't already being used to good effect.

    I adopted because I wanted to and because I'm susceptible to a genetic condition that potentially could manifest in my offspring, which I didn't know until one was diagnosed. So I stopped having biological kids. Still, I had no issues adopting, for all the reasons you stated. My daughter had been abandoned and needed a family, and we gave her one. Still, it's something that every person has to consider on their own.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Hard liked this post

  7. #7
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    One issue: Why are you focusing on gay people? You should be referring to both het and gay couples because your logic applies to both -- the only criteria is that they be a couple who cannot conceive. Instead, you're singling out gay couples. Is this just an oversight on your part? (I mentioned this in my last post, so I figured you would have corrected it if you had not meant it this way.) Let's face it, this technology is not just for gay couples, it could be helpful for any couple where one was sterile.



    Oh come now, what's wrong with the "old-fashioned" baby black market? It's a time-honored tradition, firmly established in the annals of various human cultures.



    What's the basis of your morality? You keep referring to the "moral thing" but I'm not clear on what that is.



    I'm confused. You're advocating adoption for gay couples, saying it's wrong for them to pass on their genes, while also clearly stating that you would not want to adopt because of your need to pass yours on? I guess the only difference is that you think sex or artificial insemination of a donor is "morally acceptable" but using a stem-cell technique on other body cells is not "natural" and thus immoral? Just trying to clarify here. Various types of stem cell technology are already being used to cure illnesses and replace organs to sustain life; it's not like the technology isn't already being used to good effect.

    I adopted because I wanted to and because I'm susceptible to a genetic condition that potentially could manifest in my offspring, which I didn't know until one was diagnosed. So I stopped having biological kids. Still, I had no issues adopting, for all the reasons you stated. My daughter had been abandoned and needed a family, and we gave her one. Still, it's something that every person has to consider on their own.
    I was just using gay couples as an example, but the same thing of "not playing with peoples lives like that" applies to straight couples as well. Moral rationale behind it would be that there may be unknown risks and that its not okay for other people to take risks like that affecting other people.
    For example they have now noticed that test tube kids have higher chance to develop various cancers, born prematurely or have low birth weight(and have health problems directly caused by this) and some other stuff mostly effecting the mother. Its hypothesized that this is because infertile parents have some genetic issues that cause both infertility and cancer, premature birth etc.
    I didnt say that its wrong for gay people to pass their genes, like i said that its okay if they rent a womb or get sperm somewhere to make them pregnant, but just mentioned that its morally better choice to adopt because there are so many babies in need of a home, but also said that i understand if they want to do it the "old fashioned" way(like men renting a womb or women getting sperm somewhere and have a natural birth), because people basically live to pass their genes over the next generation, therefore i cant say that it would be wrong thing to do, just that there is an alternative that is morally better thing to do, since it can save a child from not having parents.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I was just using gay couples as an example, but the same thing of "not playing with peoples lives like that" applies to straight couples as well.
    Okay. Makes sense now.

    Moral rationale behind it would be that there may be unknown risks and that its not okay for other people to take risks like that affecting other people. For example they have now noticed that test tube kids have higher chance to develop various cancers, born prematurely or have low birth weight(and have health problems directly caused by this) and some other stuff mostly effecting the mother. Its hypothesized that this is because infertile parents have some genetic issues that cause both infertility and cancer, premature birth etc.
    Okay, I understand... and I see that as a concern too. We still do all those things at this point, though. And I'm not sure how comparable those risks are compared to other sorts of common cultural practices, I haven't studied it in detail. (For example, is it worse to have a mom who smokes occasionally during pregnancy versus being a test tube baby? Or have a particular bad diet? etc.) ... just sketching it out in my head of what I would look at first, if I researched it -- the comparative risks of various practices and the severity of harm done.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Senior Member riva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    There still has to be a surrogate mother right?

    However, it is quite amazing. Science keeps impressing.
    .

  10. #10
    Member Senkrad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    FiTe
    Enneagram
    YwX sx/sp
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva View Post
    There still has to be a surrogate mother right?

    However, it is quite amazing. Science keeps impressing.
    Yes, the need of a womb has still not been eliminated.

    I do hope that this breakthrough won't get abused or outright banned.
    I'm a green bean killing machine.

Similar Threads

  1. Would little people in America like to have their own town?
    By Grand Admiral Crunch in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2016, 08:19 PM
  2. Is democracy an open door to totalitarianism?
    By Typh0n in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 11:26 PM
  3. Chatype (the first U.S. city to have their own typeface (font))
    By swordpath in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2012, 09:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO