• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
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:

 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
"We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us except the ones who are dead." ~ GLaDOS

 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Riva

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Enneagram
7w8
There still has to be a surrogate mother right?

However, it is quite amazing. Science keeps impressing.
 

Senkrad

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
66
MBTI Type
FiTe
Enneagram
YwX
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I was always envious of those other species who had different reproduction cycles. Finally, we have options.

The human, a tool using mammal, has evolved to learn to employ sophisticated processes to increase their individual genes. Their main mode, does not strictly require tools, but does require a male and female to mate. This alternate mode involves the courtship of two individual and a third which represents a greater 'medical caste' of the same species. A complex type of exofertilization is performed and all involved take on the caretaking of the young.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,564
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm still waiting for us to evolve the ability to eggmorph our victims into new little 8-legged huggy bundles of love.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think the problem starts with the definition of the word natural. What we think and know as what is natural.

adjective
  1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
    "carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
  2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
    "sharks have no natural enemies"
  3. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ):
    "a natural bridge."
  4. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature:
    "Growth is a natural process."

It's easy to attack the context of natural in that 2nd one.Ssharks have no natural enemies? Maybe today, maybe there were a hundred/thousand years ago. Or was the shark's natural enemy the human, which is also just another being on this planet.

So I guess all it means is, it is untouched by humans. We would like to think we haven't touched everything. For example, that apple we ate, the flowers we bought, that cat we like. How did that breed get to be like that, did humans interfere or did the animal naturally get to be like that? (the irony of my own statement)

So what am I getting at? What we thought of as natural might never have been natural to begin with. We (humans) have been influencing a whole lot, out there, over the centuries, that we know of. Male, female? There are people out there with different bodies, internally, externally. A whole cultural ecosystem that exists with everyone playing a key part/role in there and this could be a new way that we know of. (or maybe overlook it).

Anyway, it seems to be a fear right now because we don't really understand it, fully... yet.

 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
Okay. Makes sense now.



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.

Caring about your unborn or born baby is also a moral issue. I dont think that it is healthy as a pregnant woman to think that "i might smoke one or two cigarettes a day, because its not as bad as the baby being a test tube baby". Smoking or any sort of genetic or what ever manipulation is playing russian roulette with your kids health/life, and not just a kid, but a teen, and hopefully an adult. For example this sort of thing might cause some epigenetic problems, that may even travel to their kids and their kids. Not to mention that will have same problems that we have seen in test tube babies(and it was only after over a million of those babies made that we found out) and its even taking those risks further.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Caring about your unborn or born baby is also a moral issue. I dont think that it is healthy as a pregnant woman to think that "i might smoke one or two cigarettes a day, because its not as bad as the baby being a test tube baby". Smoking or any sort of genetic or what ever manipulation is playing russian roulette with your kids health/life, and not just a kid, but a teen, and hopefully an adult. For example this sort of thing might cause some epigenetic problems, that may even travel to their kids and their kids. Not to mention that will have same problems that we have seen in test tube babies(and it was only after over a million of those babies made that we found out) and its even taking those risks further.

I don't see how this is any different than parents that are carriers for genetic disorders having children. They take a calculated risk. This is also a calculated risk. We won't know if this will have any ill effects until we try. As I understand cell biology and biochemistry, I don't think this is likely to cause a genetic issue in life any more or less than normal cell processes would. From what I read, the machinations aren't that much different from other stem cell based therapies and research. It's new of course, but the underlying prinicipals hold steady.

I see this absolutely as a risk worth taking.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I don't see how this is any different than parents that are carriers for genetic disorders having children. They take a calculated risk. This is also a calculated risk. We won't know if this will have any ill effects until we try. As I understand cell biology and biochemistry, I don't think this is likely to cause a genetic issue in life any more or less than normal cell processes would. From what I read, the machinations aren't that much different from other stem cell based therapies and research. It's new of course, but the underlying prinicipals hold steady.

I see this absolutely as a risk worth taking.

Yes people who have some genetic disorder and who know that it could be carried to the child take a risk, and i dont think that for example two people with autism should make a baby together. BUt i dont think it should be illegal either, because thats how nature works. But for example what [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] said about adopting after finding out that she has something like this was the right thing to do.

There have been studies that show that test tube babies have increased chance for cancer(cancer is always because of genetic mutations), that the babies have higher chance of born too early etc. that often causes problems later in life. This method is basically taking stem cells and then doing the test tube baby, so it carries all those risks + quite likely some other risks as well.
 

Dopa

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Messages
37
MBTI Type
INTP
Sounds like a cause for celebration! Our mastery of genetics is just now starting to open serious doors in medicine. I'm super excited about it.
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Study: Stem Cell Breakthrough Opens Door To Same-Sex Couples Having Their Own Babies

Excerpt from article:



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:


I am worried about the following sequence:

1) ability to select certain characteristics in one's offspring
2) (bifurcation) : the rich getting disease free "custom" children, the poor consigned to the genetic lottery and falling behind
3) the siren song of Eugenics, resurrected
4) a totalitarian state mass producing soldiers to order (Keith Laumer came up with the idea in Retief's Ransom long before George Lucas and the Clone Wars)
 
Top