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:
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:
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:
Note, this is my unfiltered opinion:
Ethics schmethics, who gives a damn? This is a fantastic scientific advancement, and I always cringe and get pissed off when people start shouting "unethical" over things (of which this falls into the category of) that do not impart harm or stress on individuals. Like with other fertilization methods, and other things related to stem cells, the common argument is "you can't play god". Uh, why not? That isn't a reason to not do something, that's just someone being upset over the idea that we can control something that nature is naturally able to do. We manipulate nature on so many levels all the time. Sometimes that statement comes from a religious standpoint too, which has absolutely no bearing or play into this at all and can't even be used as an argument for or against it.
A somewhat more valid concern is a "slippery slope argument", but honestly I find nearly all slippery slope arguments in any context to be invalid. How often do you see a true slippery slope scenario actually play out? Hardly ever. Just because we do something now, doesn't mean we aren't going to be able to individually evaluate and assess a new case or breakthrough. While it seems similar to eugenics in the right light, this isn't even close to that. This is about two individuals deciding that they want to have a child. The difference, it's being made in a dish initially from stem cells. It's simply a new kind of test tube baby. This isn't going to make the idea of "designer babies" more or less likely, but that's another debate.
Looking around I've seen a few people say "people should adopt". Oh for the love of god take your moral high horse put down and grow up. It strikes me as just the same as people who get mad at you because you didn't adopt a pet. Yes, there are children who need a home, but taking on a child is a huge deal. Parents have the right to decide what kind of child they want, and if they want one of their own. It's nothing more than a guilt trip for not taking the lowest common denominator. Adoption is not for everyone.
Some will say "just because you can, doesn't mean you shouldn't". As I see it though, when it comes to scientific research, if you can remove elements of harm, I say "Just because you can, means you should". This is how we advance, progress, and discover as a society.
As I see it, I don't see a single valid argument against doing this. This has a very high chance of giving benefit and advancement, and a nearly nonexistant chance of causing harm.
Ethics schmethics, who gives a damn? This is a fantastic scientific advancement, and I always cringe and get pissed off when people start shouting "unethical" over things (of which this falls into the category of) that do not impart harm or stress on individuals. Like with other fertilization methods, and other things related to stem cells, the common argument is "you can't play god". Uh, why not? That isn't a reason to not do something, that's just someone being upset over the idea that we can control something that nature is naturally able to do. We manipulate nature on so many levels all the time. Sometimes that statement comes from a religious standpoint too, which has absolutely no bearing or play into this at all and can't even be used as an argument for or against it.
A somewhat more valid concern is a "slippery slope argument", but honestly I find nearly all slippery slope arguments in any context to be invalid. How often do you see a true slippery slope scenario actually play out? Hardly ever. Just because we do something now, doesn't mean we aren't going to be able to individually evaluate and assess a new case or breakthrough. While it seems similar to eugenics in the right light, this isn't even close to that. This is about two individuals deciding that they want to have a child. The difference, it's being made in a dish initially from stem cells. It's simply a new kind of test tube baby. This isn't going to make the idea of "designer babies" more or less likely, but that's another debate.
Looking around I've seen a few people say "people should adopt". Oh for the love of god take your moral high horse put down and grow up. It strikes me as just the same as people who get mad at you because you didn't adopt a pet. Yes, there are children who need a home, but taking on a child is a huge deal. Parents have the right to decide what kind of child they want, and if they want one of their own. It's nothing more than a guilt trip for not taking the lowest common denominator. Adoption is not for everyone.
Some will say "just because you can, doesn't mean you shouldn't". As I see it though, when it comes to scientific research, if you can remove elements of harm, I say "Just because you can, means you should". This is how we advance, progress, and discover as a society.
As I see it, I don't see a single valid argument against doing this. This has a very high chance of giving benefit and advancement, and a nearly nonexistant chance of causing harm.