cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I don't see how it is unethical for two people to have children that way. If it's a child it's a child, no matter what way it was created.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Having children that way isn't in itself unethical. But that's not going to happen overnight. It depends on research and at some point experimentation. The article says that the mice that they bred this way all showed deficiencies. That is where the ethics come in. When you start applying this to humans, you are at some point going to be creating new human beings that are potentially going to suffer because of it.
To me that seems like a pretty serious ethics issue.
To me that seems like a pretty serious ethics issue.
I see no moral or ethical problem with this idea. If it works reliably and produces the same results then I don't mind. I would prefer homosexual couples use adoption, because they would be doing those kids a great service by putting them in a loving home, but I have no control over their life and don't want any.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Matt
Active Member
I support this type of research. The potential benefits seem to outweigh any moral or ethical argument against it (Once the technique is perfected, that is.)
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Heres the problem with doing that: If the child is made up of the same material as the mother, and this continues for a couple generations, wouldn't this cause the same effects as inbreeding and make for severe genetic defects?
THeres a reason humans don't naturally asexually reproduce and why our biology is made for sexual reproduction.
THeres a reason humans don't naturally asexually reproduce and why our biology is made for sexual reproduction.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
In that case I agree.
I read this as turning one woman's marrow into sperm and then impregnating another woman, but I guess it could go asexually. Would that make the baby a clone? I don't remember enough about sexual genetics from biology class
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Ok, if it was still two sources of material, then I don't see the problem. (Aside from any other defects it would cause)
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Well I do know that genetic diversity creates healthier children (hence why inbred people tend to have birth defects), so I don't know how this would work. Either way, I think it has the potential to be a great tool for homosexual couples
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
You know the religious nuts are going to be all over this once it gets a spot in the Focus On The Family Magazine next month...
The way the article phrases it they are definitely intending for it to be used in a way where genetic material from two different people is used. A woman being impregnated from a sperm cell that contains her own genetic material would indeed be analogous to inbreeding as far as I can see.
And that is why I am reluctant to support this type of research. Like I said earlier, it is going to attract bad press and put scientific advances in the fields of genetics in a negative light. That in itself is pretty much invetiable, but I just think when you're going to do that you should atleast strive to achieve something profoundly important. To me this just doesn't seem like it is. There already are other ways for people to have children (in vitro + donor for lesbian couples, adoption for men and anyone else who wants to, which has a big social benefit on top of it as well). Sure none of those get you a child that contains 50% of your genetic material, but is that really so important? Important enough to warrant all the shit that this is going to cause?
All I see this doing is making it even harder for things like stem cell research (something far more important) to be carried out because of negative attention from the wrong people and negative public perception of what it is that scientists in the field of genetics are actually trying to do.
And that is why I am reluctant to support this type of research. Like I said earlier, it is going to attract bad press and put scientific advances in the fields of genetics in a negative light. That in itself is pretty much invetiable, but I just think when you're going to do that you should atleast strive to achieve something profoundly important. To me this just doesn't seem like it is. There already are other ways for people to have children (in vitro + donor for lesbian couples, adoption for men and anyone else who wants to, which has a big social benefit on top of it as well). Sure none of those get you a child that contains 50% of your genetic material, but is that really so important? Important enough to warrant all the shit that this is going to cause?
All I see this doing is making it even harder for things like stem cell research (something far more important) to be carried out because of negative attention from the wrong people and negative public perception of what it is that scientists in the field of genetics are actually trying to do.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
I often find it annoying when people form complete opinions without a thorough study of the given field.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Thank god. The Virginia Senate finally got rid of those ridiculous $2000+ fines for traffic violations. They even reimbursed the people who were convicted under them!
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0108/492126.html
I can't believe that shit even got passed in the first place.
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0108/492126.html
I can't believe that shit even got passed in the first place.
seedofvengeance
Boosh!
