Posted on 02/09/2005 1:40:38 PM PST by transhumanist
Imagine your street 20 years from now. Who might be living next to you? It could be a lesbian couple and their biological daughter - created when an egg of one of the women was fertilised with the synthetic sperm made from the skin cells of the other.
The family on the other side may have a healthy boy, created in the test tube when sperm from the father was inserted into an artificial egg created from the skin of the mother.
This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Scientists have worked out how to make "artificial" germline cells, the vital precursors to sperm and eggs.
If the germline cells prove safe, the breakthrough could make infertility a thing of the past.
But the technique will break ground by allowing same-sex couples to be fathers and mothers to their biological children.
If healthy germline cells can be derived from ordinary skin cells, women and men may produce eggs and sperm.
At least three teams of researchers have demonstrated the plausibility of making synthetic germline cells, although they have used only mice.
(Excerpt) Read more at capetimes.co.za ...
Exactly. If anyone is a "monster" here, it's the people who do these procedures knowing the huge potential of genetic disaster, not the kids (or to be known as "kits" when it's cheap enough to do at home).
The people who are doing this already view children as "accessories" to marriage. They view adult couples as purposed to recreational sex. Children are nothing more than a social or political statement.
Ironically homosexual derogatory slang is to refer to normal people as breeders.
By at least presenting the PROPAGANDA of propagation, they are able to MSM spin legitimacy into their abnormal choices.
See what happens when man gets into the creation business.
Why do they meddle into something they say they don't believe in.
They would do all a favor if they would give the homosexuals a community by themselves and wait 40 billion years for them to evolve to the point where they could procreate.
I remember reading the story of the baby that was abandoned and raised by wolves. The child never developed beyond being a wild animal.
Conversely, I have seen pets that were really well loved, and they most certainly developed a personality, and presumably a soul.
I agree. Human DNA and cockroach DNA are both composed of the same four molecules--cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine. The only difference is in the sequencing. Take a bunch of guanine from cockroach DNA, and mix it up with a bunch of guanine from human DNA, and no one on Earth will be able to tell which molecules came from the person and which came from the bug.
The difference between human DNA and cockroach DNA is in the information they contain. If you could take a string of cockroach DNA and re-write the code to be identical to human DNA, then an organism produced with that DNA would be human. The fact that the molecules originally came from a cockroach would be no more significant than the fact that my lunch this afternoon was originally a turkey. Many of the molecules from the DNA currently in your body may have once formed part of the DNA of a carrot, or a pig, or a blue whale--or a cockroach. All molecules of a particular type are interchangable parts.
I have to wonder if we would have seen the same reaction to this story if the homosexuality angle had not been included.
My own mother was infertile, and was incapable of properly producing an egg. She and my father ended up adopting. But what a boon this technology would have been, if it had been available 40 years ago!
This isn't a "pro-homosexual" technology, people! They will probably be the first adopters, sure. They might even be the most prevalent users. But I can tell you-- from the most personal, intimate experience I can offer-- that there are heterosexual couples out there who need this technology as well.
For those who raise religious arguments about souls and soforth, I say you are wrong, and opposing a worthwhile technology for the wrong reasons. A smiling baby is the product of one sperm and one egg, and the fact that the sperm and/or the egg originated in a lab is as irrelevant as the arguments raised against IVF.
If "baby Louise" (the first "test-tube baby" born of invitrofertilization) has a soul, then I can't see why a baby born of this new technique does not.
Ping
Very interesting article. I'm not sure what category this falls into...
I would say yes. I can't imagine Congress or any state legislature allowing this type of contract.
Would the imposition of steritlity of offspring be the same as indentured servitude, since the child will have to return to the patent holder?
Yes. I can't imagine Congress or any state legislature allowing this type of contract, either.
All this brought to us by the homo-lobby in order to ensure the public sees two men playing with each other's penis as normal.
In all fairness, this type of procedure could be used by straight couples where one member of the couple is infertile.
Straigt couples will not have to turn female cells into male gentic material or vice versa. A natuaral born male and female has the sperm and egg which can be harvisted for invitro.
Government will not involve itself in such patent/mandatory sterility contracts (they already allow such dead end seeds in agriculture)
IF, and that is a big if, functional accessory babies will be produced before the laws catch up.
Regardless, this is a spin article to support homosexual "normalization". The science is not there if ever will be.
My firm's insurance covers IVF, and a colleague of mine is sure glad it did. His 29 year old wife had unexplained infertility, and IVF worked for them -- twice. They didn't view the procedure as "elective"; they'd much rather have done things the natural way.
Yes, but do we want the insurance companies to be in the position of deciding which parents are worthy of having their extra efforts to have children funded and which ones aren't?
In the case of our policies, it is the employer's choice to offer a plan which includes IVF coverage, and due to all the nanny-state laws, that invariably means that all employees have the same access. The insurance company puts an age limit on the procedure (38, IIRC), presumably because per-cycle success rates are still quite low beyond that age, and also because infertility beyond that age is perfectly normal and natural (and thus IVF becomes a truly elective procedure). I believe there is also a limit of 2 or 3 cycles covered under the plan (my colleague was lucky -- first cycle produced a baby girl, and second cycle produced twin boys). As with any medical insurance coverage, an appropriate diagnosis, and appropriate previous measures are required -- it doesn't cover elective IVF for people with no medical diagnosis of infertility, nor does it cover IVF before simpler and less expensive approaches have been either tried or ruled out as medically inappropriate.
If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.