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 ...
Same reason married heterosexual couples keep having children that are genetically their own.
A lot of insurance policies do cover IVF.
After all, government employees of some cities already pay for such elective self mutilating and sick "gender change" operations.
The homo crowd is going to scream about "reproductive rights" just like they are right now about "marriage rights". If straight people should get to procreate, then the queers should too.... or so they will want us to believe.
And some queer-loving, fudge-packing (or penis pump user like the subject of a thread in the last 24 hours) leftist judge is going to agree with the homos.
The point of that statement was that infertility would be a thing of the past for *everybody*, including hereosexual coules who cannot, with current technology, have children that are genetically their own due to inability to produce viable sperm and/or eggs.
The article referenced "artificial" sperm and eggs.
Yes, it would be a monster.
No kidding - after all, Christopher Reaves supported it... it's gotta be A-OK! [/ugh off]
The egg would be real, but the sperm would be created artificially. It would still create a regular child.
Yes, it would be a monster.
People used to say the same thing about kids created via IVF. The child created by this process would be just another kid, indistinguishable from any other kids.
Be careful when you label other human beings "monsters" based solely on what they are at birth. That path leads to atrocity.
I dont know about everyone else, but I take pride in being the only "me" on earth. I have a son and I am proud that he is some of me and some of his mom, to have a son that is only me, i would feel way too weird thinking I am rasing myself, I might even be more so inclined to dictate his whole life to make sure he never makes a mistake that I made, after he would be "me" again right?
If a human being - heck - any living creature - is the product of male and female DNA, then how do you classify this? Is there any creature in the world that can reproduce in a homosexual relationship? It's not even human sperm - it's synthetic.
So, if you take an artificial egg AND artificial sperm, what do you have?
IVF doesn't have any "artificial" ingredients.
This is playing God, and I want nothing to do with it.
There already is a cure. It's called Accountability, responsiblity, and self control.
All those things the President stated, Freedom depends on.
So there is hope that one day, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Baltimore Ravens All-Pro running back Jamaal Lewis may be the proud parents of a baby boy they can raise together!!! I'm so happy for the couple!
A child.
This is playing God, and I want nothing to do with it.
So be it. But when this does happen, the children created as a result will be regular children, not monsters.
So gay couples are infertile because they aren't properly equipped to reproduce. By that logic, so is my toaster
Oh you didn't read the article the other day? They even have a name for it, "reproduction disabled" These people and this whole society is NUTS!!!
As a human being. A genetically engineered human being, true, but a human being nonetheless. The resulting child would be no different from you and me.
It's not even human sperm - it's synthetic.
I don't see a difference when it comes to the final product.
So, where does the "artificial" child get a soul?
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.