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 ...
And they will have Frankenbabies.
Theologically, I don't think they'd have a soul.
They may look and act like children, but I can dress up my dog in shorts and a Polo, but it doesn't make it human.
What about a pre-programmed computer chip instead of a brain? If man can build a robot that looks, walks, and talks like a human being, is it?
That's a question for theologians. At least when it comes to IVF kids, all Christian denominations, AFAIK, believe they have a soul like anyone else. I would be surprised if they did not come to the same conclusion for kids like this. If they didn't, they would be punishing the child for the actions of its parents.
The Catholic Church has said that despite the fact that it considers IVF a sin, the child created by IVF is blameless for such sin.
Just Damn!
This assumes such will even be legal.
consider the dahli the sheep. She may have been a clone but she was ultimatly destroyed because of rapid aging and cancer.
This article is a strech intended to counter the fact that homosexuals do not produce children and the only reason for homosexuality is recreational sex.
Where did you get yours?
I would be surprised if any Christian denomination came to that conclusion. If they did, they would be claiming that a certain group of humans is not eligible for salvation due to how they were born.
They may look and act like children, but I can dress up my dog in shorts and a Polo, but it doesn't make it human.
If these children are not human, would you be okay with treating them the same way we treat animals? Would kids created by this procedure not be entitled to the rights granted the rest of us by our Creator?
IVF "ingredients" aren't created out of thin air. They're real sperm and real eggs. That's why the Church still recognizes the presence of a soul. Actual conception takes place, but not in the way intended by God (which is why it's forbidden to Catholics).
If I can take a pile of dung and use it to engineer sperm, it's not conception. Therefore, there is no soul.
Definition of irony: Lesbian woman clones herself and raises little girl who, at the age of 16 fearfully sits her "parents" down and says, "Mom and Mom, I'm NOT gay!"
Creating and rearing children should be left to the State Hatchery.
Will the product be able to climb trees? What if it speaks a language totally foreign to anyone else on earth? Oh well, there is always ABORTION as a solution!
Yes, well, the argument would be that those children aren't human beings therefore "destroying" them is No Big Deal. Might as well punish their creators, too, by death.
I wonder what those people think of diabetics using insulin made by bacteria? What about organ transplants, both human-to-human and animal-to-human? What about blood transfusions?
Aww, heck, anyone who's had anything done to them by a doctor is a "monster." Right? 'Cause afterwards, they aren't as God made them...
A thorny question. Such a being would not be human. However, if you could show to me that it had reached a certain level of sentience, I would support giving it the same rights under the law as we give humans.
It's a different issue, though. The kids created by this procedure would be human in all respects.
I guess it comes down to the definition of "human" - you know, like "diamond" and "cubit zirconium". By all appearances, to the naked eye, they're similar. Underneath, they're something all together different.
"If I can take a pile of dung and use it to engineer sperm, it's not conception. Therefore, there is no soul."
Read the article again. Although the engineered sperm is technically artificial, it is engineered using the parent's DNA. Meaning, that it has essentially the same structure and purpose as naturally created sperm.
I hope He does. I don't want to see where this train is headed.
This is an interesting debate. Thanks for engaging.
In most states the sex partner of the homosexual may not legally adopt the child. Hether may not have two momies as a matter of law.
You also ignore the overwhelming evidence of psychological problems that are suffered by children raised by homosexuals. There is no normal life being raised by two homosexuals.
Once new zeland study of lesbian women found that the girls were far more likely to be sexually active and bisexual and the boys were likely to be introverted and fearful of other people. (aka shy, agoraphobic)
There is a reason sexual reproduction has proven more valued in nature than this monosexual production theory.
The only reason for this type of attempt at normalcy is to attempt "normalcy" in the PR department. Children are not accessories to a recreational sex partnership.
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.