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 ...
I'll treat that as a rhetorrical question.
If I take some stuff and create artificial sperm, and I take some other stuff and create ans artificial egg, I have created another "thing"
The big surprise in all of this, is that we will find out that it ain't gonna work... cuz we ain't God.
But these children would be indistinguishable "underneath" from any other random person-on-the-street.
Do you honestly believe that any Christian (or Judaic) denomination will come to the conclusion that these children do not qualify for salvation? AFAIK, no Judeo-Christian group considers the way a child was conceived as being in any way relevant to that child's status as a full human being.
And you actually know synthetic people created by this method? You would allow your daughter to date one?
"So, where does the "artificial" child get a soul?"
The same way other children develop a soul and personality. By being loved.
Other than the method of conception, how do you think a child created by this process will be different? Do you think there will even be any way to tell such a child apart?
Apples and oranges. You're referring to altering something that already exists. This is the creation of something that wasn't there out of something in the back of Fred Sanford's truck.
Engineering sperm from a female is counter to everything in Nature.
I think I'm gonna throw up just a little bit!
OK, now I feel better.... Ungh!
They're not synthetic people. The only difference is that either the sperm or egg present at their conception was created in a lab. Like I said, people used to fear that IVF kids would be "cold" or "mechanical."
You would allow your daughter to date one?
Yes. Why wouldn't I?
They're not made in the image of God... It sounds harsh, but it violates the basic blueprint of Creation to bring a synthetic ingredient to the mix.
This is so wrong
I think you may be right on that point, now that I think about it, if the DNA is replicated on the human blueprint.
Wow - Hitler missed the boat by less than a century.
I just don't see any Judeo-Christian denomination coming to that conclusion because doing so would mean that these people would not deserve the same human dignity as the rest of us and could not seek salvation. I would be stunned if the Vatican, for example, could bring itself to make such a conclusion.
I really hope you are not a pastor or priest.
The source of molecules which form a spermatozoon have no bearing on the humanity of a person produced by that spermatozoon.
If manure is used to fertilize a garden, and a man eats vegetables from the garden, then some of the molecules in that man's body will once have been dung. This does not mean that a spermatozoon built with molecules which were once part of the dung will produce a baby which is not human.
In the same way, the source of the molecules in an artificial spermatozoon is irrelevant. If the sperm carries human DNA, and fertilizes an egg carrying human DNA, then the embryo so produced will be human--designed to mature into a living, breathing, thinking human being. What else could he or she be?
Your line of reasoning is both flawed and frightening.
If it's not made in the image of God, it cannot receive salvation. Nowhere in history, ancient or modern, does any religion assert that creation can come from homosexual intercourse of any kind. It's no more entitled to salvation than a dog.
"The same way other children develop a soul and personality"
A soul and a personality are two very different things. A soul is not "developed". It exists or it doesn't exist.
So there's no difference between male DNA and female DNA? There's no significence other than the fact a man has different genetalia than a woman?
Are you kidding me right now? Give me an example of a being created by combining the DNA of either two males or two females.
How is such a child not made in the image of God? It is made with human DNA and would be indistinguishable from other children.
Nowhere in history, ancient or modern, does any religion assert that creation can come from homosexual intercourse of any kind.
Well, I doubt there would be any type of intercourse involved in the creation of this child. Once the sperm fertilized the egg, the resulting zygote would be implanted in a woman. In that regard, it would be no different than IVF.
It's no more entitled to salvation than a dog
Once you decide that such a child is not wholly human, the next step is to decide that is does not have the same rights as other humans. That means it can be sold into slavery, used as parts for other humans, killed with impunity etc. etc.
Are you still comfortable with your conclusion?
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.