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 ...
It does? That's pretty ridiculous, IVF is elective.
There is a flaw with that. The use of embryonic stem cells has been hindered by the fact that they are very suceptible to producing cancers.
These are stem cells which have been processed much like is being discussed here. Nor will taking adult stem cells solve the problem because there is a whole slew of cellular rejection issues that must be overcome. It will probably be easier to create a clone as short lived slave labor than a homo-defect-prone-offspring.
The other aspect to consider is the fact that DNA does not function linearly. The DNA is curled into a little ball. The RNA that travels throughout the DNA ball often jumps sections and sometimes even reads sections in two different directions.
The purpose of this article is junk science in order to further the homo-agenda. Virginia has voted to prohibit same sex marriage and civil unions via referendum in 2006. NY has their judge who declared the NY LAW unconstitutional because it does not allow homo-marriage. CT is trying to dance around legalizing homosexual marriage.
This does not have to be real or plausable, this article will be picked up by the MSM as a propaganda tool to promote homsexual marriage. The validity of this article is as valid as the sony movie critics when they market a bomb movie.
The only difference is that males are XY and females are XX. The rest of the DNA is not sex-based.
Presumably, the created sperm could be made either XX or XY, or the child would inevitably be female.
According to the ancient philosophy of Inology, the mating (in any fashion) of same sex partners destroys both. Yang-to-Yang, or Yin-to-Yin Yin combos lead to "disassembly".
For those of you out there who are queer, just look at your lives since you have been at it, and the trends, and see how this is actually happenning to you. It won't be long before you are no longer a nuisance to the rest of us. Aids, or some other natural selection devices, will soon clean this up.
Homosexuals have always existed in human society and probably always will.
Well what in the heck do you think the stem cell debate is about? Embryos are nothing more than possessions now to be frozen and disposed of at will. Cloning people for the sake of harvesting their organs is just a small stretch of the moral Rubikon we're crossing. You're concerned about the dignity of this being, but you don't consider it an indignity that this person is born of two females, or two males.
If you can't see the treachery in this, society is lost.
But the grand irony is that if mankind can pick and choose the design of their children, down to its sexual preference, homosexuals may indeed become extinct.
Suire, but do you see that being extended to a living, breathing child? I certainly hope that won't happen, but saying that such a child has no soul is not helpful in preventing that, IMHO.
You're concerned about the dignity of this being, but you don't consider it an indignity that this person is born of two females, or two males.
The child itself is blameless for the actions of its parents. If this procedure were to become viable and legal, my concern would be with protecting the child and ensuring that it had the same rights as all other humans.
Or, homosexuals will ensure that their children all carry the gay gene (if such a thing exists).
So, it's synthesized DNA. Will it be possible, then to take the DNA of a cockroach and massage it until it matches human DNA?
I have no idea. If could do such a thing and the resulting DNA was identical to human DNA, I still have to conclude that the end result is human.
"They're not made in the image of God... "
God is a completely spirtual being, ie he doesn't exist as physical mass. We were created in the image of God spirtually not physically. Unless you believe God had parents who had sex (sperm + egg = god) to create Him
Of course some do believe in a physical God (Mormons) that He is made of flesh and blood, cut Him and He will bleed
It was not a rhetorical question.
You cannot say where your soul came from, other than "from God," and so you are in no position to judge whether or not another thinking, feeling being has a soul.
To answer your original question, this hypothetical child would get his soul from the same place you got yours. How his body got put together is beside the point, as the soul is by defnition not part of the body.
It may be human but the copyright to the DNA will be owned by monsanto of pfiser. All commercial use of the offsprings DNA will be owned by the original gene manipulation company. In addition the "parents" will have to consent to the child being born sterile, meaning for reproduction the child will have to return to the copyright holder.
(note: no sarcasm.)
A scary thought, I admit.
We're entering a brave new world of genetic manipulation. I don't know how it will shake out.
If the result of such an artificial conception can breed with a naturally conceived child and produce viable offspring, it is human.
But it is genetic material. Conception is the not the uniting of sperm and egg, but of the DNA that is part of them. The rest of the sperm and egg is material for carrying the DNA.
So you're saying that God was created by a combination of a sperm and an egg?
The nature of God, apparently existing outside the universe, omniscient and omnipotent, makes me believe that being the "image of God" is not a physical, biological definition. Rather, it is a spiritual one.
God is a spiritual, intelligent, and creative force. He is not defined by any physical parameters. Nor should we expect God's images to be created the same way we are. Nor, for that matter, should we expect they will always take the same physical form.
Would such human patents applied to human offspring constitute a violation against the prohibition on slaver?
Would the imposition of steritlity of offspring be the same as indentured servitude, since the child will have to return to the patent holder?
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.
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.