Hey guys, i know this is a really random question but has anyone else heard about this before? In case you dont understand by this i mean that i heard that there was a scientific breakthrough that allows same sex couples to have a baby that is biologically related to both. I do have some science behind it but i dont want to over complicate things, and its got to be true because if i had come up with this by myself..... Im afraid i may be a genius!
Same sex biological Babys!
- Thread starter Beanie
- Start date
NPR did a story on this recently. The breakthrough isn't quite here yet:
A technique has been developed to extract the genetic material from an unfertilized egg, "wrap it in protein so that it looks like a sperm", and implant it into an egg from another mother.
So far, though, this technique hasn't created any fertilized eggs that remain viable throughout gestation, so actual babies are still a long way off. And even then, the technique hasn't been developed to allow two men to biologically parent a child.
A technique has been developed to extract the genetic material from an unfertilized egg, "wrap it in protein so that it looks like a sperm", and implant it into an egg from another mother.
So far, though, this technique hasn't created any fertilized eggs that remain viable throughout gestation, so actual babies are still a long way off. And even then, the technique hasn't been developed to allow two men to biologically parent a child.
no i heard that the science behind it was different to that.
I read that they would just take sperm from one guy, and take bone marrow from the other, which contains stem cells. For those who dont know stem cells are like blank cells that turn into any cells that surround them. so the stem cells taken from bone marrow would then be formed into female eggs with the male genetic structure.
After all that hs been done then it would be the same as IVF treatment fertilising the egg outside of a body and then implanted into a seraget mother for the gestation.
Plese tell me some one else has heard this, this would be so huge for gay couples every where and i dont know enuf about biology to have come up with this by myself...
I read that they would just take sperm from one guy, and take bone marrow from the other, which contains stem cells. For those who dont know stem cells are like blank cells that turn into any cells that surround them. so the stem cells taken from bone marrow would then be formed into female eggs with the male genetic structure.
After all that hs been done then it would be the same as IVF treatment fertilising the egg outside of a body and then implanted into a seraget mother for the gestation.
Plese tell me some one else has heard this, this would be so huge for gay couples every where and i dont know enuf about biology to have come up with this by myself...
AlteredEgo
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 19,175
- Media
- 37
- Likes
- 26,255
- Points
- 368
- Location
- Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
- Sexuality
- No Response
This seems immoral to me.
We live in a world where there are children desperate for adoption, and where resources in some places are stretched quite thin. Yet we're trying to engineer unnatural children? I hope they never figure it out.
We live in a world where there are children desperate for adoption, and where resources in some places are stretched quite thin. Yet we're trying to engineer unnatural children? I hope they never figure it out.
invisibleman
Loved Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Posts
- 9,816
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 513
- Points
- 303
- Location
- North Carolina
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Yeah, they will never allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt. (Maybe, if you have a really good job, not out and you are single.)
I think that it is unnatural to engineer children. Man is not that saavy with genetics and DNA. Man IS not God.
I agree. I can understand why people want to be parents, but I don't even understand the mindset of hetero couples who feel such a blinding compulsion to have their own biological offspring, regardless of cost or consequence.
If a person or couple want children, but cannot make their own, why would it be so degrading to adopt one or more?
By the way, AE, have I told you lately how much I love you? Great new sig, by the way.
AlteredEgo
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 19,175
- Media
- 37
- Likes
- 26,255
- Points
- 368
- Location
- Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
- Sexuality
- No Response
I have heard of gay couples pretending to be single in order to adopt. I also believe there are countries in the world that make it much easier for Americans to adopt. Worthless as our dollars are, other countries still seem to like them.
I'm with you though. We're not even sure we have being human beings down. Let's not try to be gods.
My home girl has spent a quarter of a million dollars conceiving a baby. Thank heaven it finally worked. A penny more, and I might have become permanently incontinent.
I love you right back. Regarding the sig: Have you clicked the link?
:biggrin1: Yes. Nice idea, but the name of the organization kinda turns me off. Sigh. It's just emails and registered letters for me to let them know how I feel.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2006
- Posts
- 291
- Media
- 29
- Likes
- 50
- Points
- 348
- Location
- San Francisco
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Why should gay people have to yet again settle for straight society's leftovers?
Can you be more heterophobic? >_>
It's not a straight/bi thing. For the cost of genetically creating a child for your own selfish whims, you could be taking care of a child with no parents for 10 years...unselfishly.
It's not a straight/bi thing. For the cost of genetically creating a child for your own selfish whims, you could be taking care of a child with no parents for 10 years...unselfishly.
This is slightly off topic but I do recall reading about a US woman who had female DNA but no male DNA, suggesting such things occur in nature but as scientists rarely look for the evidence it isn't well documented.
The desire to have children with one's own genetic makeup is universal - we accept this as normal without knowing or articulating why.
Recently I witnessed a distasteful scene in a BBC tv news programme: solvent middle income and rich British Indians unable to have children "naturally" or prepared to spend $20K on fertility treatment returning to the land of their parents to rent the wombs of poor Hindu women.
Egg and sperm of parents being fertilized in the lab then implanted into the rented uterus. The child is genetically the parents' and Indian law has made no provision for the surrogate. The poor woman is said to receive $4K - an amount that would buy a small apartment.
But what was distasteful was not the science but the sociology and morality of the transaction. The rich British Indians sat at the medical practitioners desk and when the surrogate, her husband and small child entred the room they were not even acknowledged (no smile or handshake) and had to perch on some stool or shelf. The poor Indian woman could be risking her life to carry those people's baby.
Perhaps the contemptible manner in which they were treated was because they were poor or of a lower caste. Which begs the question how long before poor people or the unemplyed will be coerced by government into providing this "service" for the well heeled. Science was once an honoured discipline but now the scientist looks for get rich profits before ever thinking through the ethics of their research. But maybe i am naive.
The desire to have children with one's own genetic makeup is universal - we accept this as normal without knowing or articulating why.
Recently I witnessed a distasteful scene in a BBC tv news programme: solvent middle income and rich British Indians unable to have children "naturally" or prepared to spend $20K on fertility treatment returning to the land of their parents to rent the wombs of poor Hindu women.
Egg and sperm of parents being fertilized in the lab then implanted into the rented uterus. The child is genetically the parents' and Indian law has made no provision for the surrogate. The poor woman is said to receive $4K - an amount that would buy a small apartment.
But what was distasteful was not the science but the sociology and morality of the transaction. The rich British Indians sat at the medical practitioners desk and when the surrogate, her husband and small child entred the room they were not even acknowledged (no smile or handshake) and had to perch on some stool or shelf. The poor Indian woman could be risking her life to carry those people's baby.
Perhaps the contemptible manner in which they were treated was because they were poor or of a lower caste. Which begs the question how long before poor people or the unemplyed will be coerced by government into providing this "service" for the well heeled. Science was once an honoured discipline but now the scientist looks for get rich profits before ever thinking through the ethics of their research. But maybe i am naive.
It doesn't cost anything for me to make a baby. Besides, you say that like I was taking a shot at gay people.
Look, same sex couple cannot naturally create a baby. So adopt. What's so wrong about that? Hell...hetero couples who cannot naturally create a baby do the same thing. You say that to me like I told him to jump off a cliff for the betterment of the world.
(Lol...I dunno why I said "straight/bi"...I meant "straight/gay")
AlteredEgo
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 19,175
- Media
- 37
- Likes
- 26,255
- Points
- 368
- Location
- Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
- Sexuality
- No Response
I'll tell the kids in the orphanage that they're not really people. They're just leftovers.
I find your statement as disgusting as I find your approval of creating synthetic people. Gross.
I'll tell the kids in the orphanage that they're not really people. They're just leftovers.
I find your statement as disgusting as I find your approval of creating synthetic people. Gross.
We already create "synthetic" babies. Straight couples that cannot naturally make babies are having them made in the lab... why not gay couples? The fact that the gay couples baby isn't coming from a sperm and egg, but some other source is irrelevant as long as the technique is perfected and the odds of something going wrong are no worse than a traditionally conceived embryo.
You must face up to the inevitability of science. Humans in the future will be able to manipulate gender, hair/eye color.. who knows, maybe even dick size! I also predict that not long in the future a single person will be able to have a child (yes.. cloning).
It is VERY natural to want offspring that is biologically related to oneself. As a gay man with plans to adopt, I have no qualms in saying I would prefer a biological child if it were feasible.
That's not really a very bright statement. If you don't understand why, without me even giving an explanation, I will be content to pity you, rather than to try to enlighten you.
In many places, no, they do not.
Why not neither of the above? Two people who want, but are not able to naturally produce, children, should adopt. Just because they "want" it some other way, does not make it right. Some short people want to be taller. In general, they just need to adapt and learn to live with it. Even if they go to a Dr. Frankenstein for getting-taller treatments, that still affects only them.
There are more than enough parentless children out there to go around. Adoption is also a natural phenomenon, and much more noble than beaker-babies.
AlteredEgo
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2006
- Posts
- 19,175
- Media
- 37
- Likes
- 26,255
- Points
- 368
- Location
- Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
- Sexuality
- No Response
Gross, gross, gross! I do NOT approve of any unnatural conception. However, in vitro babies are not technically synthetic. They are real humans, made from sperm and egg. Any "human" made from only male, or only female cells is not scientifically a human, but only a synthetic imitation.
It doesn't cost anything for me to make a baby. Besides, you say that like I was taking a shot at gay people.
Look, same sex couple cannot naturally create a baby. So adopt. What's so wrong about that? Hell...hetero couples who cannot naturally create a baby do the same thing. You say that to me like I told him to jump off a cliff for the betterment of the world.
As you have pointed out hetroi couples that cannot naturally have a baby adopt, but you are missing one thing, they have tryed. In a hetro couple they have tryed to have a baby that is related to them and failed so their only option if they wish to have a child would be adoption but if this were possible (which is only a matter of time) then you would deny a gay couple the rights to try and have a baby that is biologically theirs because they "can always adopt". why have different standards just because you are a same sex couple?
