Same sex biological Babys!

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
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?

Same sex couples are not naturally engineered to have children. That's why. Same sex couples do not have the dynamic. You are not designed to try. You were desinged to those "different standards" and should accept them and adopt.

I say this as a heterosexual, sure. But I also say it as a woman who has a low chance of natural contraception myself. This applies to me as well. If my future husband and I cannot conceive, then we will adopt in order to experience parenthood.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
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...

No, you don't know enough...this idea is completely unfounded.

There's a concept in cellular biology called ploidy, which refers to the chomosomal structure of nuclei. Almost every cell in the human body is diploid, with a nucleus containing 23 pairs of chromosomes: one set from each parent. The exception, of course, is our gametes, which are haploid...each carry only 23 single chromosomes rather than pairs. Each is, in essence, half of the blueprint for a human being. During fertilization, the sperm basically injects its set of DNA into the egg's nucleus, creating a zygote...the first diploid cell of a completely new person.

All resulting cells are also diploid, including stem cells. Ergo, a diploid stem cell like bone marrow cannot "become" a haploid egg cell. Ploidy isn't the only obstacle, either. Gametes are a special case in cellular biology, a compete specialization unto themselves. Unlike many analogous tissue structures seen in men and women, gametes are actually homologous...that is, they are a car & key rather than a pair of different keys. Even if stem cells were haploid, they couldn't differentiate into female gametes based on the presence of male gametes any more than you could build a car if given only the key to begin with.

I'm not even going to touch the moral and societal ramifications other than to say that if such research is being pursued, it's a reprehensible waste of intellectual resource.


But I also say it as a woman who has a low chance of natural contraception myself.

Does this mean you get pregnant at the drop of a hat? :biggrin1:

Kidding...we're in a similar boat ourselves. Damn you, endometriosis.
 

Beanie

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Posts
4,498
Media
18
Likes
9,923
Points
493
Location
Cardiff (Wales)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Any "human" made from only male, or only female cells is not scientifically a human, but only a synthetic imitation.

You obviously have no idea what you are saying! The humans that are made from male only DNA and female Only DNA are just as much human as that made biologically or by any other means between a male and female DNA match up. The whole thing about it is that what ever is missing biologically (e.g. and egg in an male only couple and a sperm in a female only couple) is created by one of the couple using a stem cells removed from their bone marrow, which are blank cells made by the body naturally and can be used to become any other type of cells, which means that once this scientific bit is complete the process is exactally the same as any other hetro couple.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The whole thing about it is that what ever is missing biologically (e.g. and egg in an male only couple and a sperm in a female only couple) is created by one of the couple using a stem cells removed from their bone marrow, which are blank cells made by the body naturally and can be used to become any other type of cells, which means that once this scientific bit is complete the process is exactally the same as any other hetro couple.

Please stop believing (or at least stop repeating) this nonsense. It's ignorance is incredibly insulting to those of us who passed 9th grade biology.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
excuse me i have also passed the equivallent to your 9th grae bio and it is still possible, a pas in 9th grade bio doesnt make you an expert more than i.

Actually, my minor in college was in Biology.

I referenced the 9th grade level because that's about the time students are introduced to the knowledge that would dispel the ignorance you're spouting off.


Possible? No one is disputing the possibility.

Actually, I am. See my post above, re: ploidy, etc.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
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?
I suppose I should start by asking you the source of your information. Where did you hear or read this story you cite in your original post?

Next, even if I were hetero and wanted children, my partner and I would not have "heroic measures" to conceive. If we were unable to conceive the "original" way, we would adopt. Why the pathological compulsion to have your own biological offspring?

(Sorry, Altered, but I feel the same about IVF. I don't like it. I won't say I don't want you to do it, but I certainly would not be a part of it.)

Finally, there are just some things that same-gender couples should have to accept - and the inablility to conceive is one of those things.
 

Beanie

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Posts
4,498
Media
18
Likes
9,923
Points
493
Location
Cardiff (Wales)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
YEs i can se what your saying DC DEEP but if there is a possibility for same sex couples to have children then why shouldnt they take it, just because there is not a way to do it without the intervention of science dose not mean that we should be denyed our right to pass on our genes. I refuse to belive that just because you are homosexual mean that you can not pass on your genes for the future, its not as if any one ever chooses their sexuallity so its not our fault, and its also not our fault that we cant convice in the "natural" way, we should have as much right as any one else to be able to pass on our genes, heritage ect

P.S. *to hazlegod: i dont wish to have an argument with you and you may be right in your explanations and if i am wrong then i will admit to it :-D
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Beanie, I'm not sure that "passing on your genes" is necessarily a "right." For those who are built to make that happen, more power to them. That's not a part of my makeup, though. If I were hetero, I might feel differently. But I accept the fact that two men, or two women, cannot make a baby. I have never had that compulsion to procreate - not even when I was experimenting with heterosexuality - and I don't understand it. I do understand the desire to be a parent. I do not understand the compulsion to make a baby by any and all means necessary and available.

People who are physically incapable of doing some things just have to accept that fact sometimes. A blind person has to accept the fact that he probably should not drive an automobile. A profoundly deaf person has to accept the fact that (even with implant intervention) he probably won't be the best candidate for being an orchestral conductor. People who cannot conceive children should also be able to accept that fact, and deal with it accordingly.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
I suppose I should start by asking you the source of your information. Where did you hear or read this story you cite in your original post?

Next, even if I were hetero and wanted children, my partner and I would not have "heroic measures" to conceive. If we were unable to conceive the "original" way, we would adopt. Why the pathological compulsion to have your own biological offspring?

(Sorry, Altered, but I feel the same about IVF. I don't like it. I won't say I don't want you to do it, but I certainly would not be a part of it.)

Finally, there are just some things that same-gender couples should have to accept - and the inablility to conceive is one of those things.

That's what I was saying. I wouldn't do it. I don't approve of it. It's not appropriate or responsible to use IVF. However, IVF babies are not synthetic. They are made exactly the same way as other babies, only outside of a body. But embryos created with cells from only one gender are synthetic. Humans come from a sperm and an egg. That's all I was saying.

The only reason I brought myself up is because people often say things like, "You only say that until you have to make a decision!" but I have already made a decision. Despite the fact that my reproductive system does not function normally, if I cannot conceive, I will adopt.
 

homelessmandril

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Posts
201
Media
3
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
London.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Issues like this always seem to be boiled down to what is and isn't natural, as if naturality is some guarantee of moral correctness - which is presumably the basis on which we decide whether or not these kind of procedures should be tolerated by law. I always thought it was quite unfair that some people are born with chronic disabilities, albeit quite 'natural' ones (in that they haven't been artificially engineered in any way), while others aren't. Nature is not moral, nor is it innocent: it does however possess the wisdom of several million years of trial and error.

If in the near future medical science can refine these procedures sufficiently highly that they become as reliable as natural birth - that is to say the likelihood of defects diminishes to an acceptable level - what reason is there NOT to support this type of thing? If the two genetic parents are content with it, who stands to lose?
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
Issues like this always seem to be boiled down to what is and isn't natural, as if naturality is some guarantee of moral correctness - which is presumably the basis on which we decide whether or not these kind of procedures should be tolerated by law. I always thought it was quite unfair that some people are born with chronic disabilities, albeit quite 'natural' ones (in that they haven't been artificially engineered in any way), while others aren't. Nature is not moral, nor is it innocent: it does however possess the wisdom of several million years of trial and error.

If in the near future medical science can refine these procedures sufficiently highly that they become as reliable as natural birth - that is to say the likelihood of defects diminishes to an acceptable level - what reason is there NOT to support this type of thing? If the two genetic parents are content with it, who stands to lose?

The reason to not support it is that there are already children waiting for homes. They should not be ignored for labratory children. As you say, nature has the benefit of ages of trial and error. Perhaps the reason some couples cannot conceive is to see to it that fewer children go without family, and to minimize or slow over-utilization of the Earth's resources.
 

Beanie

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Posts
4,498
Media
18
Likes
9,923
Points
493
Location
Cardiff (Wales)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
DC just because you dont have the want to become a parent does not mean that there are not homosexuals out there that do and why not? its a natural human feeling.
Talking about the second aprt of your post i dont think that you should or accuratly can, compare this topic with a blind or deaf person. The people that have those disabilities have no way to make themself "back to normal" and they have to accept that the will never have the full use of that sence, but same sex couples haveing biological babys does not compare with that. Sure under the natural way of things then there is no way to have a baby between a same sex couple but if the technology is there to overcome this problem then why not take it, if you want too of course. It would be the same as a blind person having science interveen and having an operation to completly restore their sight. would you deny this from them?
 

Beanie

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Posts
4,498
Media
18
Likes
9,923
Points
493
Location
Cardiff (Wales)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
AlteredEgo, your statment that nature is preventing couples from having natural children to stop unwanted children from ggoing without parents is
preposterous. You talk about nature in this way as if it is a living thing that can adapt to anything that it thinks needs to be changed like this. Fact is its not and why would a species evolve to stop itself from reproducing?? that just defies all logic.

And coming back to the adoption thing again why do we (homosexuals) have to rely on adoption as our only chance to have children? As if it isn't allready diufficult enuf to adopt as a same sex couple. I agree with you that there are way too many children that have been put up for adoption and therefore have to grow up with out parents but shouldnt same sex couples have the right, if the option is available, to pass on our own genes?
 

homelessmandril

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Posts
201
Media
3
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
London.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
The reason to not support it is that there are already children waiting for homes. They should not be ignored for labratory children. As you say, nature has the benefit of ages of trial and error. Perhaps the reason some couples cannot conceive is to see to it that fewer children go without family, and to minimize or slow over-utilization of the Earth's resources.


I agree. But that isn't to say that synthesising embryos with the DNA of two same-sex parents is immoral, rather that having children at all is wrong. I don't think that biological inability to bear children could possibly be some kind of evolutionary response to overpopulation, given that it took millions of years for us to work out that opposable thumbs would be useful. Personally I think one ought to have to apply for a license to have a baby, which would only be allocated if authorities could be satisfied that the prospective parents would be competent. Unfortunately that's not going to happen and I will continue to have rotten fruit hurled at me in the street for my controversial opinions.

Assuming that people are, regardless of the state of the world, going to have children, I don't see anything wrong with enabling same-sex couples to create children with their own DNA.
 

homelessmandril

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Posts
201
Media
3
Likes
10
Points
163
Location
London.
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Thank you homeless, at least some one has their head screwd on right (i think so anyway :D, beacuse theres going to be some one who says different)

well thanks, not sure about the 'head screwed on right' part.....mummy happened to roll over when i was coming out or something, i dunno....

of course there will be diverse opinions on this type of thing, but not being a moral relativist I will be satisfied so long as it doesn't appear that the majority view is automatically dictating the law of the land.

incidentally, hooray for the death of Jerry Falwell!