Same sex biological Babys!

[playainda336]

why have different standards just because you are a same sex couple?

That's the thing...I didn't set any different standard.

...but shouldnt same sex couples have the right, if the option is available, to pass on our own genes?

My only problem with the way you're arguing is that you argue as if someone was trying to deny you the natural right to do something. Being born inherently attracted to the same sex, natural. Go ahead, I can't stop you. lol

Same sex babies? Not natural.

I find it immoral because it does go against nature.

Nature doesn't allow for same sex couples in any species to have children. Asexual birth? It happens in nature. Basically natural cloning.

...Same sex birth? It doesn't happen. If it were meant to be it'd be something that would naturally occur. It'd still need to be in a woman for 9 months anyway...

 

[homelessmandril]

That's the thing...I didn't set any different standard.
My only problem with the way you're arguing is that you argue as if someone was trying to deny you the natural right to do something. Being born inherently attracted to the same sex, natural. Go ahead, I can't stop you. lol

Same sex babies? Not natural.

I find it immoral because it does go against nature.

Nature doesn't allow for same sex couples in any species to have children. Asexual birth? It happens in nature. Basically natural cloning.

...Same sex birth? It doesn't happen. If it were meant to be it'd be something that would naturally occur. It'd still need to be in a woman for 9 months anyway...

i'm conscious of the fact that this question is a bitch to answer, but why does being 'natural' make something 'moral'? Surely 'morality' is an artificial notion that had absolutely no meaning before the great philosophers of the antiquity invented it?

this is the same kind of logic that those marketing fuckers use to sell 'organic food', and i think we can all agree organic food is a fucking crock!

.....we can agree that....can't we?


PS and besides, if nature was so fucking wonderful why has the last two thousand years of human history been a concentrated effort to escape it? Let's face it, murder is pretty natural and some countries KILL people for doing it!

 

[HazelGod]

Why is this pointless argument continuing?

Biologically speaking, children cannot be wrought from two eggs or two sperm, and gametes cannot be transmuted from one to the other.

Stop inventing stupid shit to argue over...there's plenty enough stupid shit already in existence for that.

 

[homelessmandril]

Why is this pointless argument continuing?

Biologically speaking, children cannot be wrought from two eggs or two sperm, and gametes cannot be transmuted from one to the other.

Stop inventing stupid shit to argue over...there's plenty enough stupid shit already in existence for that.

ok then, let's move on to real issues!

Pop-tarts: toasted or cold? Of course cold is more natural hence the moral solution, but if you're a hedonist you might be willing to overlook that for that warming sensation....

 

[MagicTongue]

If it isn't scientifically possible already, I'm sure it will be one day. Love is love, you can't outlaw love. Also, I'd like to add that, if the only moral thing to do is to do what comes naturally, then how come most of the world wears clothes?

We're born nude. We ought to live and eventually die that way.

 

[AlteredEgo]

If it isn't scientifically possible already, I'm sure it will be one day. Love is love, you can't outlaw love. Also, I'd like to add that, if the only moral thing to do is to do what comes naturally, then how come most of the world wears clothes?

We're born nude. We ought to live and eventually die that way.

I'm already cold with my clothes on. It's not always 70 degrees here.

 

[playainda336]

If it isn't scientifically possible already, I'm sure it will be one day. Love is love, you can't outlaw love. Also, I'd like to add that, if the only moral thing to do is to do what comes naturally, then how come most of the world wears clothes?

We're born nude. We ought to live and eventually die that way.

Clothes aren't a biological process...?

Pop-tarts: toasted or cold? Of course cold is more natural hence the moral solution, but if you're a hedonist you might be willing to overlook that for that warming sensation....

You eat your food to the taste...unfortunately babies don't work like that.

But I agree with the guy who said there is many more things better to argue about than the "fact" that Unicorns and Leprechauns live in Houses built in the Clouds with Giants.

>_>

And they do...

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
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?

See below...

<...>
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?

My main concern is that when people get SO COMPLETELY, BLINDLY OBSESSED with having a baby made from their own DNA, it very often (I didn't say always, but very often) changes their focus, and the child actually becomes something secondary - like a long-desired, expensive automobile. The importance becomes "passing on the genes," rather than raising a child. Conception and birth really have nothing at all to do with parenting and child-rearing. Yes, one usually necessitates the other, but they are completely different concepts.

Which one is so important to you? Manufacturing the embryo, or nurturing the child? Is it completely impossible for you to make a distinction?

 

[homelessmandril]

See below...

My main concern is that when people get SO COMPLETELY, BLINDLY OBSESSED with having a baby made from their own DNA, it very often (I didn't say always, but very often) changes their focus, and the child actually becomes something secondary - like a long-desired, expensive automobile. The importance becomes "passing on the genes," rather than raising a child. Conception and birth really have nothing at all to do with parenting and child-rearing. Yes, one usually necessitates the other, but they are completely different concepts.

Which one is so important to you? Manufacturing the embryo, or nurturing the child? Is it completely impossible for you to make a distinction?

That's a compelling argument in favour of adoption over childbirth. As you observe, the desire to have children the old fashioned way is a combination of ego - as Doug Stanhope puts it 'you want to see what you'd look like if you didn't eat so much cake' - and a biological imperative to proliferate one's genetic codes.

Personally I don't think either of those forces are rational enough to be tolerated in a sophisticated society, and so ought to be suppressed by the law. Childbirth is not a right simply because nature compels us towards it, just as rape is not a right even though virtually all mammal species besides humans practice it. If one has to prove one's suitability to adopt, then the same requirements should have to be met when conceiving. So as I already said I don't want to encourage yet more mewling, vomiting rats to be squeezed out onto the planet.

But this thread isn't about adoption; it's about whether same-sex couples have the moral right to conceive a child with their own DNA just as heterosexual couples do. To argue that they should be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation is really no different to arguing that black people should have to sit at the back of the bus.

My arguments may be about as well-constructed as an Ikea bunk-bed, but you know I'm right.....

 

[HazelGod]

But this thread isn't about adoption; it's about whether same-sex couples have the moral right to conceive a child with their own DNA just as heterosexual couples do. To argue that they should be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation is really no different to arguing that black people should have to sit at the back of the bus.

My arguments may be about as well-constructed as an Ikea bunk-bed, but you know I'm right.....

No, I went back to the OP and doublechecked...this topic was not intended as a philosophical discussion over the morality of a hypothetical concept. It was inquiring into the veracity and viability of such a procedure.

Having already explained why any grade-school biology student knows it isn't possible, I find myself right back at the same question: why is this still being argued over? I'm really fed up with this culture of victimhood, and the direction of this discussion is a nauseating case in point. You fuckers are actually getting all up in each other's kool-aid over a possible perceived discrimination over a concept that isn't even physically possible? Put the minority group victimhood crackpipe down already.

Someone wake me up when the argument gets around to something more consequential...like how many angels can slamdance on the head of a pin.

 

[homelessmandril]

No, I went back to the OP and doublechecked...this topic was not intended as a philosophical discussion over the morality of a hypothetical concept. It was inquiring into the veracity and viability of such a procedure.

Having already explained why any grade-school biology student knows it isn't possible, I find myself right back at the same question: why is this still being argued over? I'm really fed up with this culture of victimhood, and the direction of this discussion is a nauseating case in point. You fuckers are actually getting all up in each other's kool-aid over a possible perceived discrimination over a concept that isn't even physically possible? Put the minority group victimhood crackpipe down already.

Someone wake me up when the argument gets around to something more consequential...like how many angels can slamdance on the head of a pin.

well okay yeah the original post was a bit vague, but the ethicists hijacked this thread somewhere around page two. Presumably because the argument about whether the procedure mentioned ought to be allowed is a lot more accessible (and to me more interesting) than whether it's practicable given current technology.

So irritating though it may be, it doesn't really hurt to have hypothetical debates on internet forums at two o'clock in the morning. I happen to like it, but then I'm an irritating kind of guy; and I am all the less encumbered by the fact that what I say or think doesn't really matter. Evening.

 

[playainda336]

But this thread isn't about adoption; it's about whether same-sex couples have the moral right to conceive a child with their own DNA just as heterosexual couples do. To argue that they should be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation is really no different to arguing that black people should have to sit at the back of the bus.

My arguments may be about as well-constructed as an Ikea bunk-bed, but you know I'm right.....

Gah...more racial comparison to homosexuality when it is totally different. >_<

Besides, a seat on a bus deals more with social processes than biological processes. There is no "denying" of rights to the homosexual couple because of the inability to naturally conceive the child in the first place. It's not discrimination...unless you want to say nature is discriminating and to that I have no say in the matter.

 

[homelessmandril]

Gah...more racial comparison to homosexuality when it is totally different. >_<

Besides, a seat on a bus deals more with social processes than biological processes. There is no "denying" of rights to the homosexual couple because of the inability to naturally conceive the child in the first place. It's not discrimination...unless you want to say nature is discriminating and to that I have no say in the matter.

But it IS discrimination if the technology exists to allow same-sex couples to 'conceive' and we don't use it out of prejudice. Of course as the other guy said, the scientists probably won't be able to turn this theory into anything useful for decades yet, but nevermind that.

Yeah I think nature does discriminate (in a thousand different ways to boot) and this is why we should try to subvert it wherever possible. I like trees and fuzzy animals and all that, but the fact remains that human beings can do many things a lot better than nature. By happy coincidence one of those things is creating a fairer society, so let's go for it.

 

[playainda336]

But it IS discrimination if the technology exists to allow same-sex couples to 'conceive' and we don't use it out of prejudice.

It's hard to be discriminate with such technology especially being that it'd HAVE to be designed ONLY for same-sex couples. I think that goes along the same lines as the Time Machine...and the Unicorn.

And Power Rangers...:biggrin1:

 

[B_hinduboy55904]

No offense to same sex parenting couples but I think the more we tamper with nature this way the more doors we open to horrible accidents. Look at animal cloning and the horrible deformations it has caused. Gay parents can always adopt.