Thread: Purgatory: Same sex couple can have children Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001129
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
I read in New Scientist last week that a team have done something remarkable, with mice (but the technique should work for humans too)

The technique for creating embryonic stem cells is well established - a cell nucleus (say a skin cell) is inserted into a denucleated donor cell which is then encouraged to become a blastocyst from which stem cells are removed then grown into a perpetual 'stem cell line'. These phenotyped cells can then be used to treat the donor of the original skin cell of a variety of disorders.

Anyway, the team examined the slough of unwanted cells which form around a growing stem cell line (which are normally discarded) and found, to their amazement, viable eggs were being produced. They have taken these eggs and from them produced new blastocysts from both nuclear transfer and IVF with sperm.

In other words, men can produce eggs by this technique.

In other words two men could produce a baby using one man's eggs and the other's sperm, by IVF, which had a combination of their chromosomes just like a conventional baby.

The baby would be born through the same genetic process as any conventional IVF baby, the only difference being that its mother would be a man.

I think that, for reasons I can't remember, this would only work for men, not women. Probably something to do with men having a Y chromosome.

'Hurrah' or 'Oh God no'?

[ 19. June 2003, 18:10: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I suggest that a surrogate mother would also be very useful. Otherwise where's the foetus going to gestate?
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
In a box.

Yes the surrogate is essential, but at least the baby would have the couple's chromosomes, rather than just one of the pairs' chromosomes in addition to the surrogate's.
 
Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :
 
*shudders at the thought*
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I don't think we're in 'Oh God no' territory here unless we think that gay relationships are out of order (which I don't.) In fact, is there a sense in which this could enable gay relationships to be (re)productive, and thus answer one of the objections sometimes raised?

Any ethical worries would relate to the IVF technology, e.g. are surplus embryos produced, and subsequently destroyed? Is this ethical? But, of course, this questions stands for straight couples just as much as gay ones. I guess there are also issues relating to surrogacy.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
I read in New Scientist last week that a team have done something remarkable, with mice (but the technique should work for humans too)
Do you have a link to the article? I'd like to read it.

quote:
I think that, for reasons I can't remember, this would only work for men, not women. Probably something to do with men having a Y chromosome.
I can't imagine why it would work only for men. In fact, it should work half as well for men as for women, precisely because men carry a Y chromosome. Half the eggs formed from man's cells would carry the Y chromosomes, and we know already (because of the experience of XY females) that Y eggs are non-viable.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Neither hurrah or 'oh God, no'.

Obviously I have no problem with gay couples bringing up children. I don't have any strong ethical problem with IVF per se in terms of embryos and so on, although I can understand those who do.

What does concern me more is that so much effort is placed into sorting out either infertility or artificial reproductive techniques when there are already so many young people being brought up in care, or languishing in 'orphanages' overseas. Perhaps this is because I am adopted, but I've never had any strong feelings about 'blood ties'. If people want to parent, why not look towards making adoption (including trans-national adoption) a lot easier?
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
I read in New Scientist...
Do you have a link to the article? I'd like to read it.
the article is here

I didn't post it originally because I thought you had to be a subscriber to access it, but I have found you don't. Having re-read it, I had some minor facts wrong, but the gist of my o/p was correct.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Really, really interesting. But since the egg and sperm cells are created from embryonic stem cells, not cells donated from an adult. Unless I'm missing something here, that still wouldn't allow a gay couple to have their own children, with nothing more than a surrogate mother. Neither man has, presumably, been an embryo for a very long time.

This technique also seems to have all the ethical concerns of cloning (because of the possibility of faulty imprinting), IVF (excess embryos), and embryonic stem cell research (the destruction of embryos). So it's problematic.

But, as I said, very interesting.
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Really, really interesting.
Definitely. I agree with the ethical ickiness of the actual process, though.
quote:
But since the egg and sperm cells are created from embryonic stem cells, not cells donated from an adult. Unless I'm missing something here...
The article says:
quote:
It might be possible to take an individual's cell, create ESCs from it by therapeutic cloning, and then derive healthy eggs or sperm from them for use in IVF.
It's a speculative leap, certainly, but it doesn't seem an unjustified one.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Yes it would allow two men to have a conventional baby, thus:

Man1 donates a skin cell.

Scientist takes skin cell and transfers its nucleus into a denucleated egg from storage (these stored eggs would be created from stem cell lines themselves, and not donated)

This egg is electrified which encourages it to develop into a blastocyst (parthenogenesis?). This blastocyst probably has imprinting problems and won't develop, but it provides stem cells which are cultured.

These cultured stem cells produce eggs which have the chromosomes of man1, and are free from the imprinting problems of the first generation egg (clones give birth to healthy young - it seems the production of germ cells sorts out the imprinting problem)

This egg now has a nucleus containing the chromosomes of man1. It is identical to an egg produced by a woman by ovulation.

Man2 now donates some sperm, which fertilises the second generation egg from man1 in vitro. The resulting embryo is gestated in a host woman who adds no genetic material whatsoever.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Infinitarian:
The article says:
quote:
It might be possible to take an individual's cell, create ESCs from it by therapeutic cloning, and then derive healthy eggs or sperm from them for use in IVF.
It's a speculative leap, certainly, but it doesn't seem an unjustified one.
Gotcha. On first reading, I missed that.

But this seems to take the risks associated with faulty imprinting, and multiply them. (Times two? Squared?)
 
Posted by Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf (# 1283) on :
 
Here's a link to the parthenogenesis bit (which could probably supply a thread on its own [Wink] ).

I don't think it would not work full stop for two women, you just wouldn't be able to have boys (you've got 4 X's and no Y's).
 
Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 
The 'works half as well' thing would be mostly an issue for female couples, since the only type of cells they can donate is X, meaning that the only type of children they could produce would be girls. Larfin'! Lesbian Separatist Heaven!

Re: men. It would just be a matter of making sure there are not 2 Y carrying cells combined as this is an unviable combination.

Bring it on! Not just babies for gay couples, but for infertile straight couples as well. A baby's a baby afaic. The only concern I'd have is to make sure it didn't have anything akin to 'Dolly the Sheep' premature aging problems.
 
Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 
X-post, JtO-D. [Not worthy!]
(where's me wedding photos?)
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
But this seems to take the risks associated with faulty imprinting, and multiply them. (Times two? Squared?)
No, the faulty imprinting only affects the first generation egg - the one that had a new nucleus inserted. This is thought to be because of trauma to the chemical balance of the egg. Second generation eggs are fine.

Dolly the sheep had faulty imprinting, but her lambs were perfectly normal.

This is because something about the production of germ cells (either through ovulation, or through stem cells) resets the imprint characteristics and sorts it all out.
 
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Interesting technological step:

Queston though? We know, through experience, that when a group can seperate themselves from others, that some will and will call this seperation moral and right and Godly. Given that a "definately in a minority but all too inevitable" all female seperation group will start up, can we expect some of the more conservative ethicists to question the morality of this technological step? ie. Will the potential for a gender specific eugenics-like leaning group to abuse this technology mean the technology will be banned?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Surely the fact that a technology CAN be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning that technology. Every tool humankind has made use of, from fire and the axe onwards, is capable of being misused. The challenge is not to misuse the technology, and to build the kind of society which is not liable to abuse it.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
And being realistic, technologies aren't banned - they just develop elsewhere.
 
Posted by Fibonacci's Number (# 2183) on :
 
*FN brings her supreme intellect to bear on the question*

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
In a box.
[Eek!]
Like when you put your pet rabbit in a box to hibernate over the winter?
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
I read somewhere last year that this was already technically viable for lesbian couples, it involved taking eggs from both women, stripping dna from one and using that to fertilise the other egg before it being embedded in the egg doners womb, similar techniques to IVF, the article in a U.S. medical publication seemed to suggest that this may even have been carried out in human patients.
Sounds too much like playing God to me.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
No, no Fibonnaci, in a cardboard box.

which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans.

L.
[It's a 'Life of Brian' joke!]

[ 21. May 2003, 18:33: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Sounds too much like playing God to me.
Why?

Why is it any more playing God than is IVF?
Or hormone replacement therapy?
Or general surgery?
Or contraception?

I find the sound bite 'playing God' difficult to accept because 'naturally', that is 'without human intervention', we would all have a life span in the low 40's, die from broke bones and succumb to every two-bit infection going.
 
Posted by Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
I'm with merseymike on the adoption thing. Why go to all that effort when there is a source of kids available? You kill two birds with one stone: Give a family without kids a kid and a kid without a family a family. Are genetic ties really that important?
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:


Why is it any more playing God than is IVF?
Or hormone replacement therapy?
Or general surgery?
Or contraception?

I find the sound bite 'playing God' difficult to accept because 'naturally', that is 'without human intervention', we would all have a life span in the low 40's, die from broke bones and succumb to every two-bit infection going.
I disagree with same sex couples having children, it is not something that can occur naturally, so IMHO we should not be setting ourselves up as "sub-creators" by giving medical assistance to the process. As to IVF, I have mixed feelings, HRT? I do not know whats involved, general surgery, I have been a welcome recipient so cannot deny it to others, contraception is a non invasive procedure to prevention so is hardly in the same league.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
I disagree with same sex couples having children, it is not something that can occur naturally, so IMHO we should not be setting ourselves up as "sub-creators" by giving medical assistance to the process.
An infertile heterosexual couple also cannot have children naturally, so presumably it is also wrong for them to have children.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
An infertile heterosexual couple also cannot have children naturally, so presumably it is also wrong for them to have children.
Poor argument Karl, as I stated it has no chance of occurring naturally, if a hetrosexual couple are not infertile then they can have children where as a homosexual couple cannot produce children with each other regardless of their fertility.
Ergo, God designated the production of children is the premise of hetrosexual union.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
An infertile heterosexual couple also cannot have children naturally, so presumably it is also wrong for them to have children.
Poor argument Karl, as I stated it has no chance of occurring naturally, if a hetrosexual couple are not infertile then they can have children where as a homosexual couple cannot produce children with each other regardless of their fertility.
Ergo, God designated the production of children is the premise of hetrosexual union.
Why bring a fertile couple into the argument? You argument for not assisting same sex couples in having children is that it can't occur naturally. I pointed out that this is also true of infertile heterosexual couples. Why use special pleading for that particular group?
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
I'm merely po natural for children to occur from hetrosexual union wher as it is un-natural and indeed impossible for children to occur as a result of homosexual union, what difficulty are you having understanding that?
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I'm merely po natural for children to occur from hetrosexual union wher as it is un-natural and indeed impossible for children to occur as a result of homosexual union, what difficulty are you having understanding that?
None at all. But no-one is proposing assisting fertile heterosexual couples in conceiving, for obvious reasons.

My point is that if your reason for opposing help for same sex couples is that it can't occur naturally, you must apply the same logic for any pairing where conception cannot happen naturally, such as an infertile heterosexual couple. What difficulty are you having understanding that?
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
Define infertile, No sperm? No eggs? This thread is discussing the production of children utilising the genetic material from the couple themselves without the inclusion of donors.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Define infertile, No sperm? No eggs? This thread is discussing the production of children utilising the genetic material from the couple themselves without the inclusion of donors.
I don't really see the relevance of this to the morality or otherwise of doing so.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Nor me, Karl, but actually, 'no sperm', or a sperm count low enough to mean that in practice, is a common cause of infertility.

I hope we don't go down the 'pros and cons of gay parenting' route again ; I would be amazed if it wasn't a dead horse.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
Unfortunately Merseymike that is where we must go ultimately in this, because unless the total results of the action are taken into considersation, the reasons to say yes or no are going to be unclear.
IVF is probably disturbing the balance of things so I am cautiously opposed to it, a man has no womb and cannot carry a child to term so that seems clear, but it is inadequate argument against lesbian couples, so it brings me back to genetic natural selection which in mammals requires a male and female party, if the only way to resolve this was to make procreation the premise of sexual union only then I would prefer to go that route than allow science to dilute humanity by reducing us to sources of genetic material.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
From that perspective, I wouldn't agree - I am not concerned with 'naturalness', but with quality of parenting, which has everything to do with bringing up children and little to do with the mechanics.

But the point I made earlier still stands. Hence, I'm not an enthusiast for reproductive technologies, though I wouldn't ban them, and I think their advance is inevitable. If that is the case, then i would not discriminate with regard to sexual orientation ; I certainly think lesbians should have full access to IVF treatment.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Unfortunately Merseymike that is where we must go ultimately in this, because unless the total results of the action are taken into considersation, the reasons to say yes or no are going to be unclear.
IVF is probably disturbing the balance of things so I am cautiously opposed to it, a man has no womb and cannot carry a child to term so that seems clear, but it is inadequate argument against lesbian couples, so it brings me back to genetic natural selection which in mammals requires a male and female party, if the only way to resolve this was to make procreation the premise of sexual union only then I would prefer to go that route than allow science to dilute humanity by reducing us to sources of genetic material.
I don't really see how any scientific procedure reduces us to this in any way more than the 'natural' process does.

You could use the "genetic natural selection" argument very effectively (perhaps even more so) against assisting infertile heterosexual couples (sorry to raise them again), inasmuch as you could argue that you are allowing infertility traits to be passed on to the next generation rather than leaving them as an evolutionary dead end, as they would "naturally" be.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
The argument about passing on traits could be used to argue against same sex couples depending on your view of homosexuality but it boots nothing to open that melting pot.
Questions we need to ask from a point of view of either evolution or creation is why over the ages has the advancement of the species through procreation required male and female? And what will the long term impact on the species be if that union is no longer required, how long until man and woman become independent species, both intellectually developed, both wanting autonomy, will the battle of the sexes be settled with nuclear missiles instead of words and politic? This is a move to remove the natural and ethical balance of society, it is wrong and the long term ramifications are not being considered, once its done its too late to say"oh maybe we shouldn't have done that".
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, no...just because it is possible to create offspring in another way does not mean that the man-woman rumpy-pumpy way won't retain its appeal. Something about it being fun, I think! Priest ; what evidence is there that there is any possibility or probability of your scenario coming to pass?
 
Posted by chukovsky (# 116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
how long until man and woman become independent species, both intellectually developed
This seems to imply one gender is not currently intellectually developed.

Leaving that aside, I agree that the issue is more or less the same as IVF treatment for an infertile heterosexual couple - if they have very low sperm count, or very infrequent ovulation, then IVF will be the only way to have a child that is genetically both theirs. I'm not sure there are hugely different issues surrounding IVF for these couples than the treatments being discussed here.

However I'd probably come down on the side of not advocating any procedure that could produce "spare" embryos - although naturally some embryos don't survive, it seems wrong to deliberately create too many - rather like having unprotected sex on purpose to conceive and then taking the morning-after pill (although I think that also works by preventing fertilisation so it's not QUITE the same).

I'd go with MM (surely the world must be ending) and suggest adoption as the best answer for all couples who cannot have children without such invasive procedures. There is, as far as I can tell, a long history of unmarried (many by choice and some because of lack of attraction to the opposite sex) relatives fostering and adopting closely related children whose biological parents have died. Indeed, this is one of the arguments that sociobiologists (spit, hiss) use to suggest that there is an evolutionary advantage to having some members of a population group lack the will to mate with members of the opposite sex - they will then be more available to care for children of deceased relatives.
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Questions we need to ask from a point of view of either evolution or creation is why over the ages has the advancement of the species through procreation required male and female?
Well, because until now the species hasn't had the technology to do it otherwise, obviously. (Except that one time where it's rumoured to have happened without a biological male.)

Seriously, if you want to talk about what's "natural", nature has plenty of (presumably god-created) species that reproduce otherwise than with one parent of each sex. Snails are hermaphrodite and mate in pairs, sea-cucumbers are hermaphrodite and mate in big long circular orgy-chains, many monocellular organisms reproduce by division and the Sonoran whiptail lizard is exclusively female and gives birth by parthenogenesis (true).
quote:
This is a move to remove the natural and ethical balance of society, it is wrong and the long term ramifications are not being considered, once its done its too late to say"oh maybe we shouldn't have done that".
I'm broadly in sympathy with that last bit. All these kinds of technology need careful thinking through as far as their ethics are concerned (and I do mean "thinking", not "knee jerk reaction") before being implemented.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
An infertile heterosexual couple also cannot have children naturally, so presumably it is also wrong for them to have children.
Poor argument Karl, as I stated it has no chance of occurring naturally, if a hetrosexual couple are not infertile then they can have children where as a homosexual couple cannot produce children with each other regardless of their fertility.
Ergo, God designated the production of children is the premise of hetrosexual union.
Someone being cured of many serious diseases has no chance of occuring 'naturally'. Ergo God designated that people should die of them and modern medicine represents a fundamentally disordered meddling with nature. : confused :

The concept of 'nature' can be a dangerous one and is often used to smuggle bad arguments into theological controversy. If we are going to talk about nature we need to realise that, for Christians, nature is not a static given, but a process of 'becoming'. What we are becoming is definitively revealed by God in Christ and will be completed when Christ hands over the Kingdom to the Father.

Can you really be so certain that what God has shown of himself in Christ procludes the possibility of gay people having kids, and is therefore unnatural in this sense? I would say that wanting one's love to be productive, and being prepared to go to great lengths to bring into being an 'other' whom one can love, could be a profound parable of our God.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Divine Dwarf,
Well said, that's what I was trying to get across in my point about whether surgery is unnatural, you said it better than I did.

Priest mentioned that the only way mammals can produce offspring is through the coming together of male and female. Strictly that is not true, offspring are produced by bringing together two different sets of chromosomes.

The physical plumbing of mammals means that this needs male and female, but it is by no means genetically required to have a male and female.

I don't want this to go down the route of whether it is ok for gay couples to bring up children. MM makes a valid point about adoption, with which I agree. But...you could logically take that to a scenario which sees society banning couples from conceiving a second child when they
could well adopt one. It's a hard argument to justify.

Is the procedure any different from IVF? I don't think so.

Could it provide a wonderful opportunity to help infertile couples (hetero or homo) have children? I think so.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
IBP ; I should qualify my view with saying that the thought of enforcing adoption is not something I would ever support. Encouraging it, making it a lot easier, yes ( and to give them credit, the Govt. have moved in this direction). A lot more could be done though.

I think that if these technologies are there, though, that they will be developed, whether I like it or not, and if so, then they should be available to people irrespective of sexual orientation.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
Questions we need to ask from a point of view of either evolution or creation is why over the ages has the advancement of the species through procreation required male and female? And what will the long term impact on the species be if that union is no longer required, how long until man and woman become independent species, both intellectually developed, both wanting autonomy, will the battle of the sexes be settled with nuclear missiles instead of words and politic?
priest, maybe i'm misreading this but it certainly sounds like you are saying that the only reason men and women associate is in order to reproduce. that strikes me as fairly bizarre.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
MM Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that you wouldn't advocate forced adoption, I made that point to illustrate that to use adoption as an argument against a technology which could allow gay couples to have children, was logically hard to justify.

It is the same as disallowing IVF for infertile couples while there are populated orphanages.

Humans are driven to produce offspring with complementary genes, I presume this drive is the same in a gay couple as in a straight couple.

I don't think this technology could be misused any more or less than any other genetic reproduction technology. In many ways it is much more ethical than reproductive cloning which uses nuclear transfer, because the offspring are perfectly healthy (where in nuclear transfer they are not)
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Yes, I agree with all that. Except one thing. This is just a personal thing, but I know that humans are meant to have this desire to reproduce themselves - but I simply don't. And I think often my thoughts on these matters are coloured by that acknowledgment, because I don't totally empathise or understand why this compulsion exists, or what it feels like. I certainly know that there are gay men around who would love to be parents, but the thought fills me with horror.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
priest, maybe i'm misreading this but it certainly sounds like you are saying that the only reason men and women associate is in order to reproduce. that strikes me as fairly bizarre.
I was talking in the context of the thread, so yes your misreading me. Obviously men and women associate for other reasons, for example so women can cook and men eat (I'm joking), but this thread was about reproduction, I have intentionally avoided social intercourse as it could lead to a tirade of ethical damnations on suitable parents etc... and that isn't the question here.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
But most heterosexual intercourse certainly doesn't take place to make babies. Tgere are dogmas which suggest it should, but I don't think this stands up to either reason or experience.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well then priest, if you kow men and women associate for other reasons, and that even in the (highly unlikely) event that all reproduction became dissassociated with sex men and women would continue to associate, your doomsday scenario can never happen, so what was the point of posting it in the first place?
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
well then priest, if you kow men and women associate for other reasons, and that even in the (highly unlikely) event that all reproduction became dissassociated with sex men and women would continue to associate, your doomsday scenario can never happen, so what was the point of posting it in the first place?
For the reason that same sex reproduction could create sub sets of the species, an independent enclave of female or male supremicists perhaps, I have met homosexual people who consider hetrosexual sex to be disgusting, they are a monority thankfully, I have also come across the women hating gay males and the man hating gay females, the doomsday scenario can allways happen given the stupidity of the human race and its(our?) inability to see past our immediate situation and our twisted percieved rights.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But most heterosexual intercourse certainly doesn't take place to make babies. Tgere are dogmas which suggest it should, but I don't think this stands up to either reason or experience.
But ergo the vast majority of babies are born out of hetrosexual intercourse, so what exactly is your point Merseymike? If you are suggesting my argument is governed by catholic dogma, then I'm afraid I will have to disillusion you, I don't subscribe to the dogma.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.

Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test to ensure you were suitable, then you would go to a specialist who would create an egg and sperm from you and your partner's cells and from these a baby in vitro.

If one of the couple were female the foetus would be implanted, if not it would be grown in an artificial womb in the couple's home.

There would be no unwanted children, people would have to think long and hard about having a baby, and then prove they would be good parents.

The world would be a better place. Populations would stop rising, the world's overtaxed resources would recover. There would be no orphanages, lower prison populations, smaller, friendlier communities where everyone would know everyone else and work together for the greater good.

It would be wonderful.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
Think of a world where the government decides what sex your child is, what their physical and mental attributes will be. Think of a world where you can never be sure that the child you are rearing is any relation to you. Think of a world where parents are no longer important and the child is the property of the State.

Welcome to the new world order aka Frankensteinville.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
But that scenario could happen anyway, with or without this technology. Look at China many years ago, where girl babies were left outside to die because boys were more valuable.

Any technology left in the hands of an unsuitable person has the capacity for evil. I could kill someone with a pencil - I could also use it to write a sonnet.

I'm not saying your scenario couldn't happen - it has. Mine would be hugely desirable philosophically (if a discomforting to actually contemplate) and is more possible with this technology than without it.

It is certainly a more ethical ideologue than is eugenics which would lead to your scenario.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
But that scenario could happen anyway, with or without this technology. Look at China many years ago, where girl babies were left outside to die because boys were more valuable.

Any technology left in the hands of an unsuitable person has the capacity for evil. I could kill someone with a pencil - I could also use it to write a sonnet.

I'm not saying your scenario couldn't happen - it has. Mine would be hugely desirable philosophically (if a discomforting to actually contemplate) and is more possible with this technology than without it.

It is certainly a more ethical ideologue than is eugenics which would lead to your scenario.
I agree on nearly all points, but in practice we can usually rely on mankind to do the wrong thing, lets keep sex for babies and for the expression of love, I'll even concede to the fun aspect too, but lets not dilute it by removing one aspect just for the sake of being politically correct.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I would have thought the best way of ensuring that the scenarios expressed by priest were to be aware of them. I simply think they are so unlikely that they should not form the basis of our decisions.

For example, I would imagine that plenty of people find the idea of sex with either the same or the opposite sex, depending on their orientation, pretty unappealing. That doesn't mean that we automatically dislike everyone who doesn't share our sexuality. I think I'd be regarded as quite hardline in terms of gay rights, but I certainly don't inhabit a gay ghetto, and I think the sub-categories you talk about are simply a sign that some people have prejudices. The number of old-style separatist lesbians or misogynist gays is really very small, and I hope the number of straight homophobes is falling too.

I would hope and believe that we are becoming more, not less, accepting of sexual difference, and that there is absolutely no reason why this sort of technology should lead to a brand of haters of the opposite sex. Its a bit like a science fiction slash novel!
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
That's not what I am getting at though.

This comment works from the premis that:
1) We need to curb population control
2) We need to reduce the amount of unwanted children
3) We need to stop patently unsuitable people (abusers etc.) having children
4) We need to reduce abortions

All these things could be achieved by licencing pregnancy. Unfortunately, since pregnancy is free the only way to do this currently is by punishing people who have an unlicenced pregnancy. That is way into the realms of state control and an Orwellian nightmare

With this new technology people would be freed from the bounds of unwanted pregnancy, there would be no punishment for unlicenced pregnancy because unlicenced pregnancy couldn't happen, and if people had to think and plan and ask for help to have a baby, fewer people would do it for frivolous reasons.

This need not result in a world of eugenics - realise that even now IVF embryos are being screened for certain desirable characteristics (one recently was chosen by phenotype to become a donor for his critically ill brother). There is no need to invoke arguments of state control because state control can happen with or without this technology.

Result:
Every child in the world is wanted, loved and homed and population increase is curbed.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
MM, cross posted, my post refers to priest's last post, not yours. I agree with you.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
I agree on nearly all points, but in practice we can usually rely on mankind to do the wrong thing, lets keep sex for babies and for the expression of love, I'll even concede to the fun aspect too, but lets not dilute it by removing one aspect just for the sake of being politically correct.
First, I don't think anyone's disagreeing that sex is 'for babies' and 'for the expression of love', what people are disagreeing with (rightly) is the view that there these two 'ends' are inseparable, i.e. babies should only be made through sex, and (if you are being consistent, as is the current Pope) all sex acts should be open to procreation. I think that sex can be 'productive' without being 'reproductive'.

Second, I am distinctly nervous about using the law to impose 'moral' views on sex and reproduction (even if Christians could ever agree about what a 'moral' view is!). People are at perfect liberty to disagree with one another, and not to have others priorities forced down their throats. And, to be frank, I accept what I take to be Christian ethical standards because of my free response to God's grace in Christ, and that response would be devalued if the law coerced me into accepting 'Christian' ethical precepts.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Exactly.

Wouldn't it be better to separate sex and procreation?

That way people can engage the loving, pleasurable passtimes without possibly having an unwanted child as punishment (both for them and the child)
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Well, it's no so much about separating sex and procreation as saying they don't INVARIABLY belong together.

The idea of people producing a baby through their physical love is a beautiful one. But then so can be the idea of two people 'making love' without the hope of a baby, or of two people going to great non-sexual lengths to have a baby.

I think legitimate pluralism is the order of the day.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
I think legitimate pluralism is the order of the day.
Explain?
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I mean that God calls people to use their sexuality and their capacity for (re)productive love in a plurality of ways. Rather than clinging to a myopic idea of what is 'natural' we should be open to discerning God's call in a variety of situations - these include heterosexual unions where sex issues in reproduction (which is why I'm not happy with straightforwardly saying that sex should be separated from reproduction) but are not limited to them.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Ok, I see.

I agree in part, but with pleasurable sex comes the threat of an unwanted child. The only way to separate that threat from the pleasure is to separate the production of a baby from the production of an orgasm.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
It seems to me that there are at least two distinct issues here:
Or even for that matter the use of this process using any two people of either sex who are not married to each other, e.g. what if some scientist decided to take DNA (if it were available) from Einstein and da Vinci to create (assuming intellect to have a genetic component) a great genius. Neither of the donors need be even aware of their involvement, but I think many ethical issues would remain.
I'd say that my views on issues surrounding this process, at least, might be relevant to it. I don't know that my views will be terribly popular. [Embarrassed]


 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I also don't see pregnancy as a "threat" and absolutely don't believe the government should tell people they may not beget children. It goes against tradition and my understanding of morality. I don't believe in "parent licenses" or anything of that nature, and I speak as someone who came from an abusive background myself. I do think the separation of sexual intercourse from pregnancy and begetting children is unhealthy and an incorrect view of the world, just as eating and the body's health are connected, whether or not contraception is permissible or desirable at times. (Someone could argue -- and I am not totally certain this is correct -- that contraception is to sex as bulimia/induced vomiting is to eating. I've wrestled with this one off and on for years.)
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
[Projectile]
 
Posted by ThoughtCriminal (# 3030) on :
 
quote:
What does concern me more is that so much effort is placed into sorting out either infertility or artificial reproductive techniques when there are already so many young people being brought up in care, or languishing in 'orphanages' overseas. Perhaps this is because I am adopted, but I've never had any strong feelings about 'blood ties'. If people want to parent, why not look towards making adoption (including trans-national adoption) a lot easier?
[Not worthy!] @ Merseymike. Exactly what i was going to say, but about 10 times more succinct than i would have been.

Dare I make this theological, and say that it is specifically Christian to promote adoption because of God's example of adopting us as His/Her (delete as appropriate) children (not metaphorically "children", but really God's children, transcending the merely physical conception of reality), or would that be derailing this thread too much?
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
[Projectile]
Er, now that we know what induced vomiting looks like, JL, I implore you not to post a smilie demonstrating proper condom use... [Eek!]
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
David, thanks, you have said a lot of things that I feel but refrain from saying because I get accused of being homophobic (which I do not think I am) when I do say those things.
IBP, what about introducing a tax system like China has for families who have large numbers of children.
Divine outlaw Dwarf, I don't think that all sex should be open to procreation but am minded to say I think procreation should only occur as the result of sex.
MerseyMike, being aware of a scenario does not preclude realising that scenario, only 60 years ago Hitler tried to install a supremicist view on the world, he wasn't the first and he won't be the last, but I imagine that future attempts will be more subtle.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think there are other much more likely scenarios that I would fear before this one, Priest.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:

Divine outlaw Dwarf, I don't think that all sex should be open to procreation but am minded to say I think procreation should only occur as the result of sex.
But why, if the 'natural' connection can be broken in one direction, why not in the other? This could sound like heterosexual special pleading!
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
But why, if the 'natural' connection can be broken in one direction, why not in the other? This could sound like heterosexual special pleading!
For the simple reason that the results are possible without external intervention.
i.e. Sexual intercourse is the way of procreation as governed by God or nature depending on your view point, whilst it can have a recreational aspect with the introduction of contraception, the removal of that contraception results in the possibility of procreation. This is an exclusive ability to hetrosexual sex, and as such needs no special pleading.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Just to clarify, Priest, are you in favour of 'artificial' contraception? Your position would seem to preclude it. Most acts of heterosexual intercourse are open to reproduction unless there is someting "external" (e.g. contraception) at play.

As I think I said earlier, you have an idea of 'nature' as some kind of static God-given thing existing independently from human agency. Nature changes over time, not least because of the actions of human beings, who are at once part of nature and at the same time have a relative autonomy from it. Nature is a process, a becoming, and humans, for better or worse, have their hands on part of the rudder.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
Contraception is fine in my book, condom, coil, pill etc..
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
Wouldn't it be better to separate sex and procreation?
Yeah. God really had it wrong in the first place, linking the two like that. What could She have been thinking?

Reader Alexis
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
What indeed?
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the licensing-parents thing. I know too many wonderful "accidents," indeed, I am one myself, and just because we weren't planned doesn't mean we aren't appreciated. Well, to tell the truth, our parents may not have planned us, but Someone did.

As for adoption, yes, I would agree on that point. For couples who cannot have children without medical intervention, adoption is the best option! I cannot understand the emphasis on children being genetically related to the adults. I know families who actually have some genetic children and some adopted children, and you can't see the difference in the way they're treated, indeed, one wouldn't be able to tell at all except that some of the children don't resemble their parents.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Laudate, adoption is a ctually a pretty poor option in a lot of societies-simply because of the supply-demand situation. It is salutary to realise that in many countries couples who are not conventual (i.e. unmarried or homosexual) will be adenied the opportunity of adoption because of their perceived "unsuitability".

Are you suggesting that couples (and I'm not even going to start on their gender) who cannot conceive without medical assistance should be denied that assistance? That's a bit tough, particularly coming from one of your tender age, who is an untried horse in the reproductive stakes.

We all know that unplanned children are not necssarily unwanted ; I speak from the experience of producing 3 contraceptive disasters (diaphragm, cervical cap and mini-pill failures, to be exact-and I'm a doctor, for God's sake.

Just how adopted children feel about their parentage (and you have only addressed the apparent feelings in the families of your acquaintance) is a complex issue indeed, and could be the subject of another thread.

I never cease to be amazed at how reproductive technology has advanced since I qualified 25 years ago-Louise Brown was born just before I graduated. Her existence could not be described as anything but a blessing. Her parents were lucky in that IVF worked for them-it isn't a guarantee of success and is not to be undertaken lightly.

I would be interested to know how many pregnancies are achieved through "informal" donation of sperm for example to a lesbian couple. It certainly does happen!

Can anyone comment further on this?

cheers all,

m
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
Contraception is fine in my book, condom, coil, pill etc..
This doesn't fit in with your arguments, Priest. Contraception is decidedly unnatural and one is 'playing God', to use your term, if one uses it. If you argue that God intended sex for procreation (with fun as a lucky sideline) then contraception is against God's plan for humanity.

I would suggest that the reason you agree with contraception is because it has become accepted and you have grown up in a world which has it. You have never known any different so your acceptance of contraception is not an intellectual or philosophical opinion which you have reasoned for yourself, but simply that you see it as 'normal' so it's ok.

I'm not saying that that is wrong by any means, just that it doesn't fit with your argument about 'natural' or 'playing God'

[tangent]
Incidentally the inter-uterine coil, it could be argued, is a form of abortion since it stops a fertilised egg implanting in the womb. I think it's in an entirely different boat from a-fertilisation methods of contraception.
[/tangent]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
multipara - there are a fair few 'informal' schemes around for lesbian couples. They seem to work well and avoid all the bureaucracy of the 'official' channels - its amazing what you can do with a turkey baster and a jam jar.

I think the 'naturalness' argument is pretty dodgy : contraception does prevent pregnancy and if we take the 'babies are a gift from God and life should always be promoted at all costs' view, then it is consistent to oppose it. Give the Vatican its due ; I disagree with that line too, but its a good deal more consistent than the anti-abortion campaigner using contraception and justifying it on perfectly sensible utilitarian grounds! But this is another thread, and probably a dead horse anyway....
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Inellectbyproxy wrote

quote:
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.

Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test....
and

quote:
but with pleasurable sex comes the threat of an unwanted child. The only way to separate that threat from the pleasure is to separate the production of a baby from the production of an orgasm.

The threat can be dealt with through contraception and voluntary sterilisation. Of course there will always be cases where for a variey of reasons: rape, ignorance, carelessness, etc, their will be unwanted pregnancies but your alternative, intellect, is not so much Frankenstine (see comments by The Priest) but authoritarian. Wonderful? I think not.

Like most visions of Utopia, your scenario is not only dangerous but deeply naive. Imagine the power of governments and their 'baby licensing officals'; the possiblities for oppression and corruption would be endless.

J
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
This doesn't fit in with your arguments, Priest. Contraception is decidedly unnatural and one is 'playing God', to use your term, if one uses it. If you argue that God intended sex for procreation (with fun as a lucky sideline) then contraception is against God's plan for humanity.

Hold on, so what you are saying is that preventing the pregnancy is exactly the same as removing the egg, stripping dna from a cell structure, artificially inseminating the egg and then embedding it ito the wall of the womb? Or better still, the same as atrificially growing male stem cells in an environment that causes them to produce a viable egg like cell, then artificially inseminating that cell with another males genetic material before embedding that into the womb of a 3rd party in the form of a surrogate mother.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but your argument on my opinions on contraception not being compatible with my argument against un-natural conception is pretty lame to say the least.
My opinion, which is compatible with contraception is based on the simple fact that a couple using contraception to avoid pregnancy, can still naturally conceive should they decide to not use contraception, can two gay males do that? No. Can two gay females do that? No.
And yes I'm aware of the other unfortunate consequence, can an infirtile couple do that? No.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Priest,
That is not what I am saying at all, either you are misunderstanding me or you are picking a fight. My point above was made to reinforce the argument that philosophically one can not oppose something because it is 'unnatural' or 'playing god' and yet condone contraception as 'natural' or 'not playing god'. They are quite simply opposing and exclusive view points.

If you would be a little clearer why you think this technique is any more unnatural than contraception then we could clear this side argument up.

Can I say that I do not neccessarily endorse some of the scenarios I am putting forward, merely that they are interesting scenarios to discuss.

The point I was making was that, assuming you think that sex for fun is ok, this technique could realistically (and ethically) remove the risk of an unwanted baby from the act of pleasurable sex. It would also be a vehicle by which pregnancy could be effectively licenced

Not only could this technique help any couple of any orientation have a child, it would (assuming the licencing scenario) remove unwanted pregnancy totally, and curb population growth. It would be utopia.

I state that I do not believe that this scenario would work - utopias probably never are utopian. I also do not believe that this scenario is necessarily a Good Thing. It's just interesting to discuss it.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
IBP, I really cannot equate contraception being similar in anyway to the unatural insemination of genetic material in order to produce children, I understand what you are saying i.e. using a contraceptive device or drug is upsetting the natural process. However the instructions on a packet of condoms do not say "before sexual intercourse, get doctor to fit condom then observe intercourse and check results with invasive procedure".
Also with contraception no surrogate third party is required.
Further contraception is a prevention to conception and not a means to conception, it is an entirely different thing.
I think your parallel is much like avoid cats in the street because someone got killed by a lion in Africa and lions are cats. It has information that may suggest it is correct but the reality is somewhat different.
To summarise, I would rather see this kind of procedure not take place, I think hetrosexual couples who cannot conceive should, if they can, consider adoption.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Priest:
Please note -
I am NOT drawing ANY parallels between contraception and the technique described in the o/p.

again:

I am NOT drawing ANY parallels between contraception and the technique described in the o/p.

I can't say this any more clearly. I mentioned contraception merely to draw attention to the fact that your argument was badly flawed. I mentioned contraception ONLY to show that your 'unnatural, playing God' argument was hypocritical if you agree with contraception.

I was pointing out the flaws in your philosophy, I was NOT saying that contraception was in any way related to the a-sexual reproduction described.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
All you have suceeded in doing is proving that your use of contraception to show me as a hypocrit was fundamentaly flawed.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
quote:
Imagine a world where people have (been) changed so that they can no longer conceive through sex.

Sex would be purely for pleasure and to show love. If you wanted a child you would have to apply for a licence and take a parenting test to ensure you were suitable, then you would go to a specialist who would create an egg and sperm from you and your partner's cells and from these a baby in vitro.

If one of the couple were female the foetus would be implanted, if not it would be grown in an artificial womb in the couple's home.

There would be no unwanted children, people would have to think long and hard about having a baby, and then prove they would be good parents.

The world would be a better place. Populations would stop rising, the world's overtaxed resources would recover. There would be no orphanages, lower prison populations, smaller, friendlier communities where everyone would know everyone else and work together for the greater good.

It would be wonderful.
My Goddess! I just don't think this has been thought through. I mean, first of all it takes more than the right plumbing to make a baby. I know that people are having (and not having) unwanted children all the time, but is that a good reason to rob men and women and alternate realtionsip couples (groups, ect) the joy of creating our children within and with our own bodies in an active manner of participation?

That's (and I know this is not the popular term right now) un-natural in the extreme. Sure, contraception is techinically un-natural or at the very least a manipulation of natures patterns, but there are degrees of everything and various shades of grey and removing the ability to have children from people so that sex for pleasure is risk free and the population increase is curbbed is just oh so very violating to the natural order of things.

The gods made this act the act the produces offspring in every species on earth. That is a pretty heavy statement that it should stay that way in my opinion.

That said, those unable to have children because of biological inability (men with men as an example) should be given the opportunity that nature did not give them through science if possible. It's not "natural" in the strictess sense of the word, but it's (to me) a much less violating concept than separating sex and pro-creation completely.
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
I'm in a rush, so these thoughts are brief and probably badly put, but that's never stopped me before...

I'm bothered most by the implications for social justice.

Intellectbyproxy's distopian fantasy calls for state licensing. Every state I have participated in or read about is constituted as a device for protecting social injustice and guaranting the rights of the priviledged (a process in which the church has often been a partner). I cannot imagine a state not managing a baby licensing scheme in a way that would give rich people what they want at the expense of everyone else.

This is also the problem with surrogacy. It's not uncommon here in the US, and neither are lawsuits contesting parental rights over the resuting children. Amazingly, a great many surrogact contracts are drawn up between rich, infertile would-be parents and poor women. Lesbians and gays are just like everybody else and not posessed of some exraordinary morality preventing them from abusing poorer people when able. So this technology would seem to open up new avenues to the horror of abuse of the poor by the rich in "this womb for hire" schemes. This isn't an argument against this special case but one against surrogacy as practiced in the pretense that the resulting child can be raised in a two parent family, cutting out the rented womb (and attached woman). Surrogacy in a polygamous or other extended family structure would be a way out.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Priest:
All you have suceeded in doing is proving that your use of contraception to show me as a hypocrit was fundamentaly flawed.
I think you're running from the argument now, I don't believe there was anything fundamentally flawed about my point, if there was then prove it to me, don't just make bald statements like the one above. If you want to continue this side argument, please start another thread and I'll post, but this thread has some great discussion on it and I don't want to further side track it!
(I am going to Canada tomorrow and will thereafter not be able to respond for a month, so if you do start a thread and I don't post that's why)

Both Asdara and Jerry Boam: good points made - Jerry you used the term 'un-natural' and qualified what you meant by it, and I agree with you. The scenario I posited was NOT one I think would be good, or one that I think would work. I don't think any such scheme could ever work because the state cannot be trusted to deal with things like this. It would indeed be a dystopia, because it would be abused.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
sorry, asdara used the term 'un-natural' and qualified it, not Jerry.
 
Posted by Priest (# 4313) on :
 
IBP, throughout this I have given my opinions, I have not agreed with your opinions but I respect your right to express them. I think I have given adequate explanation to what I mean.
You so far have accused me of picking a fight and have called me a hypocrit, despite this I am not upset with you, I forgave you these small things as I read them.
I cannot give an answer you will be happy with as you will not be happy with any answer I give.
I can live with the fact that we disagree and I would hope you can accept this too, it would not stop me from buying you a drink in the pub and having a lively debate with you on a given subject but you may not want to drink with me.
If you want to continue to discuss this threads subject then go ahead, I will refrain from posting further on this particular thread as it is obviously a point of dis comfort for you and I do not wish to fuel any bad feeling, thankyou for the debate.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Hmmm.....creating children through a technical/bureaucratic process. [Projectile]

The neighbourhood I work in has 29% of the families listed as single parent. Let me give you a hint about unwanted children: the dysfunction is not the kids fault. The process suggested hurts the kid and allows the parents to not have or take responsibility for their offspring. The number of single parents would actually rise under this approach. Why? Because dads and mums would have their feelings seperated from the process.

I love my kid. I believe one of the reasons why I do is my wife and I had fun making her. And...she was unasked for; when she was a bump, we called her "Whoops". [Smile] She was a human accident but a godly idea. No bureaucratic/technical process could ever come close to providing the density of feelings that led me to love my kid.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Priest:
Absolutely no offence was meant to you personally with the above comments. I felt you were missing my point and attaching significance to contraception itself when contraception was simply a device to highlight what I saw as an inconsistency in your argument. It certainly was not my intention to label you a hypocrite because of this one argued point.

I respect your views fully, I don't think I am right by any means - this was an argument to explore an issue, not something in which I personally believe.

If I have missed your point, then you have my sincere appologies. Nothing was meant personally. There is no discomfort; it's not an issue which is dear to me, just an issure which is interesting to me.

And I'll take you up on that drink. Mine's a Speckled Hen.
 
Posted by Infinitarian (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Asdara:
The gods made this act the act the produces offspring in every species on earth.
Not entirely true -- see my earlier comments about alternative reproductive modes in nature.

(Bedbugs have gay relationships, you know. The males store their lovers' sperm and use it, along with their own, to impregnate females. Presumably God, or the gods, made them that way...)

I'm not sure I have a serious point here, really, so ignore me if you like.
 
Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
Will do [Killing me]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I'd object to the forced separation of conception from sex as described glowingly by IBP:

First, because it is eminently clear that the primary evolutionary purpose of sex is conception, and so separating the two represents the worst sort of modern instrumentalist/ materialist thought, the same sort of thought that has effectively turned babies into commodities already, and forwarded a new kind of eugenics, and

Secondly,
Because there is no way for the State, any State to set suitability guidelines for who should qualify as parents. How would we do such a thing? Imagine: Poor people? No, they couldn't support a child properly (never mind that poor people sometimes are very important indeed). Fat people - No. Bad genetics, or teaching bad habits. Smokers? No, they might croak, or have a bad home atmosphere. The disabled? Forget it. The stupid? Forget it. Someone with a juvenile criminal record? Don't get me started. It is completely impossible to figure out who will be a good parent, by any set of standards. The only thing you could do, really, is prevent reproduction by people already convicted of child abuse. So you'd not be able to prevent very many births this way. And frankly, even that doesn't represent a good way of seprating out abusers. We surely know of people raised in "good" homes, who bear eternally the scars of their emotionally difficult upbringing. We also know that child abuse charges don't necessarily represent unfit parents. We've heard about the lady arrested for child sexual abuse because she had the temerity to nurse her kid beyond age three. Attitudes on spanking alone could render huge swaths of otherwise perfectly decent parents unsuitable.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
(Bedbugs have gay relationships, you know. The males store their lovers' sperm and use it, along with their own, to impregnate females. Presumably God, or the gods, made them that way...)
Sings...

All things bright and byoootiful! All creatures gay and straight!
Aint it weird and wonderful the ways they procreate?

The bi bed-hopping bed bug,
Hermaphroditic snails,
Parthenogenetic aphids,
and Sonoran Whip tails!

All things bright and byoootiful! All creatures great and small.
All things bi and curious! The Good Lord made them all!

OK I'll stop now, I don't know what brought that on.

L.
 
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :
 
Brilliant, why didn't you write our eurovision song this year?
 
Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Laura wrote:

quote:
Because there is no way for the State, any State to set suitability guidelines for who should qualify as parents. How would we do such a thing? Imagine: Poor people? No, they couldn't support a child properly (never mind that poor people sometimes are very important indeed). Fat people - No. Bad genetics, or teaching bad habits. Smokers? No, they might croak, or have a bad home atmosphere. The disabled? Forget it. The stupid? Forget it. Someone with a juvenile criminal record? Don't get me started. It is completely impossible to figure out who will be a good parent, by any set of standards
Spot on! Life is messy and complex and wonderful, just like parents in fact.

J
 
Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Love the song, Louise!

Mind if I email it to a few friends?

It seems there's a consensus that states can't be trusted to regulate reproduction in a general way. Then how will we sort out the use of technologies like the one described in the OP's link?

Market forces? Good intentions? Hope?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0