|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Same sex couple can have children
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suggest that a surrogate mother would also be very useful. Otherwise where's the foetus going to gestate?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?)
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf
Ship's curiosity
# 1283
|
Posted
Here's a link to the parthenogenesis bit (which could probably supply a thread on its own ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ).
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).
--------------------
"There is a divine discontent which has always helped to better things."
Posts: 1123 | From: Floating in the blue | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
X-post, JtO-D. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
(where's me wedding photos?)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
And being realistic, technologies aren't banned - they just develop elsewhere.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
*FN brings her supreme intellect to bear on the question*
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
In a box.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Like when you put your pet rabbit in a box to hibernate over the winter?
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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".
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Priest
BANNED
# 4313
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
