Plan B Forum

Babies with two biological same-sex parents could become a reality in just two years

Researchers from Cambridge University have found that it is possible to make a baby using cells from two same-sex parents.

A stem cell research breakthrough has revealed that in just two years same-sex couples could have their own biological children.

Researchers from Cambridge University have discovered that it is possible to make a baby using skin cells of parents of the same sex.

The researchers have shown, for the first time, that human egg and sperm cells can be made from stem cells of two adults.

Researchers say the technique could mean same-sex couples could have babies in just two years time.

The scientists used stem cell lines from embryos as well as cells from the skin of five different adults.

Ten different donor sources have been used so far and new germ-cell lines have been created from all of them.

The team, from Cambridge, and the Weizmann Institute in Israel, was funded by The Wellcome Trust. They compared the engineered stem cells with human cells from foetuses to make sure they had identical characteristics.

Azim Surani, leader of the project, told The Sunday Times: “We have succeeded in the first and most important step of this process, which is to show we can make these very early human stem cells in a dish. We have also discovered that one of the things that happens in these germ cells is that epigenetic mutations, the cell mistakes that occur with age, are wiped out.”

In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

Scooter wrote:I'm pretty sure that if they can figure out how to make an egg from male stem cells, they can figure out how to make sure that it has two X chromosomes.

Surrogates are already used, primarily by opposite-sex couples, so I cannot see how this technological advance will change the practice or create any ethical issues that do not already exist.

We're all perverts, I get it, you already made that clear.

Bicycle Bill wrote:By definition and (normally) through the process of meiosis, an ovum only contains EITHER an X or a Y chromosome, not both, just like a sperm cell.  It's when the two meet and the genetic material combines at the moment of conception that you once again end up with pairs of chromosomes.

OK, if you have a male (who has both the X and Y chromosome) and take a skin cell from said male to create an ovum, how do you make sure the ovum does not have a Y chromosome?

Surrogates as used by heterosexual (or as you put it, "opposite-sex") couples are usually a "line of last resort" in order to conceive.  Nature or God — take your pick — designed the female of most species to be able to accept the genetic material of the male and furnished her with the necessary organs to permit this material to unite with her own genetic material and then nurture the zygote/embryo until it was time to leave the maternal parent, either as a live birth or an oviparous one.  This is not an option or even a possibility with a same-sex male couple.

I cannot see how this technological advance will change the practice or create any ethical issues that do not already exist.

As for being 'perverts' — didn't we have a discussion before in this forum about alternate meanings of the word?

Scooter wrote:I'm pretty sure that if they can figure out how to make an egg from male stem cells, they can figure out how to make sure that it has two X chromosomes.

Surrogates are already used, primarily by opposite-sex couples, so I cannot see how this technological advance will change the practice or create any ethical issues that do not already exist.

We're all perverts, I get it, you already made that clear.

Guinevere wrote:why create more babies when there are so many kids out there that already need a good home. I think every couple that has fertility issues of any kind should also be counseled about adoption, before undergoing in vitro.

rubato wrote:The arguments from nature are just silly. That "god designed women to" or "evolution designed women to". God did not design corn to yield the enormous head of seed it does or to be grown in rows and irrigated artificially either; humans did that. God/nature did not give us injectable penicilliin to treat disease ... &c.

yrs,
rubato

Bicycle Bill wrote:

rubato wrote:The arguments from nature are just silly. That "god designed women to" or "evolution designed women to". God did not design corn to yield the enormous head of seed it does or to be grown in rows and irrigated artificially either; humans did that. God/nature did not give us injectable penicilliin to treat disease ... &c.

yrs,
rubato

I disagree, rubato.
Nature gave us corn (maize); man developed the know-how to hydridize it into the huge ears that we are all familiar with today.
Nature gave us the auroch; man developed the know-how to selectively breed it to create the domestic cattle we now have.
Nature gave us the penicillium fungus, of which some species naturally produce the penicillin molecule (C9H11N2O4S); once its benefits were realized man's know-how took over to create a synthetic version that in fact can be injected.
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But the key point is that the original sources came from nature... or God, if that's the way one wants to look at it.

-"BB"-