When we can reproduce, what new excuse will you find?

[Scooter]

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.”

[MajGenl.Meade]

Bloody awful news

[Joe Guy]

If God meant for gay people to have babies, they wouldn't be gay!

yrs,
yokelato

[Bicycle Bill]

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

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?

And if you say that "it doesn't matter because the other donor cell could contribute the X chromosome" — well, what happens if the other donor cell contributes a SECOND Y chromosome?  You now have a zygote that contains two Y chromosomes.  I would assume that such a biologic anomaly could not long survive, but if you're already fucking around with genetics, human biology, and the natural order of things in order to create ovum and sperm cells from epithelial cells, who's to say that you are not also going to be able to keep such a genetic aberration alive and bring it to term?

Don't forget that you are also going to need a female host/surrogate mother in which to implant said zygote/embryo to bring it to term — creating a class of women whose sole purpose in life will be to act as little better than a brood mare.  And then, of course, once the end result of your experiment in reproductive science is old enough to know about such things, you will have to explain to little Johnny or Suzie about how he or she has two daddies and one mommy.  Lots of luck with that one!!

Sorry — this concept just plain weirds me out.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

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.

To address your original point, which was this:

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?

I will rephrase and say:

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 does not have a Y chromosome.

Happy now?

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.

How does this impact on anything that I said? Surrogates are currently used, mainly by opposite-sex couples, but also by same-sex couples. If this technology comes to fruition, surrogates will continue to be used, mainly by opposite-sex couples, but also by same-sex couples. I repeat:

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

and since you have not shown how it would, neither can you.

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

Yes, we did, and your rationalizations are as transparent now as they were then.

[Joe Guy]

Kids growing up today and in the future will study history and see all this as natural evolution. They will be surprised at the ignorance and resistance to change many in our generation have had.

[Gob]

[BoSoxGal]

X2

[Crackpot]

(Side conspiracy theory rant) This leads to genetic engineering of babies which will lead to the accentuation of physical traits that will inevitably be poor for the survival of the species (unnatural skinniness, large eyes, pale skin) which in turn make it necessary to use time travel to abduct people from the era just preceding these advancements in order to save the species. Now by a lucky coincidence the best target for this genetic harvesting are the very people that in the current era are least likly to be believed due to the belief that they are inferior by todays standards.

[rubato]

They can reproduce now using methods used by many heterosexuals. Back in the early 90s my wife went to a baby shower for a lesbian couple who were having a child fathered by a homosexual male friend.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

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

[Guinevere]

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.

I get the generic need to procreate, but the ethical issue for me --- which already applies/exists regardless of the genders of the parents --- is 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.

[Crackpot]

Problem is the are far more regulations (most are somewhat reasonable) with adoption than there is with making your own (in any variation). And the availability "free and clear" infants is greatly overestimated.

[Guinevere]

Yes, I know.

[Scooter]

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.

Having worked in child welfare, I agree strongly with you in principle. But as Crackpot alluded to, the reason why there are so many kids in the system is that so many of them are not readily adoptable. My experience, both professional and personal, is that gay male couples have been far more willing to adopt children who are older, of a different race, have developmental or other disabilities etc. than the typical opposite-sex couple who is looking for the "perfect" infant or toddler. No, I don't believe that anyone has done a study to confirm that, but someone probably should, because they would probably learn that through all those years they spent being revolted by the idea of gay men raising children, kids who would have never otherwise had a chance at anything resembling a normal life have been thriving under the care of the two fathers who loved them when no one else would.

So if a few of them now wish to experience what the overwhelming majority of the rest of the world has always taken for granted, I'm not going to fault them for it.

[Guinevere]

I don't disagree with you ---- which is why I said the issue applies for me regardless of the orientation of the prospective parents.

[Bicycle Bill]

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"-

[rubato]

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"-

And the same is true of stem cells &c. Humans arrived and learned what the laws of nature are and anything and everything we make is from matter already existing which we can re-shape into new things or even convert into energy.

The argument from nature proves nothing. We are a part of nature therefore anything we do is done by nature.

yrs,
rubato