If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm just saying, in nature there should be an equilibrium. Humans are destroying that.
But still, it's as about as unnatural as putting salt on a slug. (although that kills something, and this doesn't)
Whilst I'm on the fence because it would effectively select the sex of the baby, which is unethical (because babies shouldn't be 'designed' as a fashion accessory, they need to be respected as living beings), this completely respects the creation of life. It's just a taboo in my honest opinion.
I mean, when people saw the first steam engines they cried heresy.
God only knows how they reacted the first time a human being sat on a boat in the middle of water.
On the other side of the argument though, I would say why is there an obsession for everyone to have a baby from their own genes all the time when there are hundreds of children who need a loving home.
Arguing what there "should be" in nature is a fallacious argument. We are fucking up the ecosystem, but that does not mean we are seperate from nature.
You're right, but I'm not sure how it applies to this case. I mean we've assimilated the planet to our needs which has upset the balance dramatically,just look at the size of the endangered species list.
I mean, other than the fact that it would produce female only offspring, changing a single stem cell to a single sperm cell can't be that scandalous, surely?
It's merely the idea of a woman bearing a child conceived from two women that causes a problem, and I can't see why. The whole point of sexual reproduction is to take two sets of genes and mix them up; giving rise to dominant traits that make the species better suited to it's environment. The male / female coupling is the most effective way of doing that as you have approx. 50% of one and 50% of the other leading to a large amount of 'pairs' that are matched, rather than giving every creature two sets of sex organs, because it wastes protein and stuff like that. (the sign of good engineering is removing everything that is not needed, less is more etc.)
But biologically, except for the female factor, there is no natural reason why this is wrong......
apart from the fact that without human interference it would never happen of its own accord.
I'm not only against this because of the science part...i'm against it because it's not natural. Trying to compare this to procedures where something is removed (or moved)/bleeding is stopped or drugs to make you immune to illness is stupid....this is taking cells and forcing them into their unnatural form. Women make eggs, men make sperm...if they want a kid let them get artificially inseminated with sperm from male sperm donors.
How am i not making sense....natural is a word used to describe things that aren't altered by man, things that happen the way they are meant to...in this case, a woman becomes pregnant when she has intercourse with a man at the right time of the month, when lesbians and gay men have intercourse they dont get pregnant at anytime of the month!
Science is a methodlogy and a process. You're reifying it. Scientists can do things, science cannot. However, it is the purpose of science to pursue knowledge.
Too far by whose standards?
btw, we weren't created - we evolved.
Because I you made me think of yokel peasants with flaming pitchforks.
You sound like a religous nutter tbf.
How is that any different to injecting something into the human body that it doesn't naturally produce to get rid of a virus that does naturally occur? That's using an "unnatural" method and substance too.
You're a fucking loon too.
It means that your opinion is based on your religious beliefs. Fine, argue that you don't believe it's morally right, but don't argue that it isn't natural.
Nice, dude, seriously, thats real nice. What if atheists agree with her? Does that make me a religious nutter too? :chin:
:yes: my thoughts exactly. I know people want their own biological kids, but the fact remains that some can't, whether this is due to their sexuality or infertility, which they need to grieve over same as if they'd lost a child. Then if they still want a child bad enough, perhaps they should consider adoption.
I agree that same-sex couples should be allowed to have kids, but I hate the idea of test-tube babies. I'd hate to have been conceived in a science lab :no:
Humans have spent a helluva long time trying to get away from nature & now we're succeeding, even apparently in conceiving kids. If nothing else in our lives is natural, at least make our conception natural.
Things that have only happened because of human "interference" are "wrong"? If so then that's a big, long list of wrong right there.
Anyway, as Blagsta and IWS and others have said, science itself cannot interfere in anything. Scientists can, but they are part of "nature" are they not? Their discoveries are all part of evolution and you don't get a lot more natural than that in my view.
I don't see a problem. It's a tad Jurassic Park, maybe, but if something can be done to help a committed and loving couple comprising two females to have a biological child of their own then I am all for that. Who is it going to hurt? Not men. The majority of women will still choose to conceive their children with a man, no one is going to be forced to have a same-sex daughter. It's not going to hurt the child. If a child is born through this method then it will only because it has become a recognised way. It will cause a few headaches in a few narrow minds but I'm sure scientists will work on the cure for that affliction next :thumb:
The obvious argument to this is 'why don't those unable to naturally conceive just adopt?' but no one would spout that line to a couple trying to conceive through IVF or similar. Surely if one way is unnatural then so is the other, decades ago when IVF wasn't around then they would've got the "hard luck" line that a same sex couple gets now. Both are equally unable to conceive a natural child, both for biological reasons which - while different - essentially have the same end result: no children. I don't see a difference, those who want children should be helped however possible. For some people there is an overwhelming desire to have and hold a child of their own flesh, blood and... genes if we're getting down to the scientific nitty gritty. I can understand that, myself. Why should women have to throw themselves at the mercy - and rely on the co-operation at every turn - of 'benevolent sperm donor #7' if there can be another way? I see no reason, myself.
This will be opposed at every turn, anyhow, so even if they did at some hazy-point-in-middle-distance-future decide to go for and popularise all-female conception then I can barely imagine it would happen. I mean, I hear the trumpeting villifiers of feminism everywhere tuning up already. Won't somebody think of the men?
It's the making sperm out of bone marrow that makes me queezy.
Anything that uses scientific method is natural. Nuclear energy is natural, electricity is natural, medicine is natural, it's just that they have an understanding of how to harness nature. In order for it not to be natural, we'd have to get a witchdoctor in, and I don't see many of them around. In my experience, people only accuse something of being "unnatural" when nature is being harnessed in a way that they disagree with for some reason. It's not unnatural at all, but it might be undesirable - personally though, I don't see why.
I agree that this is basically the same as IVF & I do agree that some people really really want their own biological child, but I still struggle with agreeing to IVF & this procedure, simply because I believe that conception should be natural. Might change my mind if I turn out to be infertile though
I think what I'm trying to say here is I believe conception should be natural, but I guess its good that IVF etc are there to help in cases where natural conception can't happen. But I think too many people turn to IVF etc first, rather than adoption, & see adopting as 2nd best, which is sad.
It makes you queasy? I think it's fascinating! Lots of scientific advances have come out of far more dubious and unpleasant-seeming techniques and practices.
It's not anti-feminism to oppose this, but it will seen as a feminist agenda being pushed without a shadow of a doubt. It's definitely not strictly a feminist issue but it hasn't got "nothing" to do with feminism. It's an issue affecting women, it's in the interests of women and affording them biological equality. It's got serious roots in many feminist causes. If you're saying it won't be lambasted by a certain type of person/media outlet as being at the behest of a crazed, man-hating, lesbian feminist agenda then I think that's not true. But that's just my view.
The biology/science behind it has nothing to do with feminism, that's what I'm talking about.
Of course the social rammifications of such a procedure have potential feminist issues.
I see what you mean, adoption is good and rightly promoted, a fantastic alternative for those who can't conceive children of their own naturally. But as I said before, it's so easy for those of us in heterosexual, fertile relationships to say to those in other sets of circumstances that they should put aside their pipe dreams of a baby of their own flesh and blood and move on to adoption. Put yourself in the shoes of a woman in a hetero relationship but unable to conceive naturally, or a woman in a same-sex relationship who yearned to have her own child. Who is anyone to tell her that she should suck it up and adopt, that adopting is as good as having your own child... if she doesn't see it like that?
If we're going to get into adoption then there are myriad other issues. If heterosexual couples were a bit more discerning and precious about their "natural" "god-given" abilities to procreate then we wouldn't have all these children (speaking only domestically, of children given up for adoption in the UK) needing to be adopted. It's not fair that when a heterosexual couple decides to give a child up for adoption we are assuming it automatically falls on a same-sex or infertile couple to clean up the mess. There is nothing right about that situation. Lots of gay and infertile couples do adopt, but they shouldn't be made to feel bad about wanting to have their own children when every other bugger is doing it... when it is a natural instinct for many (most?) to want children - even if the process that allows it isn't seen by all as being "natural" in itself.
Right :thumb: That's all I meant by it, it was just a sideline to what I really wanted to say, anyway.
Science is definitely strange and gruesome and fascinating all at once, I guess I don't think or worry too much about the slightly strange sounding methods... if the outcome is something I'd like to see happen.
We mess around with the reproductive system in so many ways e.g. contraception, abortion, ultrasound scans, embryo screening, foetal monitoring, IVF, c-sections, yet conception suddenly becomes a problem especially when that conception involves same-sex couples.
Would people have the same attitude if sperm could be created from a man's bone marrow if he was sub-fertile or infertile?
Okay I see your point. So who decides where this imaginary "line" is? You, with your [assumed] natural fertility and ability to continue your lineage?
I'm saddened that anyone is anti-IVF, but I don't doubt that many people are. I don't see it as playing God since I don't believe in God, so that's a non-issue for me. They're playing "mad scientist" if they're playing any over-egged role.
I've already stated my point on the [in my opinion, reprehensible] attitude that adopting children should be the role in familial society of those unable to conceive without help. While adoption is a perfectly apt substitute for many, many people... some people's desire to have their own biological children is overwhelming, strong and true. If it can be done, let it be done - is my take on it.
The same thing happens in men though. All this is doing is exposing womens cells to the chemical that is naturally produced in a man's body. In an environment where the sperm can survive (one of those purple petri dishes).
Briggi, congrats btw
I suspect maybe this might be reactionary... and the 'somebody think of the men' comment I'm not sure why it's appropriate.
Though I would say I can see on both sides of the fence there will be feminists who will argue for this as a woman's right (or those who argue women shouldn't have this right), and then it becomes a political rather than ethical issue. Which is what we should try to avoid.
But it is largely accepted that gender selection is unethical because there is an improper respect for the new life being created. :chin:
Well, I don't believe in God so that doesn't really apply to me. What about charting cycles and avoiding intercourse around 'fertile days'? Doesn't that also interfere with nature (monitoring one's temperature) and then using that technology that would prevent something otherwise natural from happening?
Sorry, I didn't explain enough. I meant electrode monitoring during childbirth where an electrode is placed into the foetal scalp. Very unnatural and can interfere with the process.
But it still goes against nature. It's unnatural to stick a needle into a woman's spine and anaesthetise her. It's unnatural to use a scalpel to cut into layers of tissue, through the uterus, and pulling the foetus out into the unnatural environment of a theatre where it's nose will be unnaturally suctioned and placed under an unnatural warmer to be checked over by a paediatrician.
If an event, which is totally natural like meconium aspiration, or cord prolapse occurs, then shouldn't nature just take it's course and result in a stillbirth rather than interfering with science and playing God?
But then if you're against messing with nature, shouldn't you as an individual be striving to aim for a more natural kind of living (and perhaps not use your computer?
If you say we have no right to interfere with what nature intended, then it goes beyond the sphere of reproduction, and you'd better start enjoying a life free of any kind of medical intervention, or technological input.
Okay. It's just hard to tell sometimes when someone is arguing against something, whether they just don't agree with it, or they believe that it shouldn't be allowed, which is quite different. Like for example, I don't do drugs, but I still support them being legal because I think everyone should have the choice.
What do you mean by 'what are my thoughts'? Do you mean does that change how I feel about how natural it is? I think it's a disadvantage that it will only produce baby girls but if that is all that can be done then so be it.
I don't even want to get into a feminist discussion as my heart's not in it at the moment and that ain't right
Everything is a political issue. Not the way it should be perhaps, but that's the way it is, it can't be avoided. A foundation stone of feminist thought being "the personal is political", that says it all.
On a different note, the idea that "if things are meant to happen, they will" probably inspires infinite hope and assurance in many people. I'm sure it is a lifeline to many of the religious people among us. It leaves me cold, personally.
"It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things."
As for the Catholic Church, if we refrained from everything that bastion of righteousness told us was morally wrong then I dread to think what society would be like. The strangely motivated and sinister mutant that is Catholic Church hasn't got an ethical leg to stand on, anyway