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.
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
Funny how "God" dished out so many brilliant minds to corrupt and religiously barren people! I've obviously misjudged him, what a sense of humour
The first question - is this process so unethical / without respect for human life that it shouldn't be done at all? (Or, is the implantation of a female-female embryo unethical, bearing in mind men and women are genetically nearly identical, i.e. the only difference is the xx or xy, you could be born a man or woman and you'd have the same genes except for the last chromosome). I honestly can't see the problem, it's no more freakish than growing skin cells outside the body for burns victims.
The second question - should female couples be entitled to parenthood as much as anyone else? I say yea, why not.
Although I have to say, if we could make it so an egg could be implanted into a man, I would feel it's not respectful to life in a sense, because the embryo may / will suffer.
However, biologically, the male / female divide is there and one of the most important things is that their offspring has an equal chance of being male or female, thus producing an equal number of breeding male and females. This would upset that balance, so it makes me rub my chin for a bit :chin: I mean, in the short term we wouldn't notice it at all. But, if there were more women (by 1%), then there would also be an increase in the amount of women having this kind of fertility treatment. Extrapolate this and you get a picture where in the distant future men may become a minority, or possibly one day, there would be no need for men. A scary thought
Just to point something out... there's a slight more chance of giving birth to a boy than a girl so it's not quite 50/50.
I'm from a rare year where there were more girls born than boys in a year (1985 in Iceland (although I was born in Sweden but I went into the Icelandic databases)) - that's an uncommon occurance because slightly more boys get conceived than girls.
Don't remember how much the difference is though. It's not a lot but it's there.
I agree, people should be able to make their own decisions. I may not agree with them, but hey, its a free world. Do what you want. E.g. abortion - I wouldn't personally do it, but if someone else wanted to, its her body & she can do what she wants. I just get kinda freaked out by the test-tube baby thing.
Its not an easy issue & I can't say I had a definite opinion on it. I don't like the idea of conceiving a child in a science lab, but if someone wanted it that badly, then go ahead. But I wish more people would consider adoption & not see it as 2nd best. Its not a magic remedy, it does come with its own set of problems, but its also a good option that many people forget/ignore.
Discerning??
I don't think infertile or same-sex couples should "clean up the mess" that is adopted kids (thanks for the phrasing by the way :yeees: ). I'm personally hoping I can have my own biological kids & adopt some more. Some people are fertile, but decide to adopt anyway or have their own biological kids, but also adopt. Its not just infertile & same-sex couples, & they have no obligation to "clean up the mess". But if they want kids, they should consider every option & not just go, "Hey IVF/whatever procedure it is, that sounds good."
:banghead: Its not a moral obligation - its just another suggestion that more couples should consider. Its not a panacea - it has its own set of problems, but its a suggestion.
I think their are some really strong (and strange imho) views on interfering with nature on here. Saz your views on contraception are mind boggling
"contraception is preventing the life of a child being made which is natural"
i dont get it, are you suggesting that women should be constantly having babies, because that's what would happen if there were no contraception. I'm unsure about your beliefs on sex for enjoyment, does that mean you think that you should only have sex when you want a baby? Are you saying that you won't use contraception in your life?
I'm curious btw, not having a go, since i just read it back and it seems like 101 questions!
For infertile couples, maybe... But for same sex relationships and single mothers (if single mothers wanted it one day), I don't agree with because there are other optons, like a sperm donor.
Yeah, I get it, adoption is a very worthy and noble thing. Nobody is disputing that so I'm not sure why you've taken umbrage here. I admire anyone who adopts, it's not easy emotionally and it certainly isn't easy either in terms of the red tape and paperwork and checks and meetings etc. But people should adopt because they feel that desire, which a lot of people (fertile, infertile, heterosexual, homosexual, married, single etc) do, not to plug a hole in a desire they have for their own child. I don't think that's fair to anyone. It may absolutely assuage some couples' yearning for a biological child, but it won't work for everyone and since there's possibility of there maybe being a chance of an alternative aid to their wishes in the future then I think that is just fabulous.
Whether it's your experience or not, there IS an undercurrent of pressure and a feeling of encroaching obligation for those who can't naturally have their own children... to adopt or foster. Yes they should - and more than likely do - consider it. I don't think any couple - be they heterosexual and wrapped up in a pretty marital ribbon or a same sex couple or in one of the millions of situations inbetween - takes that decision to undergo IVF or any other "procedure" lightly and on a whim. I know several couples undergoing IVF treatment at the moment and they are just devastated and breaking their hearts for a child of their own. Maybe if we look at the numbers of childless couples and parentless children logically then it does seem silly that such people don't adopt, but the mind simply doesn't work logically in that kind of situation. That's why I stand by my opinion that if anything can be done to help such people (and IVF has been wonderful, despite only really being step one) it should be done and would be with my full support.
The world isn't going to become overrun with genetically mutated female offspring of females, it probably won't ever even happen. But if and when it does it will merely be providing options and another way for people whose sexuality has precluded them from something that their gender does not - childbirth. Seems fair enough to me
As for it seeming strange and making people queasy, a lot of scientific advances were made in ways that would turn the stomach. I don't really think that's a good enough "against". Bone marrow is used in any number of ways, is it really weird that it may be used to this purpose? Maybe so, I suppose.
Second thing - to me the concept of what is natural always seems very strange to me - everything in your life is because of man's control and change over nature - from the road you walk on, the food you eat, the water you drink, the city and town you live in. There isn't a thing in this world that hasn't been affected by scientific change, so as others have mentioned, feeling this is unnatural is just drawing an arbitary line in the sand.
Well it's not as such, but the genes of the baby would be slightly different from the parent as everytime you produce egg or sperm it's slightly different from your own genes to ensure genetic diversity. Of course, having genes that are too similar means that you can get a dodgy gene in both sets which leads to a dodgy gene being used, leading to genetic abnormalities in the embryo (which is what causes things like down's I believe).
Which is why it's a bad idea for brother and sister to procreate
Yes it is using the sperm from one of the females and fertilising the egg of the other. Everything you stated we are aware of, you're totally missing the point. What Skive said was 'IN THEORY' would a female be able to reproduce on her own if she could IN THEORY make sperm AND an egg.
Having gametes that are too genetically similar do indeed lead to the increased likelihood of recessive traits being manifested, but it isn't the cause of trisomies (i.e. Downs syndrome is trisomy 21). What causes trisomies is a process called non-disjunction where segregation doesn't occur properly and causes a number of 47 chromosomes rather than 46 at fertilisation. No one knows what actually causes it, but the likelihood of it happening is increased as a woman gets older.
Exactly what I was getting at. People have no problem living their lives using an infinite number of man-made things, yet the second a scientific advancement clashes with their religious beliefs, it's suddenly "unnatural."
Precisely.
Too far for what? Who sets the limits? You?
Who sets the limits then? You seem to be implying that the limits should be set according to your personal moral agenda.
Who said you weren't entitled to it?
Of course. That's why we have ethics committees and the like.
What is "mother nature"?
What religous side?
Yes I agree. These things need to be carefully considered. However appealing to abstract concepts like "mother nature" and saying things like "there should be limits to our knowledge" (why?) is just woolly mindedness of the worst sort. Construct an actual argument and I'll stop taking the piss out of you.
I have a problem with woolly minded irrationality. Construct an argument, don't just appeal to superstitious claptrap.
However, merely stating stuff about "it not being natural" (as people have argued, the division between "natural" and "man made" is a false one), that there should be limits to our knowledge (who decides what they are? What are their interests in doing so) are not arguments, just irrational bluster. That's what pisses me off. I apologise for insulting you, but superstitious claptrap as a cover for not actually having an argument gets my goat.
Didn't you say something about "taking knowledge too far"?
I haven't actually seen you point out any implications, apologies if I missed it. I have however seen you appeal to abstract notions such as "mother nature".
Well you don't appear to have an argument.
Have you? Must have missed that too. I'll go back and have a look.
I'll have another read of you posts and see if I can find a reasoned argument in there.
However, apart from that, all I see is an appeal to abstract notions such as "nature" (a fallacious argument) and to "god" (a being who may or may not exist and with no way of telling either way, is not useful in constructing a reasoned argument - we may as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin). Neither of which are serious arguments.
I completey agree.
But with that nuclear fission is completey natural but it's arguably casued more problems than done good.
and god said:
let there be no transgressions of your designated purpose and responsibility
Thanks for correcting me
You're really making out like laying a road or building a town can't be differentiated from altering the fundamental basics of our biology?
Biological equality?
Are you serious?