Lesbian couples will soon be able to have thier "own" children.

[angus]

Also, a minor English quibble: "etc." is short for the Latin et cetera, which literally means "and the rest", so "and etc." means "and and the rest".

and if you have a PIN number you can use the ATM machine.

[Gabu]

Also, a minor English quibble: "etc." is short for the Latin et cetera, which literally means "and the rest", so "and etc." means "and and the rest".

and if you have a PIN number you can use the ATM machine.

And then you can please RSVP to an invitation.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also, a minor English quibble: "etc." is short for the Latin et cetera, which literally means "and the rest", so "and etc." means "and and the rest".

Oh, I already knew that. I have an odd sense of humour, that's all.

[nclib]

Men are technically superfluous to human procreation, that's a fairly old notion. Merging two guys' sperm cell's dna, though, will produce something not human, that does not exist in reality, 50% of the time. (Something with YY chromosomes, whatever that would look like, and whether or no it would technically be capable of surviving.)

Actually it would be 25% of the time. Mixing two XY cells results in four options:

XX - daughter
XY - son
XY - son
YY - unknown

While I am in full support of regular IVF treatments, I believe that all children should be conceived, through natural or artificla needs 'part man part woman if you will', regardless of who looks after them in childhood. The 'sperm' should always be male and the 'egg' always female.

Why? Is this a moral issue or do you think there's potential damage to the child?

[minionofmidas]

Men are technically superfluous to human procreation, that's a fairly old notion. Merging two guys' sperm cell's dna, though, will produce something not human, that does not exist in reality, 50% of the time. (Something with YY chromosomes, whatever that would look like, and whether or no it would technically be capable of surviving.)

Actually it would be 25% of the time. Mixing two XY cells results in four options:

XX - daughter
XY - son
XY - son
YY - unknown

You're right of course.

[afleitch]

Why? Is this a moral issue or do you think there's potential damage to the child?

To me, I don't care how they get there or who raises children, the constituent parts of every child should biologically be male and female whether through regular means, IVF or creating sperm from other cells.

[John Dibble]

Why? Is this a moral issue or do you think there's potential damage to the child?

To me, I don't care how they get there or who raises children, the constituent parts of every child should biologically be male and female whether through regular means, IVF or creating sperm from other cells.

But if there are no health issues with children created through this method, what does it matter?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why? Is this a moral issue or do you think there's potential damage to the child?

To me, I don't care how they get there or who raises children, the constituent parts of every child should biologically be male and female whether through regular means, IVF or creating sperm from other cells.

But if there are no health issues with children created through this method, what does it matter?

I'm siding with Dibble on this one.

[KEmperor]

I find this quite disturbing.

[Alcon]

Could someone explain why this is so disturbing?  It's not that I'm certain it isn't; it's just that I'm too tired to think about it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Its not disturbing IMO... Then again I am a technophile who is in favor of transhumanist ideas so my view may not be the mainstream on this.

[Dr. Cynic]

Could someone explain why this is so disturbing?  It's not that I'm certain it isn't; it's just that I'm too tired to think about it.

It's not disturbing to those who:

1) Could give a damn less how a kid is born

Or...

2) Really have better things to worry about.

[Gustaf]

It is disturbing because it's playing God in creating life in strange ways. Something like that. The question is perhaps whether people should be able to create life for their own amusement, so to speak.

[Alcon]

It is disturbing because it's playing God in creating life in strange ways. Something like that. The question is perhaps whether people should be able to create life for their own amusement, so to speak.

I don't see how this is any more "playing God" than regular old heterosexual coitus.  Both result in life being created, no matter how they get there.  How is using technology to emulate a natural biological process "playing God"?  And if there is no apparent harm, who cares?

[Speed of Sound]

Its not disturbing IMO... Then again I am a technophile who is in favor of transhumanist ideas so my view may not be the mainstream on this.

Woot for transhumanism! ^__^ It seems obvious to upgrade ourselves when possible and this seems to be a rather obvious biological plus, as I mentioned before. Plus it would shut up the "marriage for procreation" argument. Just a few more sh**tty arguments to go.......

[Ebowed]

It is disturbing because it's playing God in creating life in strange ways. Something like that. The question is perhaps whether people should be able to create life for their own amusement, so to speak.

IVF?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how this is any more "playing God" than regular old heterosexual coitus.

F***ing is natural. Messing around with test tubes and the like isn't and is probably the thin end of the wedge anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You missed out "n't" from the word with i and the s.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You missed out "n't" from the word with i and the s.

I think his main point is that the objective is to take a sperm and an egg and to get the two to combine to form an embryo, and was asking what difference it makes regarding how that gets done.

[Nym90]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this per se, but I would prefer they simply adopt (same goes for a lot of heterosexual couples, too).

[GMantis]

It is actually well known what happens with an embrio with an YY combination: they always die before birth. The Y chromosome is a higly reduced X chromosome, lacking most of the vital genes on the X.
Experiments on combining two sperm cells or two ova done on animals usually fail: either a placenta fails to develop (in the second case) or the embrio dosn't develop a body (in the first case).

I don't see how this is any more "playing God" than regular old heterosexual coitus.

F***ing is natural. Messing around with test tubes and the like isn't and is probably the thin end of the wedge anyway.

Transplanting organs is also highly unnatural

[Alcon]

F***ing is natural. Messing around with test tubes and the like isn't and is probably the thin end of the wedge anyway.

As natural as f**king may be, what about everything else that must be "playing God"?  I assume you also find cola unnatural and playing God?  As GMantis asked, organ transplants?

You missed out "n't" from the word with i and the s.

If the question is so easy to answer it, then, please just answer it.  Obviously the "answer" you just gave didn't help me understand your argument, which is what I'm genuinely trying to do.

How does using technology to emulate natural biological processes "playing God"?  Is God involved in your f**king?  It seems more like it's emulating something that people do.  But I suppose that sounds less threatening and all.

I think his main point is that the objective is to take a sperm and an egg and to get the two to combine to form an embryo, and was asking what difference it makes regarding how that gets done.

Exactly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As natural as f**king may be, what about everything else that must be "playing God"?  I assume you also find cola unnatural and playing God?

It's not creating life though (and it's the artificial creation of life here that I don't like; it's just wrong as far as I'm concerned)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saving life, not creating it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In just about every way possible (from a non-religious as well as a religious perspective).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If God created life, then He also created the ability of living things to reproduce.

I think his main point is that the objective is to take a sperm and an egg and to get the two to combine to form an embryo, and was asking what difference it makes regarding how that gets done.

===
Exactly.

Nothing and everything.

[Alcon]

It's not creating life though (and it's the artificial creation of life here that I don't like; it's just wrong as far as I'm concerned)

I understand that.  I'm trying to elicit why.

Saving life, not creating it.

Which matters why, when it's "playing God"?

In just about every way possible (from a non-religious as well as a religious perspective).

Then give at least one example.

If God created life, then He also created the ability of living things to reproduce.

And God also created things we can eat and drink.  Why is artificially creating them also not horribly immoral?  Why only creating life?  What makes that different?

Nothing and everything.

Woah, man.  You, like, totally blew my mind.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I understand that.  I'm trying to elicit why.

I'm tempted to say that it's because it's wrong and to let things go off in circles from there. But I won't because that would just be totally unproductive.

It is wrong because, in my view, it is not for humans to have power over creation. You could ask "why" to that, but that question would be as perplexing to me as my views on this issue seem to be for you. If you (impersonal you, obviously) see a particular fact as being self-evident then explaining things to someone who does not see it as being self-evident (quite the reverse) and who regards it as an opinion (and a very strange one to boot) is quite difficult; in fact it's all too easy to head off into the territory of trite one-liners and respond with (say) "some things are wrong because they are wrong".
I could be very wrong here, but I'll guess that the problem in this case is that while I (essentially) live in a world of moral certainties, you don't. Of course, there's nothing wrong with people thinking in very different ways about certain issues. Dignity of difference and all that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could certainly argue that all "interfering" in matters of life and death is "playing God" and in fact some people do. But I don't and don't see why it should be instantly assumed that I do think that. No more than it should be instantly assumed that you support (say) eugenics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could argue (for example) that it's wrong to interfere in the evolutionary process in such a way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See that thing about things seeming self-evident from my perspective but apparently not yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncalled for.

[??????????]

I find it personally disgusting, but whatever.