Gay men biologically able to reproduce?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:47 PM GMT
    The technology has been in the works since the days of "Dolly" the sheep clone.

    Even the way they approached "cloning" was through taking an egg and cleansing it of it's genetic material, then they were able to input the genetic material from one of the donor's skin cell's, then the egg was fertilized then you had a clone.

    The way this would work is to take the genetic material from the sperm(it'd had to be the x half) then input it into an egg that has no genetic material. It should act the same as if that man produced that egg, containing half of his genetic material.

    Then the next step would be to choose whether you want the X or Y from your male partner and grab some of those sperm, put them together and then you have a baby that is half of both of you.

    Although if you were to take your own sperm and fertilize your own egg, you have essentially a clone of yourself, since you'd share 100 percent of the same genetic material, but chances are it'd come out more like fraternal twin brother since the two might combine is new and interesting ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 9:59 PM GMT

    A lot of Americans have a problem with homosexuality to add a science that’s also controversial to the mix would only further turn people off, perhaps even people who are on the fence with equal rights for gays.

    A professor had a discussion about future science allowing us to find genetic codes that could be used to create a child who was inclined to possess a certain skill: Musically, athletically, intelligence etc. I disagreed and felt it was wrong. I believe people should let nature run its course, unless there’s an actual medical condition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said
    Mil8 said
    Suecer4 saidthis sounds creepy... honestly.


    Doubtless the idea of replacing a living person's heart would have sounded creepy 100 years ago. My initial reaction was to agree with you. When one looks at it logically, however, there is not really a valid argument against it.


    Ok, here goes. We usually think of the purpose of medicine as curing disease. When a woman cannot carry a child to term, fertility treatments are in a sense fixing a problem with her body by allowing it to do what womenr's bodies generally do. Same goes for a heart. We don't replace defective ones. Indeed, same goes for gender corrective surgery -- we fix the body to match up with the "soul."

    But there is nothing to fix in a same sex couple that can't have a baby. The bodies of the patients are functioning properly.


    I take your point and it is a good one. The human body, is however, constantly being improved through scientific intervention (better nutrition, inoculations, proper sanitation etc), so it is difficult to argue that it is 'functioning properly' of its own accord. Using your logic, one could argue that a 'properly functioning' body ought to be dead within 35 years of birth, as was common a few hundred years ago. On the other hand, unrestricted genetic intervention might eventually be used to eliminate homosexuality, so, on balance, I am probably against it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 10:29 PM GMT
    In the long run, this will just be routine. If such a procedure is banned here, people who want it will just take "medical vacations" to have it done elsewhere.

    However, there is usually a LOT of work between proof-of-principle experiments and actual human applications. For most cloning procedures, there tend to be a LOT of failed embryos for every successful one, especially in the early development of procedures. There isn't a whole lot of incentive (outside basic research) to put a lot of effort in to such development, since the alternative is free and generally considered a lot of fun.

    I suspect that it will be quite a long time before human cloning is readily available.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    YAY for little Roro Babies icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    dannyboy1101 said
    Plus who wants to see a queen on pregnant hormones? Hell no thanks!!! Adopt. You can be like angelina jolie! Leave the reproduction to the poor suffering str8 married man. I'll toast him next time I take an amazing trip somewhere.


    ^ ^
    Win!!
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3591

    Jan 04, 2011 3:41 AM GMT
    Im sort of ambivalent about talk of this technology.

    Although I could personally benefit from the fruits of this there are other ethical considerations. I do wonder if all of the potential problems have been thought about.

    We cannot escape what we all are, humans. Humans procreate in a certain matter. And whether you believe in god or darwin or both you cannot deny this road can be problematic.

    And clearly something just because you can do something you shouldn't. Because we cannot know all the potential problems.

    I think talk of this technology theoretically will be used by the religious right to prove some political points.

    If 2 men can do it, why not just 1 person ? making a clone of yourself?



    We are not talking just test tube babies
  • needleninja

    Posts: 713

    Jan 04, 2011 3:50 AM GMT
    overpopulation is never a sin. :3

    jking, this is an interesting article indeed. icon_smile.gif