That's It!!! Damn Us All...

My main point is that science should be used for good, not for luxury. All medical research holds the risk of something going wrong, but I think that it is a risk we should take if it is going to help people get over diseases or help the advancement of our race and planet.

It shouldn't be used for luxuries like this, and a good point that Frontkjemper made is that a better way to help society would be to adopt one of the millions of orphans in the world.

I can just see this becoming a fashion statement for the sake of it tbh. Let's see, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie getting front page for like a month because they made a cute little baby, then when the novelty wears off and it goes out of fashion they will just ditch the baby and move onto what ever is in fashion at the time.

good, looks like we've got a theological/metaphysical situation here.

The world will come to an end, (but not in 2012, i'm not into this #)
and there will be nothing to do against it. Mybe God or anybody else will turn the light off when the whole planet is dead and deserted, when human life will be gone. That's all. What's a lifetime in this million years schedule? Nothing. Posting stuff on ATS isn't worth it. That question is too crazy for little guys and girls like you and me. We don't know # and we try to look smart. That's all. Accept the fact that our lives are just small cells vibrating there and there until the end. And you'll have less trouble in everyday life.

Originally posted by malganis
My main point is that science should be used for good, not for luxury. All medical research holds the risk of something going wrong, but I think that it is a risk we should take if it is going to help people get over diseases or help the advancement of our race and planet.

The problem with this is that you are trying to define what a luxury science is. And by this definition test tube babies and invetro fertilization should not be used either. After all, they are simply a luxury by this definition.

Some would, and do, say that research such as this is not a 'luxury' but a crucial and important step on the way to greater and more applicable science.

Once again I say: Should progress halt because a step along the way seems nonsensicle to you? Because the possible application of this one step upsets some individuals moral/ethical sensitivities; because it all seems 'silly'?

Originally posted by malganis
It shouldn't be used for luxuries like this, and a good point that Frontkjemper made is that a better way to help society would be to adopt one of the millions of orphans in the world.

My previous comment bears stating again: If this logic follows --that it is of better benefit to society as a whole, and indeed to the children involved, that two women should adopt rather then conceive of their own-- then it is equally right to say that all heterosexual couples would be doing society a favor by adopting rather then giving birth to their own.

After all, what makes a heterosexual couples baby more beneficial to society then a homosexual couples theoretical baby? What makes this heterosexual couples baby more beneficial to society then those to be adopted?

Forgive my assumption but it does seem like you are giving one type of baby the higher hand in terms of societal benefit.

Originally posted by malganis
I can just see this becoming a fashion statement for the sake of it tbh. Let's see, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie getting front page for like a month because they made a cute little baby, then when the novelty wears off and it goes out of fashion they will just ditch the baby and move onto what ever is in fashion at the time.

Just as there are extensive channels one must go through to adopt, to have a test tube baby or to use the process of invetro fertilization there would most likely be for this new technology as well.

One could not simply decide to have the child for the thrill of it all and it seems a bit absurd/alarmist to assume so.

Genesis 3

15 And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

New Living Translation

From Biblegateway.com

Ancient Biblical prophecy is interpreted that woman would have her own offspring. Other translations refer to it as seed of the woman.

Was this foreseen or is it just literary allusion?

For you christians out there, theres a reason it was Adam and Eve. and not Alaina and Eve. For anyone else, its just wrong. Theres a reason men have one type of sexual organ and women have another. They were MENT to be worked together. Unlike 2 female organs. Plus think of it, if the race of women/women continues all of their male hormones or w/e will start to dissapear for there will be nowhere to pull them from withing their bodies, there for something will go wrong. either their cells break down on themselves, or something with their growth will be messed up. Women/women is just not ment to be. i understand that ok yea they want to be together and have children, there are more than enough children in addoption agencys that need tending to. They are just making excuses so they wont have to adopt the children that are less fortunate in my opinion. They should stop playing with nature, and start accepting the fact that what they are doing, just isint ment to be....

Originally posted by Doctor_Question
Plus think of it, if the race of women/women continues all of their male hormones or w/e will start to dissapear for there will be nowhere to pull them from withing their bodies, there for something will go wrong.

Once again, as with other posters, you are assuming that all women will suddenly get rid of men; that all women will decide to reproduce amongst themselves and without men.

That seems very unlikely and quite absurd.

Originally posted by Doctor_Question
i understand that ok yea they want to be together and have children, there are more than enough children in addoption agencys that need tending to. They are just making excuses so they wont have to adopt the children that are less fortunate in my opinion.

Yea, and all those heterosexual couples who have test tube babies or children through invetro fertilization are just making excuses to not adopt children who are less fortunate.

What, it sounds ridiculous? Ah, yes it does...and it sounds just as ridiculous when applied to a homosexual couple.

I have repeated it many time but: If this is to be used as an argument then it must apply both ways. We should scorn those heterosexual couples who have a desire to give birth...especially if they must resort to science for wahtever reason. After all, there are all those children who could be adopted...

Originally posted by spines
After all, there are all those children who could be adopted...

Your whole argument is fundamentally flawed. Just because there are children available for adoption does not imply that humans should stop reproducing. Then we would no longer exist, which in my opinion may be the best for the Earth. However, for the continuation of the species this is a terrible idea.

While I do believe adoption of children who need a home is a very important idea, this does not mean people should stop having their own kids. This just seems foolish to me...

Your idea of proxy just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by biggie smalls]

This technology can serve a useful purpose. Men that are considered 'impotent' could greatly benefit from such technology.. NOT WOMEN.

Spines, no offense, but your yelling into the wind. No matter how 'bright' you try and paint the picture there are ppl that are going to find this unacceptable. Its human nature. No ones saying homos cant have children through other means, no ones saying these ppl cant have sex through the safe confines of their own home. Alls that we're saying is that these ppl should not be able to impregnate one another. Thats a God given right my friend. And it doesnt matter what you or anyone else in favor of this have to say. What next? Men being impregnated?

[edit on 063030p://4604pm by semperfoo]

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by spines
After all, there are all those children who could be adopted...

Your whole argument is fundamentally flawed. Just because there are children available for adoption does not imply that humans should stop reproducing. Then we would no longer exist, which in my opinion may be the best for the Earth.

I think you missed my sarcasm.

I was responding to the individuals who were using the fact that there are children in need of adoption as an argument against women being able to reproduce amongst eachother.

Read back through my replys...I adressed this more then once.

One more time for luck: If someone argues that homosexuals should not reproduce (once it is made available to them) because their are children who are in need of adoption then one must also argue that heterosexual couples (especially those incapable of reproduction by natural means) should not reproduce (when it is available to them) because there are children in need of adoption.

I was simply being frustrated and factitious; making my point by showing how ridiculous of an argument it was.

Originally posted by semperfoo
This technology can serve a useful purpose. Men that are considered 'impotent' could greatly benefit from such technology.. NOT WOMEN.

Yes they could, and it seems quite useful. And women who wish to have a child made up of both their genetic makeup could have just that. And that seems just as useful.

Agree with it as ethical/moral or not...it is useful.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Spines, no offense, but your yelling into the wind. No matter how 'bright' you try and paint the picture there are ppl that are going to find this unacceptable.

I know people who find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'; quite a few actually. Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

Originally posted by semperfoo
Its human nature.

[...]

Thats a God given right my friend. And it doesnt matter what you or anyone else in favor of this have to say.

And then there are those who would argue that all that comes to pass is already within God's plan; that God has already seen what was to happen and that God wills its passing.

I may not subscribe to that spiritual thinking but there are those who believe it with all of their 'soul'. To them science coming to this point has already been allowed to pass. To them it is within God's plan...

So I ask again: Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

Originally posted by spines

Yes they could, and it seems quite useful. And women who wish to have a child made up of both their genetic makeup could have just that. And that seems just as useful.

Agree with it as ethical/moral or not...it is useful.

Of course its useful. however only to a certain degree.

I know people who find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'; quite a few actually. Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

And any reason as to why they find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'?

Besides, blood transfusions or women impregnating one another? Which one is more extreme? Which one is more risky?

And then there are those who would argue that all that comes to pass is already within God's plan; that God has already seen what was to happen and that God wills its passing.

Your point is moot. Im pretty sure its considered a sin. Look man I myself am not the most religious person out there. However I do believe there is a god. I also believe that what you are defending is wrong. As for it being gods will.. Gods will was for man to live for eternity without sin. Didnt work out did it? Man is a sinner who has a choice to either turn to god or not. And thats all im going to say on that.

I may not subscribe to that spiritual thinking but there are those who believe it with all of their 'soul'. To them science coming to this point has already been allowed to pass. To them it is within God's plan...

Yes but what are you referencing to here? How is it comparative to homosexual couples being able to impregnate oneanother?

So I ask again: Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

Thats your choice.

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by spines
Agree with it as ethical/moral or not...it is useful.

Of course its useful. however only to a certain degree.

And your example of helping men who are impotent (or incapable of producing sperm I would assume) is also useul only to a certain degree

If the extent to which it is useful is the issue then your example holds just as much water as mine.

Originally posted by semperfoo

Originally posted by spines
I know people who find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'; quite a few actually. Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

And any reason as to why they find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'?

It goes against what they believe morally/ethically and theologically. They seem to share the same reasons that you, and others against the original issue, hold up as arguments against.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Besides, blood transfusions or women impregnating one another? Which one is more extreme? Which one is more risky?

The second of the two sounds more extreme and quite possibly, in its early stages, more risky. But should a procedures extreme nature or risk factor compared against another procedure be justification for writing it off?

The brain surgery which will save my fathers ability to hear and, if left untreated, his life is far more risky then a blood transfussion. It is much more extreme (taking a section of skull off and removing a tumor from his brain) and far more risky. Weighed against a blood transfussion, intrusive brain surgery seems ridiculous.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Your point is moot.

I was equating one religious/ethical belief with another to show that this is a relative issue. My point is not moot.

Originally posted by spines
Im pretty sure its considered a sin.

A sin to one man, a step on the path of progress to another. One to another...it is relative to your worldview.

Originally posted by spines
Look man I myself am not the most religious person out there. However I do believe there is a god. I also believe that what you are defending is wrong. As for it being gods will.. Gods will was for man to live for eternity without sin. Didnt work out did it? Man is a sinner who has a choice to either turn to god or not. And thats all im going to say on that.

You are presupposing knowledge of god's intention. You, myself or any other man does not know of god's true intention...does not know of god's definite existence.

Therefore god's 'true intention' can not be a basis for an argument of this nature.

Originally posted by semperfoo

I may not subscribe to that spiritual thinking but there are those who believe it with all of their 'soul'. To them science coming to this point has already been allowed to pass. To them it is within God's plan...

Yes but what are you referencing to here? How is it comparative to homosexual couples being able to impregnate oneanother?

I am saying that if you begin to use religious standards as a measure of ethical correctness that you enter a logical hole. There are many religions and not all agree on many issues. If religion is your measure then how do you decide which is correct?

Can you really say that one is correct over another?

Originally posted by semperfoo

So I ask again: Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

Thats your choice.

No, it is not my choice. Nor is it yours.

EDIT: Fixed a quotation error.

[edit on 4/14/0707 by spines]

[edit on 4/14/0707 by spines]

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by semperfoo
This technology can serve a useful purpose. Men that are considered 'impotent' could greatly benefit from such technology.. NOT WOMEN.

Yes they could, and it seems quite useful. And women who wish to have a child made up of both their genetic makeup could have just that. And that seems just as useful.

Agree with it as ethical/moral or not...it is useful.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Spines, no offense, but your yelling into the wind. No matter how 'bright' you try and paint the picture there are ppl that are going to find this unacceptable.

I know people who find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'; quite a few actually. Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

He meant as in pretty much everyone here opposing this except you.

And I'm sorry, but women having babies with women sounds just as ridiculous and immoral as men being impregnated by another man or a women and giving birth. Must I assume that you are in favor of men giving birth as well? How about human-animal hybrids?
I understand your point that maybe "god" or whatever brought us here gave us the ability to do this, but just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should do it.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by NuclearHead]

Originally posted by NuclearHead
He meant as in pretty much everyone here opposing this except you.

I understand this. But my opinion on this matter has not really played into acount here. Arguments are being made that are logically flawed and I am playing devils advocate.

If one says that it is not natural and therefore it is wrong then one can not agree with anything else that is not natural (so far only one person has 'met that challenge').

If one says that it is not useful and therefoe it is wrong then one must also say that all things which are less then or equal to it in use are not needed and should not be continued either in use or development.

If one says that it is immoral because it is not within 'Gods' plan then one is assuming that their understanding of 'Gods' plan is the correct one. Being as it presupposes both the existense of 'God' and insight as to God's true intentions.

If one says that homosexual women should not give birth to a child of shared genetics because there are so many children which could be adopted then one must admit that heterosexual couples (especially those unnable to reproduce naturally) should not give birth because there are so many children who could be adopted instead.

If one argues moral and ethical sensitivities...well, see religion I suppose.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Originally posted by NuclearHead
Must I assume that you are in favor of men giving birth as well? How about human-animal hybrids?

If it can be safely done then I am actually quite interested in seeing how that would turn out.

Originally posted by NuclearHead
I understand your point that maybe "god" or whatever brought us here gave us the ability to do this, but just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should do it.

That was not my point. As I said before: A few posters had use the argument that "It is not God's will; God did not create us to act in this way; etc..." I was arguing the side of relativity.

God's will is relative to whomever interprets god in whichever way they interpret it. To hinder scientific advancement simply because ones theological sensitivities have been bruised seems quite foolish to me.

After all, theology is such a relative thing.

The world will straighten out when the truth comes out that women are the real Gods, and not a minute before.


*Please dont hit me* Just joking *ducks and covers*

Actually this world as we know it has to end. Just look at the news, now we need a War Czar.

I'm ready to go anytime - I just hope its quick and painless.

Originally posted by spines

Originally posted by semperfoo
This technology can serve a useful purpose. Men that are considered 'impotent' could greatly benefit from such technology.. NOT WOMEN.

Yes they could, and it seems quite useful. And women who wish to have a child made up of both their genetic makeup could have just that. And that seems just as useful.

Agree with it as ethical/moral or not...it is useful.

tbh, if this research was going into helping impotent men produce sperm, i'd support it. But using it to give females sperm when they weren't naturally designed to is a different issue. Impotence is an unfortunate malfunction, females not producing sperm is a natural function that shouldn't be altered imo.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Spines, no offense, but your yelling into the wind. No matter how 'bright' you try and paint the picture there are ppl that are going to find this unacceptable.

I know people who find blood transfusions 'unacceptable'; quite a few actually. Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

Again, blood transfusions fix people that have something wrong with them. Females aren't broken, there's no need to alter them. Don't guild the lily, as they say.

Originally posted by semperfoo
Its human nature.

[...]

Thats a God given right my friend. And it doesnt matter what you or anyone else in favor of this have to say.

And then there are those who would argue that all that comes to pass is already within God's plan; that God has already seen what was to happen and that God wills its passing.

I may not subscribe to that spiritual thinking but there are those who believe it with all of their 'soul'. To them science coming to this point has already been allowed to pass. To them it is within God's plan...

So I ask again: Who's moral/ethical sensitivities should we bow to?

I don't believe in the God giving us rules stuff, but I do believe that nature gave us what we have and there are some parts that we can meddle with and then some parts where it is just going too far. And I believe that we are reaching the line in trying to change the natural function of the sexes. Gender is one DEFINITE thing that we can all agree on. So I think their functions should be left as they are, otherwise gender will just become obsolete.

Originally posted by NuclearHead
He meant as in pretty much everyone here opposing this except you [spines].

Well there's nothing wrong with that, it makes good discussion. And in fact even though i'm on the other side on this, spines is arguing his side validly and respectfully so:

You have voted spines for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by malganis
tbh, if this research was going into helping impotent men produce sperm, i'd support it. But using it to give females sperm when they weren't naturally designed to is a different issue. Impotence is an unfortunate malfunction, females not producing sperm is a natural function that shouldn't be altered imo.

True as that may be, I was only arguing that the condition of 'usefulness' should not be used as a point which would prove this technology (or its currect suggested use) as something that should be halted.

Now we get into some murky waters: Certain hermaphrodites may want to, with the use of technology, make themselves one or the other. The removal of the female organs and the reproduction of the missing male organs (usually the penis as the testis are commonly present). If they were incapable of producing sperm this new innovation would allow them to...

...according to what you have said, should they be allowed to have this capability of producing sperm; of making their process more complete and correct genetically?

Originally posted by malganis
Again, blood transfusions fix people that have something wrong with them. Females aren't broken, there's no need to alter them. Don't guild the lily, as they say.

Ah, a complete argument in this matter. Excluding the hypothetical hermaphrodite situation you have made quite a good point.

And quite elequently at that.

Originally posted by malganis
Gender is one DEFINITE thing that we can all agree on.

Ah, but is it really? You should entertain your mind with some reading on a concept known as 'The Five Sexes' by Anne Fausto-Sterling (a biology profesor at Brown University).

Gender, according to Miss. Fausto-Sterling, is something which may need some revisiting.

Originally posted by dgtempe
The world will straighten out when the truth comes out that women are the real Gods, and not a minute before.

I, as a young male with a bit too much in the way of labiedo, would be willing to bow to that understanding.

Evil as they may be.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Actually this world as we know it has to end. Just look at the news, now we need a War Czar.

Eh, the world is always 'on the edge'. Armageddon has always been right around the corner and as long as there is a crowd to listen there will be a doom-sayer to entertain their expectant ears.

Originally posted by Malichai

Genesis 3

15 And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

New Living Translation

From Biblegateway.com

Ancient Biblical prophecy is interpreted that woman would have her own offspring. Other translations refer to it as seed of the woman.

Was this foreseen or is it just literary allusion?

How can you take that out of context like that? Its clearly talking about the human race as the offspring of Eve. Now as for the Serpent's offspring I don't know what that is. Its not human.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by Malichai

Genesis 3

15 And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

New Living Translation

From Biblegateway.com

Ancient Biblical prophecy is interpreted that woman would have her own offspring. Other translations refer to it as seed of the woman.

Was this foreseen or is it just literary allusion?

How can you take that out of context like that? Its clearly talking about the human race as the offspring of Eve. Now as for the Serpent's offspring I don't know what that is. Its not human.

I am not quite sure how the bibical verse deals with this situation. A collection of stories and teachings does not seem to weigh in on this matter...unless of course you believe in prophecy.

Oh well, interesting thought though.