Test tube sperm and the end of men?

reply to post by Udontknowme


I'll tell you "why".

This research has been geared towards helping MEN, who are infertile or produce low-quality sperm, be able to have children. This isn't about just "playing God", or ridding the world of men, but has very real-world, practical application.

Not only could this be a boon to those with reproductive difficulties just imagine for a second the changes to society when sex is removed from the retarded pedestal its been placed on in the past 20 or so years. We might very well actually move forward for a change instead of backwards.

Well, if I weren't able to have kids, I sure as hell wouldn't go looking to some scientist for answers.

If it's Gods will, it's Gods will.

We have ways to kill people too. But that is against the rules. We shouldn't go around creating people either.

reply to post by Udontknowme


It's not "creating" people, it's just creating sperm from stem cells, something the body does every day. This is a very good advancement for the human race and may actually save it one day, seeing as infertility is on the rise.

And whilst you might believe in God, many do not. Don't try to justify not having this treatment available because it offends your ideas about God. No one is forcing you to have this treatment and it doesn't affect you, so screw "God" and his "will". I've said it before and I'll say it again, "God" can kiss my hairy white arse.

In any case, just to shoot down the daft religious ideas, one could argue if it was against "God's Will", then humans would never have figured out how to do it in the first place..

reply to post by Udontknowme



Please explain how a "god" has anything to do with this.
Do you live in the Middle ages?

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Well, if I weren't able to have kids, I sure as hell wouldn't go looking to some scientist for answers.

If it's Gods will, it's Gods will.

Have you thought of the possibility that this is the will of God for mankind to go down this road.

How can you, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, me, etc., etc. fathom what is God’s Will? You have absolutely NO RIGHT to presume what God thinks.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Well, if I weren't able to have kids, I sure as hell wouldn't go looking to some scientist for answers.

If it's Gods will, it's Gods will.

You have absolutely NO RIGHT to presume what God thinks.

Regards

Yes I do.

It's my God given right.

reply to post by Udontknowme


Really? Where in the Bible does it state that you have the right to presume what "God" thinks. I am not a Christian, but I have read the Bible in my formative years and I know the Bible actually says man cannot know "God's" will....

Also, is it not a contradiction when clearly "God" has not stepped in to stop this? Hence, following your fuzzy logic, this HAS to be Gods will....

Leave religion out of this, it has nothing to offer except short sighted, ill-thought out mumbo-jumbo nonsense. By all means, challenge this on ethical grounds, but religion is a lame corner to be fighting from.

When people ignore the signs their body sends them (infertility, sterility) and go through with this are they not tossing good sense to the wind? Everything on this earth happens for a reason (even if the reason is screwed up) and there is no exception for matters of reproduction. No Matter if you attribute this to God's will or just nature's way of telling you that perhaps you shouldn't be having offspring it just seems to be one of those times where people refuse to accept the hand they are dealt.

This is truly disturbing! Life made in a lab and under a microscope. If this reaches fruition and accepted by the masses it will be the final strike to humanity. Now you will see designer human beings created much like we put together a car at the dealership. If everyone was the same I think over time the earth would become a dry and stagnate place.

Now bear with me, and allow me to don my tin-foil hat. Now, when we talk about artificially created sperm being used to impregnate a single mother; could it be possible through these means the Anti-Christ will be created? Some claim science is the beast. Now science as the beast, could it be through these means the Anti-Christ is spawned? The secret Cabal of Luciferians, Illuminati, Bilderburgs, and all the other shadow societies use these means to create their superman or messiah with all the qualities necessary in a man to spearhead their dark agenda. This is what really disturbs me with the whole idea of shake n bake babies, and this type of power should be left out of man's hands.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Helig


People could be infertile for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with nature "reacting", but rather environmental factors such as pollution or medical reasons, such as cancer. Would you deny them the right to children just because they had the misfortune of getting cancer?

That's harsh.

reply to post by Jakes51


This has nothing to do with creating "designer babies", or even "creating life in a lab". They take existing stem cells from the person in question and trigger them to turn into sperm-producing cells, something the body already does. Sperm is not life.

There is no real "genetic" tampering going on, so your fears are completely unfounded.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Helig

 

People could be infertile for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with nature "reacting", but rather environmental factors such as pollution or medical reasons, such as cancer. Would you deny them the right to children just because they had the misfortune of getting cancer?

That's harsh.

reply to post by Jakes51

 

This has nothing to do with creating "designer babies", or even "creating life in a lab". They take existing stem cells from the person in question and trigger them to turn into sperm-producing cells, something the body already does. Sperm is not life.

There is no real "genetic" tampering going on, so your fears are completely unfounded.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. However, I still think this has the chance to branch off in other directions. You know the adage, "Give them an inch and they will take a mile." Anyway, at least I can put my concerns to rest for the time being.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by stumason


If someone lives in a place so polluted its made them infertile/sterile then quite honestly they shouldn't be having a child in that environment, simple as that really. As for those with cancer having kids that again is a case of nature taking its toll: someone with lung cancer from smoking 10 packs a day probably doesn't need to be having children because obviously they can't make good decisions. If you have a terminal illness that will take your from your potential children's lives before they are prepared for the world then I question the sensibility of having children in the first place.

reply to post by Helig


What a narrow definition of pollution and illness you have.

Obviously, according to your logic, if you become ill with cancer, it's your fault! Or if the environment is polluted, serves you right! Let's hope nothing befalls you, hey?

Environmental pollution is everywhere. I'm not talking about slag heaps, pits of toxic waste and rivers of slime running down the street! Oestrogen pumped into the water supply from female contraceptives has been shown to lower sperm count. Certain working environments are detrimental to sperm counts. There's lots of things out there that can drastically lower your sperm count through no fault of your own..

As for illness, why choose Lung cancer? Just so you can point a finger and say "See, it was your own fault, you don't deserve kids!". How callous are you?

What about testicular cancer? Very common amongst young men who have yet to think about starting a family, but are then denied the chance to even choose wether they wanted kids because the cancer or even the treatment knackers your knackers! But you would like to see them denied the chance of children should they be fortunate enough to survive the disease?

What about other cancers? Alot are not the result of anything the person did, it's just genetic chance. Yet you would deny them kids?

I really don't like your narrow thinking, I find it disgusting.

Environmental pollution is everywhere. I'm not talking about slag heaps, pits of toxic waste and rivers of slime running down the street! Oestrogen pumped into the water supply from female contraceptives has been shown to lower sperm count. Certain working environments are detrimental to sperm counts. There's lots of things out there that can drastically lower your sperm count through no fault of your own..

Both of those are things you have plenty of choice over, thus it in fact IS your fault if you remain in a place of employment or residence where such factors are present. Jobs are optional, you can always find a new one. If you live in a place with crap in the water perhaps it would be wise to move to a location with a well instead? See those right there are choices you can make to improve the quality of your life, if you don't make those choices then its nobodies fault but your own.

As for illness, why choose Lung cancer? Just so you can point a finger and say "See, it was your own fault, you don't deserve kids!". How callous are you?

Its just the most convenient of diseases, what with the level of anti-smoking advertising being pumped out and all. But sure there are plenty of other issues that should negate people having kids. If you pound double quarter pounders faster than a frat boy crushes beer cans then you probably shouldn't have kids. Say you drank yourself into liver problems: probably don't need to be having kids. If your actions directly and knowingly lead to serious/deadly health problems quite frankly you don't deserve to have children because your choices in life obviously suck.

Feel free to call me narrow minded, hateful, mean, evil, and whatever else you please but it doesn't chance the fact that if you don't take care of yourself and make good choices that lead to a healthy environment for reproducing then you don't need kids plain and simple. If you chose to have kids knowing that by their 12th birthday you will be dead then you don't have the foresight necessary to plan ahead for a child's future.

Sucks for those random few who get the short end of the stick but their misfortune doesn't mean there should be an excuse for the majority who are too stupid to fix their situations on their own or make a few changes to their lives.

Originally posted by Helig
Both of those are things you have plenty of choice over, thus it in fact IS your fault if you remain in a place of employment or residence where such factors are present. Jobs are optional, you can always find a new one. If you live in a place with crap in the water perhaps it would be wise to move to a location with a well instead? See those right there are choices you can make to improve the quality of your life, if you don't make those choices then its nobodies fault but your own.

A well? Not everyone has the chance to dig a well! Christ allmighty, it seems as if your clutching at straws to legitimise your rather callous approach to this topic. Not everyone can up sticks and move to the boondocks and dig a well.

Many people work in jobs were certain risks have only recently come to light.

Some people might not even be aware of risks, many others might not have a great deal of choice in the job market. Your being rather abitrary over a very complex issue.

You would deny people a fundamental Human right because you deem it as "their fault" they are infertile. I do hope that nothing happens to you, but karma is a bitch. How about some empathy?

Originally posted by Helig
Its just the most convenient of diseases, what with the level of anti-smoking advertising being pumped out and all. But sure there are plenty of other issues that should negate people having kids. If you pound double quarter pounders faster than a frat boy crushes beer cans then you probably shouldn't have kids. Say you drank yourself into liver problems: probably don't need to be having kids. If your actions directly and knowingly lead to serious/deadly health problems quite frankly you don't deserve to have children because your choices in life obviously suck.

What has any of that got to do with the price of fish? Many, many people get cancer or other diseases even though they may well have led a perfectly "healthy" life. What say you then?

Obviously, if someone has drunk themselves to a point where they have liver cancer, or smoked like a chimney and got lung cancer, then it is their fault, but your blanketing everyone with your holier than thou attitude towards health. I assume, of course, that you live an ultra healthy lifestyle and will never get ill? Let me know how that turns out, hey?

God forbid you should ever be struck down with one of these diseases, but it is entirely possible, through no fault of your own.

Although, I suspect if you did get ill, you would be looking for a reason as to why and would never consider that you were at fault....

Originally posted by Helig
Feel free to call me narrow minded, hateful, mean, evil, and whatever else you please but it doesn't chance the fact that if you don't take care of yourself and make good choices that lead to a healthy environment for reproducing then you don't need kids plain and simple. If you chose to have kids knowing that by their 12th birthday you will be dead then you don't have the foresight necessary to plan ahead for a child's future.

You are deliberately ignoring something I have said a couple of times. After treatment, say for testicle cancer, and you're in the clear, you might want to settle down later on in life and have a child. Why then would you be dead by the childs 12th birthday? I'm not advocating cancer patients in the middle of treatment and not in the clear should have kids, but rather when they beat the disease and find they are infertile, this treatment can help. Not a difficult concept, really.

Originally posted by Helig
Sucks for those random few who get the short end of the stick but their misfortune doesn't mean there should be an excuse for the majority who are too stupid to fix their situations on their own or make a few changes to their lives.

Ah, so the majority of people who are ill are so through their own actions? Jebus H Christ..... There are words for people like you I would love to say, but won't as I do not wish to be "taken care of" by the Mods.

My gran died of breast cancer. She never smoked or drank. But by your logic, it must be her fault?

My dad has heart problems, yet he was in the Army for 25 years and was surpemely healthy. That was his fault, was it?

Roy Castle died of lung cancer, yet he never smoked. That was his fault, obviously..

A work colleague of mine had kidney cancer. After lengthy treatment and a transplant, he is now in the clear but cannot ever have kids. He doesn't drink or smoke. But that was his fault, was it?

My best mates mother got liver cancer and died 2 months after diagnosis. She didn't drink or smoke. Her fault, was it?

Christ...

Just to drag this back onto the topic...

This is not a religious issue, although I am mindful of the religious slant to all of this... The "playing at God" fears and as we have seen the "Will of God" type of argument will continually dog this type of work.

The major nations where this type of research happens (i.e. generally the West) have sought to keep religion out of the debate and focus more on human ethics and society.

To some extent this is the way to go, as religion does muddy the water with arguments that are often difficult to understand from (a) a non-religious/rationalist viewpoint and / or (b) a scientific viewpoint - like creationism or the discredited sun-goes-around-the earth arguements of the past.

As our understanding of the how all this works increases - stem cell research et al, we are coming face to face with ethical issues of significance. The "rights" and "wrongs" of this research and the practical or theoretical outcomes will tax the minds of men and women for years to come. Governments will be careful not to constrain such research in case they are disadvantaged, but will seek to regulate and reassure.

Beyond the headlines (“do we need men” ans "lesbians rejoice") there are real applications for this type of work in allowing women and families to have children. It will allow problems with infertility to be tackled and be very positive for those people in the future who have a need. Note the word “future” because the outcome of this work will not actually happen in reality for years to come. Prevailing human ethics and societies acceptance at the time will dictate the eventual application.

Regards





[edit on 12/7/2009 by paraphi]

lol this made me remember the bible saying.

The meek shall inherit the earth.

hmmm make's ya wonder

Why do guys hate on lesbians?! YOU MADE THEM! XD

Guess you've all got one hand on your sacks then eh? typing with one hand? Would it surprise you if men were conducting this research?

But your so right...would much rather prefer a real man then some..thing O.o

Hey! maybe they'll mess around with guys next and give them the wonderful ability to push a small human through a hole a little bigger in an asshole XD

Stared and flaged.

reply to post by Udontknowme


Seeing as some women like little boys, and other women like little girls, this is really silly to claim this will eliminate all males.

So long as people want children, some will want boys, some will want girls, and some will want both.