Perfect little child

This is very interesting. I think it's wonderful that people who cannot otherwise have children will be able to. Not just gay couples, but infertile couples and maybe single people as well. Now, if we could just temper this with education and science of birth control to stop all the unwanted pregnancies, I think it would be great. Only people who want and can care for babies would be having them.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
This goes against the laws of Nature and is not a good route for Humanity to take.

Does more need to be said?

Yes, more needs to be said. MILLIONS of things we do go against nature. Some are 'good' and some are 'bad', depending on whom you talk with. That this is not a good route for humanity to take is purely opinion.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

How many people would like a human child to be born and taken to the laboratory and murdered?

This is what this technology means.

I think you are confusing science for science-fiction horrors.

I am not sure how to even respond to this...why not just say this technology allows for advancements in shoving heads on pikes.
illogical emotional nonsense that does not represent even a slightly arguable subjective truth.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by vjr1113

 

I dont think its a good idea to allow same sex couples to reproduce by cloning, certainly not in current society - think of the child, it could do great harm if to him for example if the schoolmates learned of it. Thats why I am not in favor of homosexual couples adopting babies too. The wellbeing of the child should be our top priority.

Yes...we are not ready for it, because it has not really been introduced into our culture...therefore do not introduce it into our culture before we are ready for it...

nothing like a catch 22 to keep them durned gays at bay.

reply to post by SaturnFX


If I have to choose between catch 22 and higher possibility of children being psychically harmed, I would rather choose catch 22. As I said, childrens right to not be harmed should be top priority, so it overrides the newly acquired right of same sex couples to have offspring if there is high probability that these two rights will conflict.

And I dont think its so much of a catch 22 - just 50 years ago gays were treated as a sick people. Give it a generation or two, aclimatising society to registered partnerships and gay rights, and slowly when majority starts to accept homosexual people as fully normal (not just pretending to with hidden homophobic tendencies still present), then we can allow them to safely raise children without the increased risk of them being harmed.

Maybe I would allow it in very liberal societies like Netherlands or so, but not in other still relatively homophobic countries where even registered partnerships are new and hotly debated topic.

I think its beautiful that same sex parents could in the future have their own child from their own DNA. This can also help parents who are infertile. This technology could be a beautiful gift, to parents who want their own children from their own DNA.

reply to post by undo


I agree with your post completely. I do however worry more about what we have not been told. The countless experiments that are performed not only in our own country, but in third world nations where the laws of ethics may be blurred by money and corruption.
Ignorance can be bliss at times. I wish it were not the case

That's disgusting,is their anyone on the plantet that thinks two men should be able to have a baby together?

reply to post by whipsandchainsamerica


There are a LOT of people who think two men (or two women, or single people) should be able to have a child. There's no reason they shouldn't (aside from bigotry, that is).

There are so many children on this planet that are orphans and would love to have some parents ,There is no need to start breeding more rugrats in a tube to satisfy the people who want a child,whether its to impress their friends,get more social security or honestly want one.Its called adoption and the motives to make clones in a lab is suspect.

Welcome to future. There will be massive genetics manipulations ,eugenics, babies designed to work in special jobs and live in certain environments, growing babies in machines,suggested->required non-biological implants - all the way until "end product" will no longer be Human. This is inevitable. Our descendants in few centuries (or less) will be sort of intelligent collective of machines with few biological traces.
From our perspective it sounds horrible. But technological progress cannot be stopped and ethics are less important to it then capabilities and efficiency are.

reply to post by 12voltz


I agree with you that there are already too many kids and people should adopt. But I don't believe in legislating breeding laws for people. If infertile couples are legally permitted to make their own kids in a test tube, then everyone, including gay people and single people should have the same treatment under the law.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I am not supportive of any people whether they are gay, straight ,single or whatever ,having children by any other means other than natural breeding or adoption .If couples can not reproduce ,then that is natures way of population control, like in the animal kingdom where when a species starts to outweigh resources ,die off occurs to keep a natural balance relative to the environment.Adoption is the best solution to childless couples and solves two problems at once .Then again it makes me think that modern humans are not a naturally occurring species on this planet because we are not conducive to a balanced world because we think we can outwit nature.

Originally posted by 12voltz
I am not supportive of any people whether they are gay, straight ,single or whatever ,having children by any other means other than natural breeding or adoption

I understand your position and you're certainly entitled to that. But it seems a bit unrealistic that our species is intelligent enough to develop this technology, but you'd expect us not to use it. Not saying I think it's 'right' to 'play God', but my position is that if one group of people is permitted to partake of the technology, all should be.

If couples can not reproduce ,then that is natures way of population control,

That's very possible. It's also possible that the chemicals in our environment are contributing to infertility. It COULD be a natural thing, but I'm just not sure. It could be something we caused.

.Adoption is the best solution to childless couples and solves two problems at once.

It's a good solution for sure, but many people want to have their own biological children. I don't understand the importance, but I'm not in the habit of setting other people's priorities. It's not my place to say whether or not that should be important TO THEM, nor do I want to judge or limit their reproductive choices.

Then again it makes me think that modern humans are not a naturally occurring species on this planet because we are not conducive to a balanced world because we think we can outwit nature.

Hey, I agree 100% with that. Our current species (post agriculture era) is seriously out of compatibility with a sustainable Earth.

Good discussion.

reply to post by Maslo


That is the most ignorant, idiotic statement I have ever read. There has to be struggle and strife for our species to progress. You don't learn anything if you don't explore everything.

I'm sure you would've had this to say 170 years ago. "We can't let these blacks just run around free, makin babies, and eatin up all the white mans food! We must protect ourselves from all these blacks by keepin dem as our servants! It's for their own good!"

reply to post by gnosis111

There has to be struggle and strife for our species to progress.

Prove it. Prove that what humankind needs to progress now is more suffering, especially that kind which not the fault of the sufferer at all (being a gay couples child in homophobic environment), and what can be easily prevented.

I'm sure you would've had this to say 170 years ago. "We can't let these blacks just run around free, makin babies, and eatin up all the white mans food! We must protect ourselves from all these blacks by keepin dem as our servants! It's for their own good!"

What has liberty to move or being free (which is a personal freedom since it affects only one person, and when it affects more, it is restricted - you cannot step on private property), have in common with procreation (which is not a personal freedom, since it affects at least three people, and at least one always without consent - the child)? I dont see any analogy here.
No, I would not support slavery.

Originally posted by Maslo
Prove it. Prove that what humankind needs to progress now is more suffering, especially that kind which not the fault of the sufferer at all (being a gay couples child in homophobic environment), and what can be easily prevented.

I'm not claiming proof, but if you look at our history, to gain and protect our civil rights, there has always been suffering, wars, uneasiness and change, along with resistance to that change. It's just the way it has always played out. The RESISTANCE to equality is what causes the problems. And the only way to overcome that resistance (historically) is to claim the equal rights and deal with the fallout.

Right now, people have the freedom to procreate in just about any manner they see fit (without the child's consent). Whether that's right or wrong is another issue, but EQUAL rights is a goal of many people and the focus here. If straight people are permitted to procreate freely, using the technology of the time, then gay people should be, too.