Would making babies from same sex couples be unethical?

[fredtoast]

From what I have read it is possible to take an egg cell from a female, transfer the DNA into a stem cell, and then cause it to develop into a sperm cell. That would make it possible for two females to have a baby.

So far it has not been possible with two males because the Y chromosome does not have all the material needed to create an X chromosome. But I am thinking that if science has progressed this far they will be able to overcome this obstacle seen.

None of this has been done with humans yet because, like cloning, there are claims that it violates some ethical standard. But does it really? I see no problem with it. To me it is not that much different from artificial insemination.

[*Nately120*]

It wouldn't keep me up at night.

[*michaelsean*]

Something seems wrong, but I don't know what exactly. Maybe just removing the necessity of men? So could a woman make her own baby with one egg and one converted egg?

[Benton]

The main problem I have — which is a little different than the intent of the thread — is designer humans. Evolution has taken billions of years and we still aren't done. Why? Because when we make short jumps, they're often short-lived. People born abnormally tall, short, extra organs. The potential for anything is in our DNA and it comes out occasionally, but I think it should do it on its own schedule, not one manipulated by us.

As far as the OP, I don't have a problem with that specifically. But overall, I think we need to be very cautious in altering DNA at all.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-01-2015, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this has been done with humans yet because, like cloning, there are claims that it violates some ethical standard.  But does it really?  I see no problem with it.  To me it is not that much different from artificial insemination.

You have a problem with GMO's....but this you're cool with.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-01-2015, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: From what I have read it is possible to take an egg cell from a female, transfer the DNA into a stem cell, and then cause it to develop into a sperm cell.  That would make it possible for two females to have a baby.

So far it has not been possible with two males because the Y chromosome does not have all the material needed to create an X chromosome.  But I am thinking that if science has progressed this far they will be able to overcome this obstacle seen.

None of this has been done with humans yet because, like cloning, there are claims that it violates some ethical standard.  But does it really?  I see no problem with it.  To me it is not that much different from artificial insemination.

From the way you describe it, I don't see that there would be an issue, but like others have said, I'd need to know more before making an informed decision.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 12:07 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You have a problem with GMO's....but this you're cool with.

Actually I have no problem with GMO's.  I think most of the complaints about GMO's are just fear mongering.

I just think that there needs to be more public research on them and that GMO's should be labeled as such.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 12:03 PM)Benton Wrote: The main problem I have — which is a little different than the intent of the thread — is designer humans. Evolution has taken billions of years and we still aren't done. Why? Because when we make short jumps, they're often short-lived. People born abnormally tall, short, extra organs. The potential for anything is in our DNA and it comes out occasionally, but I think it should do it on its own schedule, not one manipulated by us.

As far as the OP, I don't have a problem with that specifically. But overall, I think we need to be very cautious in altering DNA at all.

I usually reject "slippery slope" argument, but in this case I agree 100% with Benton.

Once we start "designing" babies everyone is going to want one.  And we have to be very, very careful in this area.

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 12:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Something seems wrong, but I don't know what exactly.  Maybe just removing the necessity of men?  So could a woman make her own baby with one egg and one converted egg?

I'm not sure I have the whole picture, but haven't sperm banks effectively done the same thing?  This just lets the recipient parents sire offspring with each of their genes instead of one of their genes and some stranger who yanked it into a cup.  Makes sense to me.

[*bfine32*]

I don't know if this suggestion is old, aready in practice, unreasonable, or plausible; but here is what I would suggest:

That a list of Same Sex Couples that want a baby should be in a database at every abortion clinic in the country. We a mother comes in with an unwanted child there should be every measure taken to persuede her into carrying the child to term and surrendering to the SSC once conceived. Of course all medical expenses and arrangements would be covered bu the SSC.

Admittedly there is a burden on the carrying mother, but it would be an alternatve to one of the main reasons I am told women seek abortions. It is not my attempt to hi-jack or turn into a discussion on the morality/legality of abortion, so please go there in another thread designed for such.

As to the OP: It hurts my head. Who would carry the child to term?

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 12:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know if this suggestion is old, aready in practice, unreasonable, or plausible; but here is what I would suggest:

That a list of Same Sex Couples that want a baby should be in a database at every abortion clinic in the country. We a mother comes in with an unwanted child there should be every measure taken to persuede her into carrying the child to term and surrendering to the SSC once conceived. Of course all medical expenses and arrangements would be covered bu the SSC.

Admittedly there is a burden on the carrying mother, but it would be an alternatve to one of the main reasons I am told women seek abortions. It is not my attempt to hi-jack or turn into a discussion on the morality/legality of abortion, so please go there in another thread designed for such.

As to the OP: It hurts my head. Who would carry the child to term?

I always thought of this as an unlikely, yet positive compromise.  Then again, being a straight male I'm not allowed to say anything about abortion if I plan on ever snagging a woman for myself, so meh.

[6andcounting]

(07-01-2015, 12:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I have no problem with GMO's.  I think most of the complaints about GMO's are just fear mongering.

I just think that there needs to be more public research on them and that GMO's should be labeled as such.

I don't know why people think the only 2 positions regarding gmo's are ban them completely or ignore them completely. Label them so people know what they are buying and let people make their own choices.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 12:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know if this suggestion is old, aready in practice, unreasonable, or plausible; but here is what I would suggest:

That a list of Same Sex Couples that want a baby should be in a database at every abortion clinic in the country. We a mother comes in with an unwanted child there should be every measure taken to persuede her into carrying the child to term and surrendering to the SSC once conceived. Of course all medical expenses and arrangements would be covered bu the SSC.

Admittedly there is a burden on the carrying mother, but it would be an alternatve to one of the main reasons I am told women seek abortions. It is not my attempt to hi-jack or turn into a discussion on the morality/legality of abortion, so please go there in another thread designed for such.

This would be a good idea for all couples who want a baby but can't have one themselves, not just same sex couples.

I don't know about "every measure taken to persuade her", but it could at least be offered as an option. The problem is that as a woman carries a baby inside her she becomes attached to it. It is very tough for a woman to give up a baby after she has had it growing inside you for 9 months.

(07-01-2015, 12:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the OP: It hurts my head. Who would carry the child to term?

One woman would donate her DNA to create a sperm cell.  The other woman would carry the baby just like any other artificial insemination.

If they figure out how to make an egg with a guy's DNA I guess they would have to find a female to carry the baby.

[mallorian69]

(07-01-2015, 12:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually I have no problem with GMO's.  I think most of the complaints about GMO's are just fear mongering.

I just think that there needs to be more public research on them and that GMO's should be labeled as such.

So should the babies created by this method be labeled as well? Maybe a tattoo on their forehead?

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 05:57 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So should the babies created by this method be labeled as well? Maybe a tattoo on their forehead?

Only if we plan on eating them.  Do we plan on eating them?  You can tell me.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 01:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If they figure out how to make an egg with a guy's DNA I guess they would have to find a female to carry the baby.

But what about this...

fredtoast Wrote:It is very tough for a woman to give up a baby after she has had it growing inside you for 9 months.

[StLucieBengal]

I respect the desire to want a child with their own DNA. But wouldnt this just be opening up a GATTACA scenario? Where we start making elite humans, and any regular conception would be considered lower end humans.

[mallorian69]

(07-01-2015, 05:59 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Only if we plan on eating them.  Do we plan on eating them?  You can tell me.

Of course we would. Veal is much better than full grown cow so Why wouldn't baby be better than full grown people?

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 06:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I respect the desire to want a child with their own DNA.   But wouldnt this just be opening up a GATTACA scenario?  Where we start making elite humans, and any regular conception would be considered lower end humans.

Yes, and if we land on the moon we're going to awaken the angry Moon Man who attack our planet for our hubris to reach beyond the stars!

[StLucieBengal]

(07-01-2015, 06:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yes, and if we land on the moon we're going to awaken the angry Moon Man who attack our planet for our hubris to reach beyond the stars!

Yeah I could never see us ever trying to make a master race of humans... With our history is supporting eugenics and all.... You know very well where people would take this..... First it would be to eradicate alcoholism, obesity, etc.... Then we would be doing it to extend lives, and prevent all potential health problems .... For the ones who could afford it ofc....