Comments on: Fertility Breakthrough May Have Big Implications for Same-Sex Couples

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:51:54 +0000

@Gary
Sperm and eggs aren’t just hulls for DNA. There is some other stuff in there that facilitates the combination of the two DNA parts. If you just put the genetic material together that’s missing and they don’t combine properly.

By: melinda nelson

melinda nelson — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:55:54 +0000

What we do technologically needs to be far outpaced by the ability as a society to engage in the underlying ethical issues.

We lack the strength to consider the ethics of genetically engineered corn, nano technology and nuclear weapons. But we proceed as little gods: “We can do it. We will do it. Kill the waters. Kill biologcial diversity. Kill the species. We know better.”

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:42:53 +0000

Ben in Oakland said, “I’d be against it. There are too many children already who need homes.”

I think it’s very admirable when gay people adopt children who need homes, but honestly, if my husband and I had the choice, I think we would want a child biologically related to both of us. It’s a moot point, though, because we are too old now.

If this research bears fruit, at least it won’t result in the reckless irresponsible breeding that is the hallmark of heterosexuality.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:58:40 +0000

But then , I also think heteros need to breed less.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:58:08 +0000

I’d be against it. There are too many children already who need homes.

By: Gary (NJ)

Gary (NJ) — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:56:58 +0000

In the past I’ve wondered why they couldn’t ‘remove’ the tail from a sperm and somehow process the outer covering to make another sperm cell ‘think’ it was as egg and then fertilize it. Of course since eggs only have X chromosomes, one of the donor sperms would have to have an X, the other sperm could be either X (to make a female) or Y to make a male. In the case of two women, since both are X only, they could only have a female child. Of course working with stem cells is not the same as this, but the principle is the same.
I’m sure the distant future (if we survive that long) will hold undreamt of technologies that we cannot even imagine now.
However, ethical/religious/moral concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. I saw that picture of a human ear that was grown on the back of a mouse and found it very disturbing. Mary Shelley may have been very prescient about what science could and would bring in the future, as well as, the potential dangers.

By: Buffy

Buffy — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:54:24 +0000

Sweet. That would put an end to the “gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t breed with each other” argument. My wife and I wouldn’t be using it at any rate, as we’re childfree by choice.

By: Bose in St. Peter MN

Bose in St. Peter MN — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:30:55 +0000

I won’t be surprised if the first hurdle isn’t the technology at all — it will be NOM shifting from increasing losses on the marriage front to mounting scare campaigns to outlaw stem cell work.

By: RainbowPhoenix

RainbowPhoenix — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:56:42 +0000

I see this turning into a new version of the adoption vs surrogacy debate. I won’t comment on that here, but I wouldn’t have biological children even if I were straight, so there’s my answer for if this were available.

By: Filthy Pazuzu

Filthy Pazuzu — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 20:49:29 +0000

PS: Why not? I don’t see what anyone could object to about this. Religious fundamentalists should be overjoyed – they oppose stem cell research, but here stem cells are being used to create life!