Same-Sex Couples Could Create Children

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
well at least the docs have some alleged good intent? Whereas Monsanto modifies purely for profit no?

The doctors have exactly the same intent as Monsanto... money. Neither do it for the good of humanity, but will certainly say it is.

Millions of orphans around the world and doctors need to 'create' a life for same sex couples. Really?

Millions of beneficial plants on this planet and Monsanto needs to 'create' new ones? Uhuh...

It's all about the money.

Oh, and about the Luddism... ever notice the outcry whenever something changes, even within the ATS microcosm itself? People HATE change, whether it's within small communities or of a global concern. (eg. bag tag fees for garbage pickup or Climate Change) The only humans who like it are either too young to understand the impact or are in on the cash that results from those changes. Most everyone else instinctively complains.

I found many of the responses to this topic rather amusing, there certainly are a lot of people out there was some distorted views of gay couples.

Speaking as someone who was raised by his uncle and his partner because my STRAIGHT parents never could get their act together long enough to form a cohesive family unit, I think the the idea put forth by some on this thread that gay couples can't be parents is ludicrous.

My uncles provided a stable loving environment for myself and my two sisters. We all grew up healthy and happy. We all went to college (paid for by my uncles) and are we are all in healthy relationships. I am NOT saying that gay couples are better or have less problems, I think that gay couples have just as much chance of screwing up their kids as straight couples do.

As for the actual topic of this thread; No, I do not believe that gay couples should have biological children. There are enough unwanted children out there that I don't even think that straight people should be having more kids. When all the unwanted children are adopted then this issue could be revisited.

Anyway, just my two cents

Originally posted by AllInMyHead There are enough unwanted children out there that I don't even think that straight people should be having more kids. When all the unwanted children are adopted then this issue could be revisited.

So when heterosexuals stop popping out children they don't want because they can't quite figure out how to put a condom on (granted there are mishaps,) we can start producing children with our own genes like you all get to?

All this talk about homosexuals and irresponsibility, while at the same time I keep reading these recommendations that gays should adopt the fruits of heterosexual irresponsibility. :shk:

If I were to have a child (which by the way, I don't plan to), I would want one that has some resemblance to myself and if it were the case, my better half. There are other ways this could be done though. I know many gay couples that opted for en vitro fertilization with the use of a female siblings egg. That way you would get the closest possible genetic likeness. Before I get accused of it though, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with people who chose to adopt, and I mean absolutely no offense whatsoever to those who are adopted. It is only my personal viewpoint for my life.

As for this method, again, I made it clear I see nothing wrong with it from the health standpoint as I am typing while drinking my mocha with Sweet and Low and puffing on a Marlboro. *shrug*

I dont see why a homosexual couple cannot just adopt children? Technically, by making the choice of defying the biological reporductive order, you accept the inability to foster a child between the two partner. However, If it is really the child that is important here, and not just the "wants" of the homosexual couple, why not adopt a child?

There are thousands of children who would like to have nothing more than two parents who love them, regardless of their gender. Of course the older children may rebel, but if they adopt infants or young toddlers, they may adapt rather well.

I don't think homosexual couple should begin takeing genetic experimintation to attempt to have a biological child between themselves, and then decide to sue if it don't work out. We can debate about the natural occurnece of homosexuality in the wild, but I am sure we can agree that male or femal animal pairs do not concieve and give birth in the wild.

No the seahorse is not an example. The female concieves eggs which have young in them, and deposit them in a naturally existing pouch in the male. The human equivelant would be a female depositing her fertilized egg into an pouch, kind of like the same type of pouch a kangaroo has, which we human males do not have. This animal has specifically evovled into this process by natural selection, or was created specifically like this by God, whatever road you want to take.

The best that can be done is say, create an artifical pouch the imitates a womb, and have a male wear it around him as the thing grows. I am sure that would be wierd no? Because humans were not created in the same way, or were not evolved by natural selection in this process.

So if you are a homosexual couple and want children, do the right thing and adopt a child. We will start working on that legislation to make it easier once a more liberal administration has entered the White House.

reply to post by DYepes


If you read he entire article this no about the wants or homosexual couples this about a scientific brake that can help no only a homosexual couple that may want a child but greatly will benefit male and female couples that are infertile.

Just want to point out the littler fact that people are forgetting in the previous post in order to be able to use the article for gay bashing.

Ok I udnerstand that, but if two homosexual couple attempt to utilize same sex genetic code to produce a child, there will be problems. It is the right and privelage to have an opposite sex volunteer assist a homosexual couple in having a child, but the genetic code must come from opposite sex.

No problems there. If you combine the genetic code of the same sex partners, there will be negative genetic, anatomical, and neorological consequences to the child, regardless of what a money hungry scientist with a degree may say.

If your homosexual couple, only one of your genetic codes is going to that child period.

reply to post by DYepes


Actually I agree that genetic material that may no be desirable can be transfer to the embryo, but also if this scientist can go this far then they will be able to modify genetic codes to create something close to perfection.

Then that will be something real to worry about than homosexuals genetic codes or male and female couples of tainted codes transferring to their offprings.

Scientist could create the perfect human being.

Perhaps eradicating disease, but then again the big pharma will never allow something like that, how can they survive without their milking cows.

marg,

if you check the previous article on this technique and related legislation, you will find that one of the key parts of the bill is:

No father needed: Clinics offering IVF treatment would no longer be required to consider the need for a father in raising a child. Same-sex couples would be recognised as legal parents, allowing lesbian couples to have children.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2008/03/10/nembryo110.xml

I do consider this to be very much an attempt to expand "gay rights" into the territory of collective "human rights". I am all for a man being allowed to do whatever he wants behind closed doors... until what he is doing has the potential to endanger others.

The technique they are describing also involves the use of animal/human hybrid "chimera embryos"


Purposefully, and knowingly, creating innocent children without male chromosomes using animal/human hybrid embryos...

I'm sorry...

I just can't help but see a black hole at the end of this rabbit tunnel.

especially when you take this into account:

same source....

...if they vote against they will not remain members of the Government.

Originally posted by niteboy82
As for this method, again, I made it clear I see nothing wrong with it from the health standpoint as I am typing while drinking my mocha with Sweet and Low and puffing on a Marlboro. *shrug*

I'm sitting here eating homegrown organic potatoes, green onions, and collards; sipping filtered rainwater; and I only come here to type because I care about those of you sipping sweet and low, puffing chemicals, and encouraging government legislation which will adversely effect our collective genome.

*shrug*

Sri Oracle


[edit on 17-4-2008 by Sri Oracle]

I support "homosexual" reproduction 1 million % .. I personaly think that the ones i know are sooo much better parents than the single mother hetro familys i know of . 70% of hetro couples didnt even plan for the kids they have . A good 30% of them are given up .

As stated above by nightboy. Why force homosexuals to pick up the slack for you ?
If hetros give up soooo many children to adoption . What make you think that THEY deserve children at all ?

Whats funny is if you put this in #'s At this point 100% of children given up by there biological parents were from straight couples . (seeing as homosexuals cant naturally breed)
I say give them a chance . This is so guilty before even given the chance to prove innocence .

I of course don't believe I'll ever have children . Its mostly in protest of all the horrible parents out there . How could i expect to raise a kid around all the hate that is spewed like this .
I know if i had a gay son/daughter. And i had to listen to this crap you guys are spouting i would probably become a very violent person :/

In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.
[]
Cast not over your shoulder behind you the warnings of the nephews
and nieces should they chide you for any error or wrong you may
do, but return to the way of the Great Law which is just and
right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and
have always in view not only the present but also the coming
generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface
of the ground -- the unborn of the future Nation."

The Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy

reply to post by Sri Oracle

The thickness of your skin shall be seven spans -- which is to
say that you shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism.
Your heart shall be filled with peace and good will and your mind filled
with a yearning for the welfare of the people of the Confederacy. With
endless patience you shall carry out your duty and your firmness shall be
tempered with tenderness for your people. Neither anger nor fury shall find
lodgement in your mind and all your words and actions shall be marked with
calm deliberation. In all of your deliberations in the Confederate Council,
in your efforts at law making, in all your official acts, self interest
shall be cast into oblivion. Cast not over your shoulder behind you the
warnings of the nephews and nieces should they chide you for any error or
wrong you may do, but return to the way of the Great Law which is just and
right. Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always
in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those
whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground -- the unborn of the
future Nation."

A bigger chunk of said quote referred to above..

Originally posted by DYepes
However, If it is really the child that is important here, and not just the "wants" of the homosexual couple, why not adopt a child?

I understand, and completely agree. I am very pro adoption idea. It's what I grew up in myself, and there are so many kids that need a family.

This isn't specific to homosexual couples. Also applies to infertile hetero couples. They want the baby to be as genetically related as possible to them. Makes total sense, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that. But I feel many people have this pre-conceived idea that they would not be able to grow as attached to an adopted child, and I know from experience you can.


[edit on 013030p://17u59 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Sri Oracle


You know I do not agree completely with the artificial creation of any human being be for same sex couples or just for infertile ones, now that I lay out that part of my views let talk about the artificial creation of a embryo.

I truly believe that the article also said that in order to do this either the sperm and egg has to be created in the lab (artificially) from other cells of the body.

Actually this cloning, cloning for humans in the US is not acceptable so we have argued here so much about the subject of gay rights or not, their social and religious implication, and the true is that unless legislation is passed is not going to happen.

Now when it comes to same sex couples having children, well unless I have missed something . . . they are having biological children everyday.

A women can still have a child by artificially insemination actually the ones that has been losing on all this are the males that can not conceive themselves using their own bodies.

But if you have enough money a womb can be bought for the right price.

If you get my meaning.

Ok, I think that Gay people can have kids. Adopt a child... there are lots of children out there who need to be loved. If adoption is a no go, get a surrogate mother or invitro. A family is what you make it. My parents were divorced, and then my Mom died and I mainly was rasied by my Grandmother and Father. I also stayed over at my Aunt's house a lot and we were a family as well. To me family is love. Saying Gay people can't have children is kinda like saying people who can't have children can't have children at all.

In this day and age, anyone thinking of having children are simply retarded.

No one should be having children with the world as effed up as it is.
And there should be no money wasted on same sex procreation.

What next? This is utterly ridiculous.

I have no problem with same sex marriage and adoption under those conditions, (there are plenty of children out there now who need a home) but all of this cloning and test tube baby crap has got to stop.
We are messing with things we don't understand and in that we are destroying the gene pool as nature designed it.

test tube babies are no different from GM vegetables.

Originally posted by Critical_Mass
test tube babies are no different from GM vegetables.

I must have missed something, whats wrong with GM vegetables? This doesn't affect the gene pool at all, if a woman have ovarian cancer, and can't have babies. This will allow her to have them, this PRESERVES the gene pool by keeping variety. BUT adoption still seems like a better option, theres a TON of kids who need parents more, then parents need biological kids

Ethical concerns abound with cloning humans...

Ethical issues are those that ask us to consider the potential moral outcomes of cloning technologies.

* Who has the right to have children, no matter how they are created? Who doesn't? Why?
* Is human cloning "playing with nature?" If so, how does that compare with other reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization or hormone treatments?
* Does cloning to create stem cells, also called therapeutic cloning, justify destroying a human embryo? Why, or why not?
* If a clone originates from an existing person, who is the parent?
* What are some of the social challenges a cloned child might face?
* Do the benefits of human cloning outweigh the costs of human dignity?
* Should cloning research be regulated? How, and by whom?


The American Medical Association holds four points of reason why cloning should not take place. They are: 1) there are unknown physical harms introduced by cloning, 2) unknown psychosocial harms introduced by cloning, including violations of autonomy and privacy, 3) impacts on familial and societal relations, and 4) potential effects on the human gene pool (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs 4-6). We just simply do not know the harms that will come from cloning.

www.indianchild.com...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


There was an ethical problem with freeing the blacks too, didn't stop them from doing that. People who spout BS ethical issues are just afraid of progress

I am sure the freeing of an oppressed peoples and the tampering of human genetic code that could cause unkown mutations and threats upon attempting to procreate in adult life with natural humans are quite ina different league.

noone is being oppresses by reccomending adoption, or even in vitro so long as the genetic code of two creatures (be they human, ape, fish, or reptile) of the same sex which naturally cannot create offspring are not utilized to unnaturally create offspring.

If they want to create a sperm and an egg and assist the process by two differnt sexes, thats cool.

If a homosexual couple would like to utilize the same process for a child, go right ahead, as long as only one of the partner's genes is used, and the second comes from any member of the opposite sex.

Why is it that when we as humans come up with something that could really help people and not harm if they chose not to participate in it people bring THEIR morals into it and take it as a personal attack?

And why are gender roles so effin' important? I thought we were trying to embrace equality.. What does it matter if a mother and father both work and bring home income? Who cares if a father likes to cook? All these rules and guidelines are only restricting us and bringing us further apart from each other.

For one, a gay relationship is not hurting you in any way.. and if they feel they are financially and emotionally responsible to take care of a child and give it all the love and understanding it needs to grow into a healthy human being.. when who the hell are you to bring YOUR morals into and tell them they don't have a right.

I'd rather have a pair of healthy loving gay fathers or mothers than a struggling single parent.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by Ripperella]