Same-Sex Couples Could Create Children

reply to post by ItsFrickenAndrew


Not tryin to sound cold hearted here, i really feel for women that can't have children, know quite a few. However there is no reason for scienctist to unnaturally create eggs for said purpose. There are other infertility solutions. More importantly there are uncountable children in this world that despertely need loving parents.

reply to post by Astyanax

The natural order of things is very clear to see. In humans and animals alike according to nature in order to have offspring there must be a female and a male partner. Two male dogs cannot produce a litter of pups naturally, two female bears cannot produce a cub naturally, just as two human men, or two human women cannot naturally produce a human child. We should be very careful how we interfere with natural order of things, as we do not know the consequences.

This topic really requires a lot of thought. This technology certainly is progress, but it is in the wrong direction IMO.

I don't think it is right for the would-be child involved to be purposely brought into a family that is incomplete. Let me clearly state that I don't think that someone's sexual preference makes him or her an unfit parent. However, I think that a family with two fathers, even two loving, caring, responsible fathers, is still a family lacking a mother. And that is a hole no father or other family member will ever be able to fill. There will always be a hole in this child's heart because they lacked an experience that is irreplacable.

This in no way only applies to same sex couples. I think it's just as irresponsible for a single woman to go to a sperm bank and make a withdrawal, or for a couple that has no intentions of staying together to have a baby. No amount of monetary success or single parent love can ever replace what a mother or father is to a child.

I began this post talking about progress...and I think that if a same sex couple or a well-off, responsible single person were to adopt a child who would otherwise have no parents at all, or be bounced from foster home to foster home and be a ward of the state their whole life, well that is progress in the right direction for the child. There are plenty of children who would be better off in this situation than in their current one. But to bring a new child into a life that can never truly be whole is irresponsible in a heinous way because it clearly shows that the superficial whims of the parents are the basis of the decision and not the opportunity to offer love and a better life to a child.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by Astyanax

 

The natural order of things is very clear to see. In humans and animals alike according to nature in order to have offspring there must be a female and a male partner. Two male dogs cannot produce a litter of pups naturally, two female bears cannot produce a cub naturally, just as two human men, or two human women cannot naturally produce a human child. We should be very careful how we interfere with natural order of things, as we do not know the consequences.

It's people with an agenda that ask what is thew natural order. I mean it is so obvious that 2 males don't procreate. Thats NATURAL. When you iuse technology to circumvent that fact. It's NOT natural.

Natural, not natural... really, what difference does it make?

I think we should be far more concerned with "possible" and "not possible."