Biological Babies for Same Sex Couples

[Nivinxus]

Hello guys. I've recently come across an article where it stated that there is a possibility that same sex couples can use their DNA to have a biological baby without the use of the different sex.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-an...-could-soon-be-possible-no-egg-donor-required

In this case, this is for men, but in theory should work for women as well.

Now, because of this development, it does have several implications should this actually become a real thing.

On one hand, Homosexual couples are capable of having babies without the use of surrogates (from what I heard, surrogates sometimes change mind and wants to take custody of the baby).

But on the other hand, it could have severe issues of lacking what could be needed for the baby (for example, lack of mother/father figure) or unethical uses in more extreme but just as unlikely cases and perhaps scientific complications (anyone with a science background elaborate this?)

This is probably one of the few topics I have mixed feelings about, is this perhaps the right direction society should be aiming for?

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

Society should probably aim to teach people like you that there should be zero negative feelings towards something like this unless there are obvious biological hiccups. Otherwise, it's extremely discriminatory and counter-productive to a society where everyone is equal.

 

[Nivinxus]

Society should probably aim to teach people like you that there should be zero negative feelings towards something like this unless there are obvious biological hiccups. Otherwise, it's extremely discriminatory and counter-productive to a society where everyone is equal.

I'm all for letting homosexual couples have their own offsprings, but I'm just legitimately concerned about the possible negative impacts it may have on the child and of course unforseen circumstances that may arise (hence why I'm asking someone with a science background that could explain something for this better). There isn't a real need to throw a thinly veiled insult in my face buddy.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

I'm all for letting homosexual couples have their own offsprings, but I'm just legitimately concerned about the possible negative impacts it may have on the child and of course unforseen circumstances that may arise (hence why I'm asking someone with a science background that could explain something for this better). There isn't a real need to throw a thinly veiled insult in my face buddy.

It's not thinly veiled. It was just an insult. By saying what you said, you're implying that homosexual couples are potentially unsuitable parents, which is ridiculous considering there have been (rough estimate) hundreds of thousands of children raised exclusively by homosexual parents. You took it out of the scientific realm when you mentioned raising the child and you also posted this in a debate forum. I'm debating that you should leave the parenting to the parents.

 

[Nivinxus]

Ok, fair enough. I've had no intention to imply that homosexual parents are any less suitable than any other parents and guardians. I should've rephrased that entirely.

 

[VampirateMace]

To clarify, a surrogate is still necessary. (Interesting how science has reached a point where we don't really need males to reproduce, but females are still necessary. This irrelevant to the convo though.)

There is no real evidence that homosexual couples are any worse of parents then heterosexual ones. Several studies showing to the contrary have since been found to have been purposely skewed.

As far as complications go, there's probably not much risk. Since both men have different X and Y chromosomes, the biggest risk of genetic disease is probably no greater then with natural conception. Though one many imagine a scenario in which both men submit Y chromosomes gametes (though we can reasonably assume the scientists overseeing the process would insure only the X chromosome gamete were used for the egg - but let's pretend worse case scenario here), since this has never naturally happened, nobody knows for sure what the result would be. However, since many really bad genetic errors result in natural abortions (miscarriages), double Ys would likely end the pregnancy.

 

[Sadib]

Ok, fair enough. I've had no intention to imply that homosexual parents are any less suitable than any other parents and guardians. I should've rephrased that entirely.

That's really hard to believe considering that you said in your OP:

But on the other hand, it could have severe issues of lacking what could be needed for the baby (for example, lack of mother/father figure)

I guess single people shouldn't be allowed to have children either.

 

[Green Blockhead]

Behold, the next progressive movement by the liberal left! Of course it's going to be a thing within the next few years, regardless of any ethical or biological issues for that matter! Not wanting it would be considered homophobic, and we don't want to be labelled with such an asinine term now, do we?

Society should probably aim to teach people like you that there should be zero negative feelings towards something like this unless there are obvious biological hiccups. Otherwise, it's extremely discriminatory and counter-productive to a society where everyone is equal.

Ladies and gentlemen, THE liberal in its prime. He is subservient to the will of his peers. He takes whatever the next "progressive" movement that his masters churn out. His biggest fear is to be labelled with terrible insults such as racist, homophobic or even fascist! That's why he must sacrifice his ability to speak freely, but why would he anyway? He is already one of millions of pawns in the ongoing plot to destroy heterosexuality and masculinity! He is nothing more than a good little goy who throws insults in the faces of people who dare to even remotely doubt any progressive movement by the slightest margin!



So you're basically saying he isn't allowed to have an opinion on the matter, whether it's negative or not because it's discriminatory and counter-productive to what now?

 

[Xuxuba]

Gender has nothing to do with raising a child. Gender doesn't define your personality nor it should define the way you raise your child.
Besides, we always lived in a society where different types of family existed. The only thing that changed now is that people are starting to recognise them. I know several wonderful people who were raised by a "different" type of family. Hell the most wonderful people i know were raised by those.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

That's really hard to believe considering that you said in your OP:



I guess single people shouldn't be allowed to have children either.

Gender has nothing to do with raising a child. Gender doesn't define your personality nor it should define the way you raise your child.
Besides, we always lived in a society where different types of family existed. The only thing that changed now is that people are starting to recognise them. I know several wonderful people who were raised by a "different" type of family. Hell the most wonderful people i know were raised by those.

OP did go on to retract their statement in the comments.

Behold, the next progressive movement by the liberal left! Of course it's going to be a thing within the next few years, regardless of any ethical or biological issues for that matter! Not wanting it would be considered homophobic, and we don't want to be labelled with such an asinine term now, do we?



Ladies and gentlemen, THE liberal in its prime. He is subservient to the will of his peers. He takes whatever the next "progressive" movement that his masters churn out. His biggest fear is to be labelled with terrible insults such as racist, homophobic or even fascist! That's why he must sacrifice his ability to speak freely, but why would he anyway? He is already one of millions of pawns in the ongoing plot to destroy heterosexuality and masculinity! He is nothing more than a good little goy who throws insults in the faces of people who dare to even remotely doubt any progressive movement by the slightest margin!



So you're basically saying he isn't allowed to have an opinion on the matter, whether it's negative or not because it's discriminatory and counter-productive to what now?

If someone has an opinion that rejects the notion that all members of society are equal, then I don't want to hear that opinion.

 

[Auraninja]

Behold, the next progressive movement by the liberal left! Of course it's going to be a thing within the next few years, regardless of any ethical or biological issues for that matter! Not wanting it would be considered homophobic, and we don't want to be labelled with such an asinine term now, do we?

Homosexuality is wrong because isn't reproductive. Oh wai....
Homosexuality is wrong because it's...uh... icky, that's right, icky!

Obviously the above is a joke.

Did you know that the preachings against homosexuality are the same argument that white preachers recited while warning people of blacks in American society?

Let's see, joke, argument, oh yes, side story.

My mom left this church a while back, but this church wanted to hire a homophobic preacher. One of the would-be preachers didn't get the job when they asked him on his stance about homosexuality. He said that we were all sinners, and that wasn't good enough.

 

[SILVER XD]

Homosexuality is wrong because isn't reproductive. Oh wai....
Homosexuality is wrong because it's...uh... icky, that's right, icky!

Obviously the above is a joke.

Did you know that the preachings against homosexuality are the same argument that white preachers recited while warning people of blacks in American society?

Let's see, joke, argument, oh yes, side story.

My mom left this church a while back, but this church wanted to hire a homophobic preacher. One of the would-be preachers didn't get the job when they asked him on his stance about homosexuality. He said that we were all sinners, and that wasn't good enough.

Auraninja, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and I'm sure that anyone else who has equality in mind does as well, but attempting an argument with Blockhead isn't going anywhere. Especially not one like that. Of course, your point is valid and it would be at least a bit eye opening to people aren't racist but are still homophobes. The problem is that Blockhead is a racist. Virtually, any ideas of equality and progress are contrary to what Blockhead believes. Thus, attempting to argue with Blockhead about such issues won't result in any mutual understanding, rather only hate-filled ramblings from Blockhead and the urge for you to rip your hair cleanly from your scalp.

On the topic at hand specifically, I see this as a breakthrough to any same sex couples wanting to parent children of their own and as a true scientific marvel. Of course, as with all scientific endeavors that I do not truly know the full scope of in terms of research and testing I'll want to hear further advancements in this development to be sure that the risks of complications can be minimized. All in all, the idea is certainly great and I personally don't see any ethical concerns on the conception or parenting of such children. The child would still be a human being born from the DNA of two other humans, they needn't be conceived conventionally to be considered as such. Furthermore, same sex couples are just as effective as heterosexual couples in child rearing(as far as generalizing all parents will get this argument), suggesting otherwise would be to suggest that these couples are somehow inferior to "the norm" which is demonstrably false. My only real concern would be of the child's sense of self worth knowing that they were brought into the world in a manner that is different from how the majority of other children are. Of course, this is a cultural outlook that the child and other children will have due to the society in which we exist and it can be over come through time by way of shifts in public perception and supportive parenting.

 

[Auraninja]

Auraninja, I appreciate what you're trying to do here and I'm sure that anyone else who has equality in mind does as well, but attempting an argument with Blockhead isn't going anywhere. Especially not one like that. Of course, your point is valid and it would be at least a bit eye opening to people aren't racist but are still homophobes. The problem is that Blockhead is a racist. Virtually, any ideas of equality and progress are contrary to what Blockhead believes. Thus, attempting to argue with Blockhead about such issues won't result in any mutual understanding, rather only hate-filled ramblings from Blockhead and the urge for you to rip your hair cleanly from your scalp.

I'm sure. I just wanted to pick a bone, no matter how futile.

But on to this topic, the issue I see at hand has nothing to do with anybody being a homosexual. The real issue is the viability of the baby growing from "unorthodox gestation". If the baby was more or less guaranteed to grow up healthily, then this wouldn't be an issue. Overall, I'm not opposed to the idea, and if everything hypothetically worked well, then there would be no problem. The fundamental issue, I see, is if this type of science can hold up as being workable.

At heart, this isn't a bad idea, but the way it would work would require scientific quality.

 

[I Pink Elephant]

If the resulting child is unlikely to suffer from this genetic procedure, then I say go for it. I can understand why a couple would want a child of there own genetic origin (Although if I ever decided to have a child with a partner I would quite like to consider adoption no matter their gender).

Behold, the next progressive movement by the liberal left! Of course it's going to be a thing within the next few years, regardless of any ethical or biological issues for that matter! Not wanting it would be considered homophobic, and we don't want to be labelled with such an asinine term now, do we?

No one here has said they should go ahead with it no matter the biological issues, and I doubt most if the 'left' would either.

Ladies and gentlemen, THE liberal in its prime. He is subservient to the will of his peers. He takes whatever the next "progressive" movement that his masters churn out. His biggest fear is to be labelled with terrible insults such as racist, homophobic or even fascist! That's why he must sacrifice his ability to speak freely, but why would he anyway? He is already one of millions of pawns in the ongoing plot to destroy heterosexuality and masculinity! He is nothing more than a good little goy who throws insults in the faces of people who dare to even remotely doubt any progressive movement by the slightest margin!

OK, I cannot quite tell whether you are being serious or exaggerating for some reason. I mean, all Slow basically said was that to say the parents sexuality should not enter this topic. Frankly I agree, even if he may have put it a bit more bluntly then needed. Either way, what is the justification in calling someone with such a views a blind sheep out to destroy everything heterosexual/masculine? (As if any liberal is!)

And I for one take being called a lefty liberal as a compliment!

 

[ellie]

i'm not sure if it's actually as close is the OP is implying. ifls is pretty clickbaity and has a lot of "reddit science" type of stuff (i.e. thinking science is hella cool and circlejerking about it but not actually understanding much of it). i studied genetics in college and there's so much we don't know yet about gene regulation and so many ways it could go wrong. the first thing that jumps out to me is that mitochondira are passed through eggs, and the article says nothing at all about fixing that issue. the comments do, but they just say "well use a bunch of sperm since each sperm has 1" but in practice it's probably not that easy.

ethically though? i don't think it's any worse than heterosexual couples having IVF. i don't really like IVF in general since we have so many unwanted babies who need adoptive parents. it seems very wasteful. i would rather people just placed less importance on having to have a child with their own genes.

To clarify, a surrogate is still necessary. (Interesting how science has reached a point where we don't really need males to reproduce, but females are still necessary. This irrelevant to the convo though.)

There is no real evidence that homosexual couples are any worse of parents then heterosexual ones. Several studies showing to the contrary have since been found to have been purposely skewed.

As far as complications go, there's probably not much risk. Since both men have different X and Y chromosomes, the biggest risk of genetic disease is probably no greater then with natural conception. Though one many imagine a scenario in which both men submit Y chromosomes gametes (though we can reasonably assume the scientists overseeing the process would insure only the X chromosome gamete were used for the egg - but let's pretend worse case scenario here), since this has never naturally happened, nobody knows for sure what the result would be. However, since many really bad genetic errors result in natural abortions (miscarriages), double Ys would likely end the pregnancy.

uh no a YY baby would never live. the X chromosome has a ton of important genes that are necessary for development, it would just die early in development if that happened. there's a reason why XO people exist but a YO person doesnt. plus even for regular IVF potential embryos are pretty much always screened for genetic abnormalities and can even be selected for sex as well, so of course they would do the same for this new process.

 

[maskofsanity1998]

If scientist are able to make this happen, most likely the first thing people will do is try and ban same-sex couples from actually doing this, passing bills allowing only straight parents to do this and such

 

[Lord Solrac]

I'm gay. No desire for kids. Benefit of being so.

 

[SlowPokeBroKing]

I guess the thread was derailed from the get-go because of the inclusion of the comment in the OP. The way I see the idea for this happening is a huge step for mankind, both in terms of equality and science. It's upsetting enough that gay people don't have all the same rights, but this brings a new level of equality to the table. I hope this happens someday and it helps the cause.

I'm gay. No desire for kids. Benefit of being so.

Because all straight people have kids.

 

[Antiyonder]

1. I'd say it's good if only so homosexual couples can have more options, and isn't being implemented because of the notion that people are under obligation to have children.

2. Considering that some homosexual kids are brought up by heterosexual parents, I don't see why a kid raise by a homosexual would be guaranteed to be gay. Sounds more like the paranoia that homosexuals want to eliminate heterosexuals to me.

 

[VampirateMace]

Did you know that the preachings against homosexuality are the same argument that white preachers recited while warning people of blacks in American society?

*Facepalm* Not really. The preaching's against black were fuel to justify using them as slaves, and had no basis in biblical teachings. They implied that the mark put on Cain (and others) was a darkening of their skin, making them inferior, when no such thing is suggested in the Bible. There are intercultural battles, but these generally related to religious, political, or survival reasons. Homosexuality on the other hand is warned against at various points, particularly in the story of Lot. < Not saying either one is okay, because discrimination is not okay, but it's not 'the same argument'.

uh no a YY baby would never live. the X chromosome has a ton of important genes that are necessary for development, it would just die early in development if that happened. there's a reason why XO people exist but a YO person doesnt. plus even for regular IVF potential embryos are pretty much always screened for genetic abnormalities and can even be selected for sex as well, so of course they would do the same for this new process.

I did say it would most likely end in a miscarriage (if the conception was even possible), and that I was pointing out the highly unlikely worse case scenario (because I know the scientists wouldn't let it happen to start with).