Men may be redundant

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    Avoiding the politics of it all, I'm curious to get your take on this.

    It appears that it may be possible for men to be cut from the breeding equation. If so, can this ever be considered ethical?
     
  2. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #2
    Men aren't redundant. Who's going to screw in the lightbulb when a lightbulb stops working? They could ask 1000 blonds to rotate the house while one blonde holds the lightbulb in place, but wouldn't it be easier to just ask me?
     
  3. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #3
    I dislike being redundant, so no, it won't be ethical. :p
     
  4. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #4
    Why would it be considered unethical? Because no man was involved? Because it it will only produce females? Because it would offend those who feel the need to tell others how to live their lives? :confused:

    I think it would be more unethical to tell two people how to have a baby. Its a personal decision, and be that method adoption, in utero fertilization, surrogate moms or the old fashion way its a personal decision that is no ones business but the people wishing to become parents.
     
  5. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #5
    Perhaps because all those other methods of conception, at their most basic level, rely on a sperm cell from a male and an egg from a female. Perhaps because the process entails using bone marrow to develop rudimentary sperm cells - a cell that the female body normally doesn't produce. Perhaps because this would bring us one step closer to cloning - nobody said that it has to be another female. Perhaps if there was a treatment that could only produce whites or men or any other "advantaged" group, I think people would find it of concern.

    Perhaps people will want insurance companies to pay for this. Perhaps it will be requested that Medicaid/their government pay for it. Suddenly a personal process becomes the business of everybody. Birth control was an issue for ethical debate. Fertility treatment was an issue for ethical debate. To presume that there is no need for debate, or at least discussion, is prematurely forgetting the effects.

    Perhaps it is clearly ethical and the scientists involved need to ask permission just as a CYA precaution. Perhaps there are greater ramifications.

    But, apparently these is nothing unethical in this process. Perhaps you could expound on why?
     
  6. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #6
    It would be unethical for a lesbian couple to have a child that was a result of both parent's biology? If the sperm works the same as one from a male and there's no complications then what's the problem?
     
  7. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #7
    The best part of this technology is that we can still use the term "boned". :D

    For my part, I don't believe men are unnecessary, not required, inessential, unessential, needless, unneeded, uncalled for, surplus, superfluous or redundant.
     
  8. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #8
    Would it work the same/not have medical complications either immediately or later? I don't know how you would find the guinea pigs. Who would want to gamble on their kid's health? And like I said above, if a couple (straight or lesbian) can do this, why not a single woman?

    I can see a very practical benefit - this would cement the parental rights of both parties in the lesbian relationship, cutting down one major ethical concern to a lot of other fertilization treatments in lesbian couples that I believe was not adequately discussed (if the relationship is not legally unionized, whether by choice or law and one partner gets pregnant and the other never finishes the adoption papers, regardless of the reason, does that partner have parental rights?) .

    But it's not the good that demands discussion, it's the bad.
     
  9. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    So cutting out a male automatically makes it unethical? Why? If it was an infertile male that used his bone marrow to create a sperm to get a female pregnant would it be unethical? And if so why? In addition what if two men produced a sperm and an egg from the same method and used a woman to gestate the baby? Would that be unethical too? Why? just because the sperm/egg was not derived for two people of the opposite sex?

    Medical science allows for all sorts of things that the body does not normally do - it does not automatically make it unethical because it does not naturally occur.

    These are all slippery slope argument that do nothing to answer the question posed by the original article. Birth control and fertility treatments were religious ethical debates. The debates on those issues focused on when life begins - it is very different IMO than if two people who happen to be women should be allowed to have children if it becomes medically possible.

    If you see any specifics that you feel are unethical, and can explain why, I'll do my best to look into those, my opinion is always open to change as I learn, however it's impossible to to defend something that I do not see as existing.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    Men are insecure. ;)
     
  11. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #11
    It's a pretty interesting concept. I have no trouble with it at all.

    The first thought that crossed my mind was:

    If you use an egg and bone marrow sperm from the same woman, would the baby be identical to the mum?
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    That would be getting into clone territory.
     
  13. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    [​IMG]
     
  14. biturbomunkie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Location:
    cali
    #14
    does that mean i can sit back and enjoy a beejay more often than before?
     
  15. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    I have no problems with it providing the resulting offspring is healthy. Whenever someone comes up with something new, it's too easy for the general public to start thinking in absolutes. "What if this was used by/happened to everybody? That would be TERRIBLE!!!" In reality most couples will continue to conceive in exactly the same way as before. Other social groups, however, now have the option to conceive too.

    Why would anybody be threatened by this?
     
  17. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #17
    I bet there's some Southern State Americans who are scared ******** by something like this.
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #18
    Of course, the religious types who accuse man of "Playing God" every time a scientific advance is made. All this stem cell stuff is very threatening to them. Real humans being created and cured by manipulating biology? That goes against everything they've been told to believe.
     
  19. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #19
    Yet they're normally quite happy to be treated for illnesses and such.
     
  20. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #20
    just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

    if sex is so uncomfortable the woman needs to be in some way artificially inseminated, the guy needs to see someone.
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    :confused:

    Have you read the article?
     
  22. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #22
    not closely enough, apparently :rolleyes:
    i wasn't paying enough attention. my bad...

    ok now for a second attempt at an opinion.

    its gotta be dangerous creating sperm cells from female tissue. sperm cells are meant to be created in males, and egg cells in females. i'm all for innovation, but i don't believe cellular mutation like this is right.
     
  23. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #23
    First, men will never be redundant to me. However, is this ethical? Is this really a question of ethics? I'm not sure that it is. Maybe I'm wrong.
     
  24. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #24
    I'm definitely with you on that thought :D

    I don't think it is. Certainly no more than IVF treatment could be deemed unethical anyway. I'll be surprised if this is going to become that widespread outside those that really need it. Bone Marrow donation is supposed to really hurt. Anyone with other options open to them aren't going to want to go through it.
     
  25. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #25
    Strong disagreement with you there. You can't beat God or biology or assume man's judgment to be superior. :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Oh well, I am not going to get into any arguments about this one :) I burned too much midnite oil on this issue.
     

Share This Page