The ethics of babies

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CalBoy, Nov 18, 2008.

  1. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #1
    An offshoot from this thread, since it is very much off topic (done at Lee's request). :)

    I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here, but you're definitely not playing devil's advocate.

    That man used to be a woman, and retained his female organs (likely because he wanted to have kids one day). I don't see what that has to do with a baby created from two males or two females.

    Nothing is genetically modified in the process. The only thing that is done is that the egg's DNA is removed (in the case of a male-male parenthood) and a second male set is placed inside. No DNA is altered; no mutant children here. ;)
    What exactly is the experiment here? :confused: There are already kids with two dads or two moms.
    So in other words you're saying that it shouldn't matter what two adults do with their fertility decisions? I agree. ;):)
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    I don't get it either. The studies have been in agreement for a very long time: kids who grow up with same sex parents do just as well as their counterparts with opposite sex parents. Indeed, some do better as seems to be the case with lesbian parents.
     
  3. MasterNile macrumors 65816

    MasterNile

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    #3
    Also the fact that there are no "accidents" when it comes to same sex parents having a kid. Most same sex parents are in the position to support and nurture a child which is not always true of heterosexual parents.
     
  4. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    I can't really argue with that!

    But it strikes me as wrong that two people who couldn't possibly have a child together naturally, should have one made for them through artificial means. And no, I'm not talking about a heterosexual couple who can't have a baby together because of some fertility issue. I'm talking about two people who couldn't have a baby together because of the anatomical barrier that the situation presents.

    And can two lesbians have a child together in a similar fashion? If they could, it would have to be female every time.

    SLC
     
  5. echeck macrumors 68000

    echeck

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, Idaho
    #5
    I have no problem with same-sex parents. I only personally know of one couple that decided to have a child, but they adopted.

    Anyway, I mainly wanted to comment on the the "pregnant man" B.S.

    This person is not a man, she is a woman that looks like a man. Gender is defined by biology. That biology can be changed, but until it is you still retain your original gender.

    The stupid media simply propagated the ridiculous notion by jumping on the bandwagon of a "pregnant man". Stupid.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    What's the difference? In this case, neither couple can have a child naturally.
     
  7. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    Oh,

    and I should also point out that I also have no problem with same sex couples as parents. First off, there are many situations in which an individual comes out only after having lived as a heterosexual and already had children, in this case a step parent who is the same sex often results.

    And there are a ton of children out there who need loving care, whether that care comes from a man, a woman, a man and a woman, a woman and another woman, or two men, it's all the same. Children just need love, support, and protection. To me, it makes no difference where those necessities come from. As long as the adopters are upstanding people, I see no problem with allowing anyone who wants to care for a child the opportunity.

    I applaud anyone who adopts! I'm just not sure that I agree with the idea of two same sex individuals creating a baby in a test tube together. Maybe the idea will grow on me, but right now it seems wrong.

    SLC

    That's not really true though, there have been plenty of hetero couples who have been told they will never have children, yet somehow it still happens to them. My wife's mother had a medical malpractice issue happen to her with her first child, the child died and she was left with so much uterine damage that she was told that she had zero chance of ever becoming pregnant again. Yet she now has 6 living children (all 6 conceived naturally, but were born at varying stages of pre-maturity).

    My wife's sister has also been told that she's infertile, she had the first one with the assistance of drugs, but the last two came without warning.

    But two gay men can't have a child together unless they do some pretty drastic things to an egg from an outside source, and even then, another women has to carry it for them.

    SLC
     
  8. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #8
    I ask again- what's the difference? You even said your sister had her first kid with the assistance of drugs. You don't see potential problems and risks there?
     
  9. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Yeah, there are some potential problems, she could have ended up with 6 at once like some famous couples from TLC have. But something tells me that she'd have been OK with that, even though that's a pretty risky pregnancy and delivery.

    But my point is, they didn't have to take someone else's egg and remove it's DNA and replace it with hers in order to do it. They just had to take a drug to induce her to ovulate, something her body wasn't thought to be doing on it's own (we now know that the physicians were wrong about that).

    I don't know Lee, it just smacks me the wrong way when someone has to go to such lengths to make a child. It's completely 100% unnatural in every way, and that isn't right if you ask me. Like I said, I have no problem whatsoever with gay and lesbian couples adopting, in fact I fully support it.

    If my wife and I were completely unable to reproduce and this were our only way to have her concieve, I can guarantee that we'd just adopt. We've already decided that in the future, when I'm through with school and we're financially able to do so, we'd like to adopt a child anyway, even though we have two of our own.

    SLC
     
  10. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #10
    You can fix that by making a list of ways in which that situation could cause harm to someone. If the list is empty, then it probably just means that there's nothing wrong with it. It is more likely that it "seems" wrong simply because it's something that we're not used to, and we tend to be fearful of the unknown.
     
  11. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #11
    Floyde,

    while that certainly makes sense, I'm of the persuasion that just because we can do something, and we think it won't hurt anyone, doesn't mean we should.

    SLC
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    On the other hand, there are plenty of things we do that cause harm to others that people still think we should do. I think it would be best for us to focus on those things, but that's just me. ;)

    I see no issue here at all. If people were altering these kids to have say, blue eyes and blond hair, I could see the point. But I fail to see a problem with this, although I guess I can see how some people might.
     
  13. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #13
    That makes sense also. It's still a good way to find out why you feel that it's wrong, because there certainly must be an idea behind that feeling.
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    I think that right now, the main thing that I'm feeling about that is that it seems to devalue human life. I love my children more than anything in this world (apart from my wife) and they represent something very special to me in that my wife and I created them together (If you know what I mean) they each represent a time when we sat down and decided to have a child together and without going into the obvious details I can say that our relationship hit a higher plane during those times, we worked harder at it, and we showed more love toward each other than we normally would (not that I'm saying that my relationship with my wife is at all lacking otherwise, but you get the point). I don't think I'd feel the same way about the whole thing if my children were the product of my DNA being combined with my wife's DNA in a test tube and inserted into another woman's egg. Maybe I would (I'll never know for sure) but my children represent my relationship with my wife as well as a lot of other things.

    I can sorta see it coming to a point where someone's child dies, and the parents just shrug it off and say "Oh well, we'll just make another one" because they could make another just like him/her. Also, would it create an issue where people look down on a child who was created artificially?

    I'd also be very opposed to this method being used to create children for heterosexual couples, in case anyone was thinking to go off on that tangent.

    Just some initial thoughts off the top of my head.

    SLC
     
  15. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #15
    Face it, technology has made men obsolete. As soon as it becomes easy and reliable to combine the genetic material from two eggs, the biological need for men is gone. We don't have wombs, and any two eggs would always result in female babies due to the lack of a Y chromosome.
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    You also have to look at it this way- If two people are going to such great lengths to have a child, I'd say they probably value life quite a bit. I would say it's just the opposite of what you claim. And how would anyone really know if a kid was created artificially? There are people who are the product of artificial insemination who are adults now. We've been doing this a long time. I haven't heard of any negative stigma attached to those folks.

    Oh please. We aren't going anywhere.
     
  17. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #17
    Funny stuff atszyman,

    I actually do some work in a neurobiology lab here at my University. I've been conducting research with a particular reef fish which can be described as a sequential hermaphrodite. The community of fish is setup similar to a pack of wolves, with one alpha male who is larger, has different colorations, and does all the mating with the females. The males survive by showing the same coloration patterns as the females making it impossible for the males to single them out for persecution.

    Anyway, the beta fishes compete to be the most agressive and dominant out of the group and this postures them to take the place of the alpha male when he's gone. If the most dominant fish is a female, she will become male and take the place of the Alpha male in the community.

    I've often found myself contemplating the same thing while observing the fish in our lab. Just hoping that my wife doesn't find out how these female fish do it. I'd be out of a job in no time. :D

    SLC

    You're right, I suppose that would show a respect for life, but if they respect life so much, why not adopt a child. There are plenty of children out there who need parents, and I think that a couple who is so desperate to have a child should go that route before going 100% artificial.

    Yes, but we both know that kids (and adults for that matter) can be very cruel. When word gets out that a child doesn't have a mommy or daddy, the torture will shortly ensue. Kids who are born to unwed mothers sometimes get grief now, but what about the kid who wasn't even conceived by a mother, or one who was conceived without a father.

    SLC
     
  18. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    Of course not, all those women will need someone to open jars, drink beer, burp, flatulate, and sit on the couch for three or more hours every Sunday. Football games don't watch themselves. :D
     
  19. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #19
    oh.

    I read the thread title and thought that this was going to be a different discussion (eg: 2-year olds have the ethics of Genghis Khan, newborns have the ethics of an AcidHead etc)

    Nevertheless, since I waded in - I don't mind who is having kids, or by what method - as long as the parents-to-be are reasonably fit to be parents.

    Considering the relative difficulty of technologically-assisted babies compared to the "natural" method - It would seem that same-sex couples, couples with fertility issues, and potential adopters are more likely to be prepared and ready for the responsibility of child-raising. If there are to be more kids anyway, this seems a positive direction.

    Overall though - I just think there needs to be less births in the world. We already have too many people...but I digress...
     
  20. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030

    Big-TDI-Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #20
    I too thought the discussion would be in that direction - or people who take children to places - where perhaps children should not be.

    But in all seriousness - with the population of the world - decline of fossil fuels - and serious land competition - I find it unethical to have any more than 2 children. Seriously.
     
  21. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21
    Adopted kids receive grief too. For this reason, should couples not adopt?

    Besides, I see no reason why a child's conception would become public knowledge.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    People may opt for both. There are certainly plenty of people who've done it, I'm sure.



    We cannot control others. People will always find something to dislike about another person.
     
  23. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    Read back through my posts, I've been advocating adoption this whole time.

    Which is worse, living your childhood in foster care or an orphanage, or being teased about being adopted. I never heard much grief given to anyone I knew growing up who were adopted, and yes I knew 3 or 4 very closely.

    SLC
     
  24. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    How does this comport with your professed desire to adopt a child that would have neither of your DNA?

    If you think you'd love a child less because, while they have your DNA, they were not borne by your wife's womb; what on earth makes you think you'd love an adopted child -- who doesn't even share your DNA, must less the womb of your wife -- as much as your own children?

    Personally I wouldn't care where a child came from, if they were being raised under my roof I would love them equally.
     
  25. CalBoy thread starter macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #25
    Yes, the procedure works for two women as well as for two men.

    I'm not sure about the specifics of whether or not it would have to be a female child every time, but on the surface that sounds correct.

    Then again, medical science is always advancing in ways we could never have fathomed just a few years before, so it's likely not set in stone.
    Thank you. :)

    We're often on opposite sides (heck, I'd guess about 95% of the time), but I'm glad you're sensible enough to say this. Not everyone is.
    Most people do, but the state doesn't make it any easier for gay couples. Why don't we ask Arkansas why it wants more children in foster care?
    What exactly is wrong about it? I'm sure you wouldn't want a child like that, but others would, so why stop them?

    I don't like going to church or praying for things, but I don't try to stop you from doing it. Let everyone sweep in front of their own doorstep, and the world will be clean. ;)

    An individual doesn't have to do it, but why should we stop them?

    If I choose to eat a slice of cake today, it won't hurt anyone (not even me, as I'm not overweight or suffering any health problems), so why stop me from having a slice of cake?

    If the potential effects are unknown, then I'd agree with you, but we know that children brought up in same-sex households do just fine, so what's the big deal?
    Believe it or not, but the procedure makes people value their children even more because it's a very long and expensive ordeal. It's much easier to forget to put on a condom than it is to see a doctor, find a donor, and find a womb.

    I don't think anyone would look down on a child created by AI. No one but really uptight people really care where children come from; at the end of the day they just want to love them.
    Then I think you should give your position more time to mature. ;) There's really no good reason why we should cut off this fertility treatment for anyone, especially if they are willing and able to have children and take care of them.
    Well teh female folk will always need teh gheys for fashion and interior design. :p
    Sadly, many states (especially those in the South) don't want unmarried couples to adopt. What an effective system: make gay people and children unhappy, all to appease a certain interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.
     

Share This Page