Editors and commenters, am I right in noting that no one at BMG has agreed that same-sex conception is unethical and ought to be prohibited? Everyone here insists on it remaining legal and research continuing? There is no middle ground, either it is legal or it illegal. Either research is stopped, or research continues.
You folks have had a chance to agree that same-sex conception would be wasteful and foolish and unethical and should not be allowed, and i have shown how conceding that point could help gain practical benefits and protections for gay people here in Massachusetts and all across the country, but you have refused to do so. In fact, you insist on allowing labs to use genetic engineering to see if they can conceive a baby for a same-sex couple. Am I wrong about that?
I don’t want the chance to affirm or deny your stupid hypothetical. You’re the only person I’ve ever even heard bring it up, so the power behind your compromise is likely non-existant.
<
p>
Please stop trying to bait people into a debate which has so little merit.
It’s a very real question! It is legal, it is being researched, and you don’t want anyone to know about it or prohibit it.
I can’t help but admire your tenacity.
Your tenacity – that is, your stubborn refusal to answer the question, to even acknowledge the question has been asked – is terrible. It is undemocratic, and frankly evil. But, your answer can be inferred from the fact that it is currently legal and being developed, and keeping the public unaware is the best way to keep it on track.
My boyfriend is pregnant.
That’s sooner than I expected, but not much sooner. If it was egg and sperm, OK, but genetic engineering, that is unethical.
<
p>
These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
We can genetically alter a man so that he has six fingers on his right hand.
<
p>
I bet you didn’t know that Susan Surandon lost her virginity to Prince Humperdink. Inconceivable!
All that yucky kissy stuff.
is anyone going to oppose genetic engineering for same-sex couples here? It’s a big slow pitch down the middle fo the plate. All you have to do is say that same-sex conception is ridiculous or unnecessary or unethical or shouldn’t be allowed. Or, instead, you can say nothing about it, which means that you think it should remain legal and research should continue, even though other goals, such as federal recognition and full protections of marriage, as well as any legal recognition for gay couples in other states, will be given up.
<
p>
Your choice.
I have not heard BMG or anyone who posts here “demand same sex conception.” You’re just trying to annoy people. Go away.
Same-sex conception doesn’t need to be demanded by anyone at BMG for it to be researched and developed and made available in the next few years.
<
p>
I have pointing out that it is being researched and that we have a question before us of whether or not to prohibit it. Refusing to answer the question, indeed telling the question to go away, is a definite stand in favor of same-sex conception.
<
p>
If you don’t demand it, here’s your chance to correct me, by saying that you don’t demand it, that you would be fine with it being banned. If you aren’t fine with it being banned, then you demand it.
How about we ignore it for a few years, then have a major controversy and a Newsweek cover when the first couple actually does it, then debate it for a few months until something big blows up, sinks, or has sex with a congressman, then continue going merrily on our way to being able to manipulate the genome with impunity within the next 75 years.
<
p>
Sound ok with you?
lightiris, you can prove I’m wrong by saying you would be fine with a ban on same-sex conception.
a ban on John Howard’s conception!
<
p>
Who’s with me?
Thanks, it is a great example
Does that mean you can stop spamming us with this idiocy now?
He put out a call for these guys and now, here they are.;)
<
p>
But wait, this reminds me of that part in Life of Brian where the guy wants to have a baby, and Reg says, “But he doesn’t have a bloody womb!” And the woman says, “It will be symbolic of our struglle against the Romans!” And Reg says, “It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.”
<
p>
This thread of symbolic of John Howard’s struggle against reality.
Reg: Where’s the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
Two women would choose one of the woman’s wombs, or, perhaps they would also use a surrogate, as two men would have to. Researchers are also working on artificial wombs, which I think also have serious ethical issues and ought to be prohibited in principle.
Kaguya is reality. Dr Richard Scott is reality. Causes in Common is reality. No one here acknowledging that it would be unethical and should be prohibited is a reality.
we don’t agree with you. But thanks anyway.
OK, that’s as close to being a straight answer as i’ll get here:
<
p>
<
p>
I demand that same-sex conception be banned because it is unethical and that research be stopped, BMG community disagrees, which means they are against banning same-sex conception and contend that it is perfectly ethical and want research to continue. Just wanted to get you on record, because lots of people do not believe that anyone seriously demands the right to try it.
<
p>
No, this won’t mark the end of my campaign to raise awareness of same-sex conception from here at BMG. And it is not too late to come around to seeing the real gains that could be made by supporting my compromise. It is much more likely that Congress will pass an egg and sperm law without any form of civil union compromise as part of the deal than it is that Congress will recognize same-sex marriages on their own.
Lee Mingwei is reality! The horror must be stopped!
It is a cool consciousness raiser, but I think perhaps people aren’t really educated by it, and just dismiss it is a funny joke. Postgenderism does call for male pregnancy being developed.
Back in October. But it bears repeating.
<
p> – Dan
OK, so I get the issues with artificial wombs for men: I think that is a very bad idea. But why not allow same-sex conception in vitro? What is wrong with fertilizing an egg with genetic material from another egg? of fertilizing a donated egg, if it is possible to remove the original genetic material, with the material from two sperms? (though male-male conception is probably easier to use a donor egg and fertilize it with a mixture of sperm). There need to be strong ethical guidelines in dealing with artificial family planning assistance, but there’s no reason the restrictions should discriminate on regards to the genders of the parents. Whatever can be ethically done to help a couple who wants children to have children should be supported.
<
p>
But what I don’t understand is what the debate about this has anything to do with marriage rights for same-sex couples? Conception rights have nothinf to do with the resistance: the resistance is caused by the American oddity of conflating civil marriage and religous marriage.
Male and female dna is comlimentary. They are imprinted differently, so that some genes are turned on in a man’s sperm but off in a woman’s egg. The imprinting happens as the embryo develops almost as soon as the egg is fertilized. The genetic differences between men and women aren’t just in whether there is an X or Y present. Even a sperm that carries an X chromosome is genetically male, imprinted like all of a male’s cells are, as male.
<
p>
So, genetic engineering is required to join the genes of two people of the same sex, or it just won’t work. In the mouse experiments that created Kaguya, they tried knocking out some genes on one of the eggs to see if they could find the right ones, and it took 450 attempts to get one mouse to come out healthy enough to live to adulthood. Other researchers are working on ways using stem cells, but that too requires making genetic changes to get around the imprinting issues.
<
p>
Genetic engineering has all sorts of ethical issues, not just safety, and the genetic engineering required to join two people of the same sex is much riskier than genetic engineering that might remove or add a single gene to improve memory or improve muscle mass or something like that. All people should be created equal, we should not allow a Gattaca society of gene-rich and gene-poor to develop, or interject a huge industry and the government regulation it requires into what ought to be completely free. We need a law that prohibits all genetic engineering, that limits conception to natural conception, meaning, necessarily, joining a man and a woman’s gametes.
<
p>
It is also unnecessary and sends a terrible message to adopted children and donor conceived children, as well as step children and step parents. Love makes a family, and pursuing this – INSISTING ON IT! – is like telling those kids and their parents that they aren’t real families, they don’t love each other as much or connect with each other as much because they are not genetically related.
<
p>
It also wastes medical resources on something that is not medicine, at a time when people cannot get basic health care.
<
p>
Also, why is it that people that insist that it has nothing to do with marriage are also the ones who insist that it remain legal? Dude, if it is legal, then what difference does it make? If it isn’t legal, though, can you really call a marriage that is prohibited from conceiving together equal to other marriages? Would the Lovings have felt it was OK if Virginia said they could marry as long as they underwent a vasectomy or tubal ligation? No, the whole point was that they should be allowed to procreate together – procreation was the “basic civil right” that Virginia was denying interracial couples. Marriage grants the right to conceive together, and we have to make sure that it continues to. So we can’t create a situation where a marriage is prohibited from conceiving together, or it would change marriage and jeopardize everyone’s procreation rights.
Why the hang-up on this particular “plan” for genetically engineered people? Why no opposition to reproductive cloning? Why no oppostion to genetic engineering to, say, pick a hair color?
<
p>
It seems to me that all of these things are the prudct of a rather disturbing vanity and ego.
<
p>
So why only same sex genetic engineering?
I’m against all genetic engineering. All people should be created equal, from the union of a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm. Any changing of the genes, or adding or subtracting genes, means they would not be the egg and sperm of a man and a woman, but instead they would be newly manufactured genes based on their genes. The implications of stopping genetic engineering ought to be apparent.
<
p>
My hang up on same-sex conception is that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples requires developing same-sex conception, as is happening in New Jersey and other places, and as is eagerly awaited and jealously protected by lgbt groups, and same-sex conception requires genetic engineering. It is much riskier than cloning, perhaps even more socially confusing, and much riskier than altering or selecting a single gene for hair color. So, this would open the door for all of those things and make it very hard to tell Randolfe Wicker he can’t clone himself, or transhumanists they can’t enhance their offspring.
<
p>
I am very frustrated that people are arguing about all the wrong aspects of marriage, because they are either ignorant of or purposefully hiding the demand for genetic engineering that same-sex marriage carries with it. Not only does this situation keep genetic engineering legal and continue to waste resources on it, but it also keeps people from being wiling to extend protections and benefits to same-sex couples. With a clear “end” to how far gay rights can go, opponents will be much more willing to be kind to gay people. The slip down the slope would be stopped.
But what I fail to see is the connection between all this and marriage.
<
p>
As a legal matter, the “right” to conceive in the usual fashion has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, single sex or otherwise. I suppose that this right, if it exists, must live somewhere in the right to privacy that many believe offers constitutional protection to a woman’s right to voluntarily cease to be pregnant, without simultaneously becoming a parent.
<
p>
Otherwise, anyone at any age who inserts tab A into slot B can, and does, conceive, regardless of their marital status. Being married neither increases nor decreases (ha, ha) this ability.
<
p>
So your proposed linkage makes no sense. It is a non sequitor. Why not demand that your proposed ban be attached to say, the next highway bill, and then denounce anyone who chooses not to link the issue to the highway bill as “insisting” upon the right?
We are talking about the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples should not have a right to conceive children together.
<
p>
First, deal with that. Does a same-sex couple have the same rights as a male-female couple? Well, right now, yes, but if we pass a law outlawing genetic engineering, then they won’t. Do you agree with that so far? If not, then that’s where we should be arguing, not about what it has to do with marriage.
<
p>
Now, if you agree, then show me one married couple that doesn’t have a right to conceive children together. I can show you lots of couples that don’t have a right to conceive together, and we will find that none of them are allowed to marry (brothers and sisters, moms and sons, children, etc).
<
p>
or at least quit obsessing on this topic. Most other BMG’ers will thank you.