No beating around the bush, either it should be a crime, or it should be legal.
As always, I’m talking about doing whatever it takes to join the genes of two people of the same-sex, creating shared genetic offspring together, I’m not talking about sperm donation, adoption, and other ways that gay couples become parents together.
And [edited after 3 votes for legal were cast]: note that the question is about right now, presently, not at some point in the future, when it is safe. Should we allow someone to try to create a person with same-sex parents, today? It’s a seperate question from if it should be banned in principle.
Feel free to explain why you feel the way you do.
Please share widely!
Three votes so far, all saying that same-sex conception should be allowed right now. That’s the first time anyone has admitted it, up til now people have refused to state their position.
<
p>
Why should it be allowed?
…we’ve just been ignoring you.
because after the 100th child is born missing limbs, or has too many, or is some sort of mutated freak, the GLBT community will probably recognize it’s probably a bad game plan and stick to in-vitro.
<
p>
Remember, liberals are lovers of science. To be succinct, upon further review of the play, the ruling on the field stands, and 2 members of the same sex trying to union their DNA into a baby is a bad plan. I don’t think the GLBT community needs a law to tell them that. John Howard, you’re incurring a 15-yard penalty for delay of game.
After 100 babies they’ll say they are starting to understand how to do it right. Most people are not interested in trying it, but as you seem to take for granted, hundreds of couples would be. Having a baby together is universally recognized as a joyful bonding moment, especially if it was planned. And kids suffer less angst when their parents are their biological parents and there aren’t any mysterious donors. So there will be lots of couples willing to expose their baby to risks to experience that, after all, all babies face risks.
<
p>
Why not have a law? Why delay having a law until after billions of dollars have been spent making 100 babies with same-sex genetic disorders have been born? If we can see now it is a bad idea, lets make it law.
They’ll never understand how to do it right. That’s like saying if you pump 100 billion dollars into a think tank, they’ll come up with a way to make 1+1=3.
The whole reason we need the law is because it can’t be done safely. The law keeps people from foolishly attempting it anyways, and we know that some people are planning on attempting it in spite of the risks.
<
p>
Why are you against a law? The law will bring clarity.
I’ve wasted enough keystrokes in responding to your obsessive concerns and feel I could argue to the point of facial azure.
<
p>
To repeat: if your argument were only to center around (hypothetical) genetic risks, you are undoubtedly ahead of the curve. Good for you. Most risks have never been abated however by shutting down research completely. Certainly there is room for scientific oversight by legal authorities, but enforcing some sort of ‘natural law’ in the form of a pre-emptive ban is egregiously intrusive for both scientists and the gay community.
<
p>
Scientific research has a funny way of producing benefit in unexpected areas — it would indeed be a delicious irony if progress was made on eliminating genetic disease from work on reproductive assistance from a handful of same-sex couples who would desire this AND be able to afford it.
<
p>
I’ll not vote on your gratuitous poll. As I’ve repeated, I can hardly get worked up about it. There are a lot of hypothetical dangers and unforeseen risks out there much more pressing and worthy of debate than yours.
Same sex couples can’t conceive now. What is the point of this post.
But they can certainly try to conceive now anyway. The baby just probably won’t survive, but if it does, it will probably have unknown and never-before-seen health problems. There are many researchers working on it, you know they’ve suceeded in mice, and there are couples that want to try it. Dr Richard Scott in New Jersey said he expects to see a child come from it in “three to five years” – and he said that two years ago. I don’t see why we shouldn’t believe him, he’s a leading respected researcher.
<
p>
It needs to be prohibited before someone tries it, with “before” underlined so you don’t get confused about the point of prohibiting it. it’s silly to leave it legal and let people think it might be possible and waste resources developing it and cruel to let someone try it just to prove that we shouldn’t let anyone try it.
<
p>
If Congress ever decides it would be safe and should be allowed, then they can make it legal. But it should be prohibited now, certainly, because it is proven to be not safe now.