Thanks johnk for letting us know about the Internet Archive site, so that we can see stuff has been removed from the internet.
Now I can show people the short-lived web story on GayCityNews.com entitled “Science’s Hope of Two Genetic Dads”. It was removed last summer, I believe because I was distributing flyers referring people to its prediction of children from same-sex parents in “three to five years”.
Isn’t it interesting that we so rarely hear about this area of stem cell research? (Only one other article that I know of on stem cell derived gametes, out of 22,600,000 hits for “stem cell”??) At least now they both survive.
It’s time for a follow-up interview with Dr. Richard Scott, with more details on the research.
Please share widely!
There are hundreds of thousands of children from same-sex parents… you’re fixation on these issues is down-right bazaar. Don’t you have more important things to occupy your time?
<
p>
Seriously.
Wow, it amazes me that some regulars here still don’t understand the issue I’ve been raising. But then that’s why I keep up the campaign.
<
p>
You should try reading the article I dug up for you all. It’s about using stem cell derived gametes to create a child that is a mixture of Adam and Steve, with no genes coming from a mother, or a halfway mix of Eve and Mellissa, with no father. This absolutely requires genetic engineering to modify the chromosomes so that they can join together the way a man’s and a woman’s do. Not only is it terribly unsafe and unpredictable, but it is an enormous waste of resources and unnecessary and unethical to create a person with no mother or no father, who is a manufactured mixture of two narcissistic crazy people.
<
p>
Two main points that ought to come from this discussion:
<
p>
1 – did Dr. Scott really mean “three to five years?” That is next year now!
<
p>
2 – why did they take this article down, and why is this area of stem cell research so unreported about?
who are both narcissistic crazy people!
True enough, but a married man and woman have the right to conceive no matter how narcisstic and crazy they are. Same-sex conception is narcissistic and crazy by its very nature, and should not be allowed, no matter how perfectly adjusted and otherwise sane the two individuals are (though I do contend that only outrageously narcisisstic crazy people would not realize this and attempt it anyway, most would contend, like Ryan does below, that they would adopt, personally). The inherent narcissistic craziness is due to the inherent unacceptable risk and absolute needlessness of attempting it, putting all the risk on innocent people for a stupid reason, niavely offering their children as guinea pigs at the behest of the biotech industry and control-oriented bio-engineering eugenicsists. Those couples would be harming the whole world’s right to have natural children by opening the door to genetic eningeering and a genetic race race that would make the arms race seem rational and ethical.
then be agaisnt it for whatever medical harm reasons you can get up. But start using phrases “narcissistic crazy people” to describe people that my have a desire to avail themselves of medical science in order to concieve a genetic line, that is why you are thought of as inflamatory (and worse).
<
p>
Please for the sake of intelectual honesty… figure it out!
That’s what I’m calling on everyone else to have! It seems everyone is trying to pretend that we can stop genetic engineering without directly effecting the conception rights of same-sex couples. We can’t! There is a conflict here that intellectually honest people will admit to.
Because two people who are in love would wish to have a baby that shares both of their genetics, they’re suddenly crazy narcassists? Really?
<
p>
I guess every reproducing heterosexual couple must be crazy narcissists too. That is a very warped sense of reality you’re living in.
<
p>
It’s called scientific advancement. If scientists are interested in that field and can develop safe ways of doing it, why not? The key word is safe – right now the science to do that probably isn’t there. However, it could be in the future. You only get there (or find you can’t get there) through research.
<
p>
Furthermore, the potential of such technology extends far beyond allowing gay couples the chance to share children in a genetic sense. For example, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who may not be able to fertilize with their sperm or eggs. However, apparently this technology would allow doctors to do it in a lab so they could still have their own, genetic babies. More importantly, it would probably allow for the elimination of dangerous or deadly hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia.
<
p>
I’m one of many people who don’t view children as having to be genetically linked. I plan on adopting children instead of finding a surrogate, for example. However, a lot of people don’t feel that way. I wouldn’t want them to adopt, for the sake of the children. Adopting has to be something you want to do. However, people deserve the chance to have children – biologically, it’s probably the number one reason we all exist. If straight or gay people could someday employ this technology and gain a child they always wanted, more power to them.
Because two people who are in love would wish to have a baby that shares both of their genetics, they’re suddenly crazy narcassists? Really?
<
p>
If they’re the same sex, yes. Because it is unsafe and unethical.
<
p>
I guess every reproducing heterosexual couple must be crazy narcissists too. That is a very warped sense of reality you’re living in.
<
p>
No, a man and a woman that wish to have children together are not crazy narcissists, because they are not hiring a company to manipulate their genes so that they might be able to create a person that is related to both of them, at extreme peril to the person they are commissioning. With someone of the other sex, either of those people could conceive a person ethically, without genetic engineering.
<
p>
It’s called scientific advancement. If scientists are interested in that field and can develop safe ways of doing it, why not? The key word is safe – right now the science to do that probably isn’t there. However, it could be in the future. You only get there (or find you can’t get there) through research.
<
p>
Not all scientific advancement is wise or ethical or has to be allowed just because someone says it is “scientific advancement.” There are many downsides to allowing scientists to “see what happens” especially when the result of their experiments are intended to be people (much like the supercollider experiments that might collapse the universe or something like that). People would probably be born with never-before-seen life-long diseases and psychological issues, and there is no way to call it “safe” without trying it first, so your scenario is not possible. This isn’t medicine, like restoring a diseased person’s ability to have children is, so it is in an entirely seperate catagory of acceptable risk and rights. Being a man or a woman is not a disease, so correcting for that is not medicine. It is irresponsible vain manufacture, or wasteful and dangerous attempts at it.
<
p>
Furthermore, the potential of such technology extends far beyond allowing gay couples the chance to share children in a genetic sense. For example, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who may not be able to fertilize with their sperm or eggs. However, apparently this technology would allow doctors to do it in a lab so they could still have their own, genetic babies.
<
p>
Yes, that would be medicine. And it woudln’t involve genetic engineering, at least as I understand it to mean manipulating the gamete so it is different from the person it came from. Even so, it might be unwise medicine that we choose not to allow (though so far we have never once prohibited any fertility treatments, because it is such a basic civil right and so private).
<
p>
More importantly, it would probably allow for the elimination of dangerous or deadly hereditary diseases, such as hemophilia.
<
p>
Hmm, barely qualifies as medicine, though it’s not really treating diseased people so much as creating people that won’t get the disease. Hemophelia and Huntington’s and Tay-Sach’s and many other ones, right? Rich people do PGD already, if they believe they are at high risk of those. I wouldn’t call that genetic engineering or medicine, but I’m not worried about the lost little embryos so much as the inequality and the eventual semi-voluntary compulsion that people will be under to have their children screened. It is the most obvious slippery slope to step out onto, and we haven’t already embarked on it. We don’t do genetic engineering right now. Now, all people are created equal, as the union of a man and a woman that hopefully chose each other consensually. We are all egg and sperm from a woman and a man. Once we start eliminating hemophelia, we will step onto the slope and people will then be commercial products, guaranteed certainly not to have hemophelia, and with our deluxe model, more likely to do well in law school.
<
p>
I’m one of many people who don’t view children as having to be genetically linked. I plan on adopting children instead of finding a surrogate, for example.
<
p>
This is a great thing, if you can commit to loving a kid who needs a family to be a part of, there are unfortunately too many who need that.
<
p>
However, a lot of people don’t feel that way. I wouldn’t want them to adopt, for the sake of the children. Adopting has to be something you want to do. However, people deserve the chance to have children – biologically, it’s probably the number one reason we all exist. If straight or gay people could someday employ this technology and gain a child they always wanted, more power to them.
<
p>
Thank you for openly advocating same-sex conception rights. In fact, you insist that same-sex couples have conception rights, don’t you? It’s a right of marriage, after all, isn’t it? Heterosexual couples have conception rights, right?
<
p>
But do you really think it’s good to let unscrupulous fertility clinics exploit couples that want to have children together – perhaps even have the first such child together? Shouldn’t Congress take this pressure off couples and prohibit it now, and then allow it if it ever appears to be safe? Until then, same-sex couples should have the Civil Unions that all the candidates say they should have, but they should not have marriage because they should not have conception rights. If it’s ever safe, allow it by changing civil unions to marriages.
You keep launching general assertions that these “manipulations” are neither safe nor ethical. Who are you to decide that? Do you have a PHd in genetics? Are you a practicing obgyn?
<
p>
And who are you to decide it’s unethical? You can’t just say “it’s unethical” and not back it up. You assert two homosexual people having a child is unethical too, right up at the top. Why? Every peer-reviewed study has shown that to be untrue: any two loving people are highly capable of raising a child, be they gay or straight. In fact, I know children raised by gay parents – and they’re some of the happiest, proudest people I know.
<
p>
<
p>
Oh, I get it, gay people having children will be akin to “collaps[ing] the universe.” Like I said, you have a warped sense of reality.
<
p>
<
p>
And you know this because? Like I said, what sort of expertise do you have in this field? My guess is next to none. That said, I wouldn’t support such medical use without more research. There is no danger in researching this technology – and, unlike whatever crazy, warped sense of reality you’re living in, there will be no collapsing of the universe. Maybe it would be perfectly safe, maybe we don’t have the technology to do it. Without more scientific advancement, we’ll just never know.
<
p>
<
p>
I’m so glad we have our resident medical expert to decide what “qualifies” as medicine. Thanks. I call it preventative care. In fact, it’s more equal than current treatment – which essentially forces couples to have a particular sex, instead of having the “random” choice. Furthermore, though the person wouldn’t have something akin to hemophelia, they still could be carriers. Advancements could be made so that genetic diseases like hemophilia could be nearly wiped out. Wouldn’t that make the world a better place? No one should have to be born with that.
<
p>
<
p>
In fact, no, I don’t. Why? Because a) we aren’t anywhere near being able to use this technology. B) Such eliminations would kill research into that area – because it would almost certainly be banned and no investor in their right mind would research into a field that would be banned, hoping against hope the ban would be lifted. It’s an unneccessary law becuase it’s not going to happen for a very long time. When research is closer, fertility clinics will be self-policed because they’ll get so much negative press it could drive them out of business if they frack something like that up. There aren’t a whole ton of “unscrupulous” fertility clinics in America – they’re still all MDs and governed by the same rules. There are ethics at fertility clinics – something I can attest to, seeing as how my mother works for one.
You keep launching general assertions that these “manipulations” are neither safe nor ethical. Who are you to decide that? Do you have a PHd in genetics? Are you a practicing obgyn?
<
p>
A geneticist is the last person to trust regarding the ethics of genetic engineering, obviously. An obgyn might have more realistic opinions, unless of course they are ideologically committed to be willing executioners.
<
p>
And who are you to decide it’s unethical? You can’t just say “it’s unethical” and not back it up.
<
p>
Virtually all ethicicsts that are not shills for fertility clinics or genetic institutes feel that we are at the “Enough” point now, and we should prohibit all attempts at conceiving a genetically engineered person, and only allow conceiving by joining a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. Missouri just passed a constitutional amendment that prohibits implanting embryos created any other way. It was the least controversial part of the law, virtually everyone on both sides of the question agreed. There are transhumanists who think it is ethical, in fact they think it is be unethical to conceive people that are not genetically enhanced or screened. Who are they to say it is ethical? They are anti-social weirdos who think they will live forever and be able to upload their consciousnesses into a big central computer.
<
p>
You assert two homosexual people having a child is unethical too, right up at the top. Why? Every peer-reviewed study has shown that to be untrue: any two loving people are highly capable of raising a child, be they gay or straight. In fact, I know children raised by gay parents – and they’re some of the happiest, proudest people I know.
<
p>
No I didn’t say that! I am only talking about creating a child that has two genetic dads or moms, or any other source besides a man and a woman. I’m not concerned with parenting at all. Parenting has nothing to do with marriage.
<
p>
Oh, I get it, gay people having children will be akin to “collaps[ing] the universe.” Like I said, you have a warped sense of reality.
<
p>
Ryan, I was showing you that there are lots of experiments that should not be attempted, besides genetic engineering, and some might even be stupider, like the supercollider. I love some of the comments here.
Sounds just like you. I’m not sure that ending the universe would be worse than ending natural conception rights, but I’m sure they’re both things we should avoid.
<
p>
And you know this [probable defects] because? Like I said, what sort of expertise do you have in this field?
<
p>
Scieintists have been doing experiments in animals, and so far there has only been one seemingly healthy mouse created out of 450 emryos created, in that one experiment alone. If we add in their experiments in pigs and other animals, it probably drops down to a <.1 percent. I have no expertise in genetics except what I’ve read in articles and books and from talking to some educated people. But that’s enough to learn that same-sex conception is inherently unsafe.
I wouldn’t support such medical use without more research.
<
p>
Do you think they care at what point you “support” it or not? Are they going to call you to see if enough research has been done yet? What about me, will I agree with you? Well, at least you agree that it is unsafe now. So why do you support it being legal now?
<
p>
There is no danger in researching this technology – and, unlike whatever crazy, warped sense of reality you’re living in, there will be no collapsing of the universe.
<
p>
It’s super wasteful and unnecessary. The carbon footprint of the research is enormous. The kids that need homes will languish in halfway houses while we do research. The animal research is cruel and unethical, too, since it is not being done to cure a person’s disease. Stopping the research and re-directing the resources toward medicine and caring for existing people would be much much smarter.
<
p>
Maybe it would be perfectly safe, maybe we don’t have the technology to do it. Without more scientific advancement, we’ll just never know.
<
p>
We know it isn’t perfectly safe, and we know logically that it can’t be declared “perfectly safe” without trying it first, because it can’t be tested in animals first, since every species had different complementary differences between male and female geneomes. Research and resources should be put toward curing real diseases and we should not move toward a world where people are created according to government approved specs by for-profit companies. Kids should to know that if they want to have children someday, it will have to be done in cooperation with someone of the other sex. They shouldn’t be taught that SSC is imenent and will be available to them.
<
p>
I’m so glad we have our resident medical expert to decide what “qualifies” as medicine. Thanks.
<
p>
Thank any dictionary, which will clearly state that medicine is to cure diseases.
<
p>
Advancements could be made so that genetic diseases like hemophilia could be nearly wiped out. Wouldn’t that make the world a better place? No one should have to be born with that.
<
p>
Read Enough by Bill McKibben for a good argument why we shouldn’t start genetic engineering, even when it is something everyone would agree is a good thing.
In fact, no, I don’t. Why? Because a) we aren’t anywhere near being able to use this technology.
<
p>
One of the most respected fertility doctors in the country, and perhaps the foremost expert on this research, said he expects to see a child in “three to five years”. That was in this article, did you read it? Did you notice that it was written two years ago? So the best guess is next year, someone will be trying it to see what happens, if a couple can be found that is messed-up enough to want to try it. Maybe it will be one of those deaf couples that want their child to be deaf, too. There are lots of people who might want to try.
<
p>
B) Such eliminations would kill research into that area – because it would almost certainly be banned and no investor in their right mind would research into a field that would be banned, hoping against hope the ban would be lifted.
<
p>
Yeah, that’s good. It will probably be banned anyhow, and no investor in their right mind will invest in it. Lots of public money is spent on stem cell research, billions and billions. How much of it directly researches same-sex conception I wish I knew.
<
p>
It’s an unneccessary law becuase it’s not going to happen for a very long time.
<
p>
Putting the law in place in advance will enable so much good to happen. It will resolve the same-sex marriage debate and end the divisiveness and danger that the debate causes. If done right, it will result in a compromise so that same-sex couples get federal recognition of civil unions that are exactly like marriage but without conception rights. Isn’t federal recognition important? Oh, that’s right, the high school students leading the gay rights movement don’t like older gay people, and so who cares about their social security benefits? It’s much more important to bring on transhumanism so we can live in the Matrix than help those older lesbian couples get social security.
<
p>
When research is closer, fertility clinics will be self-policed because they’ll get so much negative press it could drive them out of business if they frack something like that up.
<
p>
Nah, they will choose a couple carefully, and make sure the couple agrees to abort the baby if it is not coming out right. Dr. Scott’s company will probably be the first to do it.
<
p>
There aren’t a whole ton of “unscrupulous” fertility clinics in America – they’re still all MDs and governed by the same rules. There are ethics at fertility clinics – something I can attest to, seeing as how my mother works for one.
<
p>
They have ethical boards that are more or less panderers and manipulators of public opinion. They basically just try to control the of schedule when to make the next announcement, as research progresses and the public has gotten used to the last advance. They just exist to assure the public that all the ethics have been considered and it’s all good.
oh yeah, how? lay out the steps for us, in realistic detail. tell me the processes and methodologies involved. i bet you can’t. i bet you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. prove me wrong. wow me with your understanding of the scientific process involved. prove to me you’re not just another homophobic crank jerking off to each reply to your inane posts.
The imprinting is different between males and females, all across the genome. At the genetic level, across the genome, male and female genes are complentary and both are required to be able to join together. They’d have to change the imprinting, not just put the contents of an egg into a sperm.
<
p>
In that article, they explicitly say that they have to do genetic engineering, and admit that they haven’t quite figured out yet:
<
p>
I’m not sure how they go about “engineering changes” in the PGCs. I know it invoves finding genes they need to “turn off” or “turn on” but I don’t know how they do that. I think it involves synthesising some DNA protein and finding a viral or bacterial “vector” to get copies of it into the nucleus of a stem cell, so that as they get it to divide and differentiate into a gamete, it becomes not only a gamete of the other sex, but a gamete carrying genes imprinted like the other sex too.
<
p>
Explaining this with more details would be a good magazine article, wouldn’t it?
Are you an expert in this field Mr. Howard? What is your education, so that we may know to trust what you say?
…I’ll merely point out that I figured out several months ago that the guy is a nut.
As in “extraordinarily dedicated to something”, you mean, right? OK. But you’ve been keeping your opinion on same-sex conception rights to yourself, raj. Do you think they are something that people should be insisting on today, even though insisting on full marriage rights for Massachusetts same-sex couples creates a backlash for same-sex couples in the rest of the country, and causes billions of people throughout the world to want to destroy our country? Accepting that same-sex conception is unnecessary and unwise and unsafe – and prohibiting it – would bring very good things to people all over the country. It is nutty to prefer conception rights over equal protections.
Crick and Watson and I used to hang out together. I invented the amino acid. I’m with you in calling for more experts to weigh in on same-sex conception. I hope none of them will let sentimentality or ideology or a quest for scientific fame get in the way of their ethical judgement.
<
p>
Chances are, a geneticist is already biased about this, and entered the field to do eugenics. Like the two elegant Harvard genetics professors who were out for a stroll on Cambridge Common (in seersucker suits!) and stopped to chat with me. They couldn’t have been more misanthropic and brain-adled. “We’ll surely do better than the breeders do” one told me. I’m not going to trust that guys opinions, and the fact that he would dazzle us all with expert knowledge of genetics doesn’t mean he understands the issue any better than a grandmother in Dorchester does.
Just wondering.
When you don’t like what someone else has to say, just rate em a 3 instead of replying. Lol.
Do you think this is going to go away?
…no one here has agreed with you that same-sex couples should not have conception rights. Perhaps many people are undecided, but most have said that yes, two adults (who are not direct family) should have the right to conceive if it is safe and possible.
<
p>
That said, this is not linked to marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a contractual and soulful union between to people to be a family together. The right to conceive is a natural right as it exists in all species and has a history billions of years longer than the idea of matrimony.
<
p>
If you’re against genetic engineering to create sperm from women or eggs from men, then fine. But stop trying to link this issue to equal marriage rights, as they have nothing to do with each other.
“Fine”, as in, “OK, I agree, let’s prohibit genetic engineering and make it so that people can only conceive with someone of the other sex”? Or “fine” as in, “it doesn’t matter what you think, we’re going to do it anyway?”
<
p>
If the latter, then it doesn’t really matter what it has to do with marriage, does it? It’ll be legal, so we wouldn’t notice any difference in rights of same-sex couples. Of course we should have same-sex marriage if we allow same-sex conception.
<
p>
If the former (which I doubt), and we prohibit GE’d conceptions, then same-sex couples would not have conception rights, they wouldn’t be allowed to try it. Are you fine with that, or would you do what Rishard Loving did, and point to your marriage license on the wall? Conception is a right of marriage. There are no hetero marriages that are prohibited from conceiving, right? It would only be the same-sex marriages that are prohibited. Hetero couples that are publicly prohibited from conceiving are not allowed to be married. But if we change marriage by allowing prohibited pairs to marry anyway, but then prohibit them from conceiving for safety reasons, it would mean that all marriages are suddenly vulnerable to being declared unsafe to procreate. Is it worth it to do that to marriage, when you still wouldn’t have the right to conceive that you would have if you married a woman? Why gut marriage’s rights for everyone else, just out of spite? Or perhaps a eugenic agenda, to stop the most disgusting of the breeders?
<
p>
Why not use that distinction to your advantage? Why not use that inevitable difference in rights to your lasting advantage by conceding that you dont need conception rights right now, and accepting Civil Unions that had the same distinction – no conception rights? This could bail out the candidates and get nationally recognized civil unions happening within a few months, before the campaign season even starts.
I meant neither of your statements: I meant, if you interested in banning genetic engineering to enable same-sex in vitro conception, then fine, debate the problems you see with that. but people could take your arguments much more seriously if you weren’t coupling it to taking away equal marriage rights.
<
p>
My wife and I hope to have children some day: it would be easiest to do naturally, but there’s a possibility we won’t be able to because of a medical condition she has. If that turns out to be true, we may adopt, or we may act like “crazy narcissists” and try artificial means for conception, though I personally have ethical questions about such processes. However, if we weren’t married but still wanted to have children, we have that right as humans: it’s not a legal right given through marriage. If we weren’t married, we could adopt or we could use artificial means of conception (or at least should be able to). And the same would apply if I was a woman or my wife was a man, regardless of our marital status, we should have the right to choose to attempt to conceive children. Whether or not we would choose to do that could vary for many reasons, and I as I said, opposite-sex IVF has moral questions of its own that it is up to the parents and their doctor to decide what to do.
<
p>
The burden of the argument is whether using cells from same-sex parents to create a child is for some reason more dangerous or objectionable ethically than traditional in vitro fertilization. There are arguments to be made, but they have nothing to do whatsoever with marriage rights, so once you get over that, maybe there could be a real discussion.
That IS “fine as in, it doesn’t matter what you think, we’re going to do it anyway.” Because though you realize you have to be fine with me arguing that it shouldn’t be allowed, that is only if no one hears me, because you do in fact insist that it should be allowed. So you certainly aren’t fine with me successfully raising awareness enough to the point that we decide that same-sex couples should not have conception rights.
<
p>
I call BS on your concern that people would take it more seriously if I didn’t bring up marriage rights. You don’t want people to take it more seriously, you think it should be a right of same-sex couples. And conception IS a right of marriage, I didn’t make that up out of thin air, it’s been the right of every marriage since the beginning. I agree that lots of people go into a catatonic state when they are confronted with a right that same-sex couples should not have and it might conflict with marriage rights, and it is unfortunate that usually when they emerge they take the position that “if it is safe, why not”. It doesn’t seem to change anyone from a marriage supporter to a civil union supporter as was my hope. But that’s because you are all in a protective collective delusion. The candidates you will vote for are not marriage supporters, so there really should be no conflict for you. It’s you that is making things difficult and being irresponsible and ushering in genetic engineering because you have dogmatic beliefs about same-sex marriage.
<
p>
IVF is not genetic engineering. Even creating gametes from stem cells is not genetic engineering. Creating opposite sex gametes from stem cells is genetic engineering. It is unsafe. The burden should be on the scientists and couples that want to do it to convince the public that they should be allowed to.
<
p>
I’m perfectly willing to have the discussion without mentioning marriage. In fact, this thread didn’t mention marriage until pretty deep into it, it certainly wasn’t the focus of this post, which was entirely about the article in GayCityNews that predicted a baby in “three to five years” and was removed from their site to cover up the research. I would really like to talk about that, but because people are so crazily committed to same-sex equality and marriage rights, THEY don’t want this discussion. They would rather strip conception rights from marriage than accept that a person should not have the same rights with a man that they have with a woman. That, Bob, is “crazy”.
It is true, most people that have taken a position have said they believe same-sex conception should be legal and same-sex couples should have conception rights. They insist on it.
<
p>
But do we ever hear anyone mention it? Funny, such an important right, but no one ever mentions it. The rare few times it is mentioned, someone thinks better of it and removes the mention from their website. Self-censorship is not benign, keeping the public ignorant of the most important demands is not OK. If you want conception rights, you should be admitting that you insist on conception rights. You want the right to hire a lab to make a child that is half “alexwill” and half another man, even though it would be extremely risky and subject the kid to psychological trauma from having no female proginator, and having two male proginators, assuming he survives long enough to develop psychological trauma.
<
p>
You should change your demands from the fanciful and dangerous and wasteful and unnecessary demand for same-sex conception and give that up, and instead demand equal protections from the federal government, which actual same-sex couples need much more than a bio-related child with birth defects.