31–40 of 106 posts
Millions of same-sex couples may benefit from this research in the future if it helps make it possible for them to conceive (directly biologically related) children. EDIT: Oh gosh, it's right there in TFA, that's what I get for skimming instead of reading deeply. All I saw were comments on the ethical implications of the biology work when I commented.
> and potentially allow male-male couples to have biological children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our Mission > We want to help parents have kids when it otherwise wouldn’t be possible. What is so unethical about that?
Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I can see many ways this spirals into something different.
Millions of same-sex couples may benefit from this research in the future if it helps make it possible for them to conceive (directly biologically related) children. EDIT: Oh gosh, it's right there in TFA, that's what I get for skimming instead of reading deeply. All I saw were comments on the ethical implications of the biology work when I commented.
It's in the mission statement at the top of the link: > and potentially allow male-male couples to have biological children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand. Are you saying there’s some negative impact to allowing people to have children who otherwise couldn’t? What problems do you foresee?
I commented above a few of the issues I see. For example, would Lebron James (or any celebrity or person that has genetics that are profitable) be afraid of giving blood for fear of someone making Lebron 2.0 without his permission?
Obviously these child support laws are in need of reform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, that end is noble, but the ends don't always justify the means.
I don’t understand. Are you saying there’s some negative impact to allowing people to have children who otherwise couldn’t? What problems do you foresee?
In and of itself, no. I'm saying there's issues with some particular ways of doing so.
Why does anybody think this is a good idea? The 'right' of same-sex couples to have children via gametes their own bodies cannot produce is not at all obvious. For centuries, the interdependence of the sexes for reproduction has formed the basis for human society. We should not be so willing to give this up because a small minority of people find the other sex distasteful for their sexual preferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, that end is noble, but the ends don't always justify the means.
I don’t understand. Are you saying there’s some negative impact to allowing people to have children who otherwise couldn’t? What problems do you foresee?
Oh goody. Now we don't need females /s Why does anybody think this is a good idea? The 'right' of same-sex couples to have children via gametes their own bodies cannot produce is not at all obvious. For centuries, the interdependence of the sexes for reproduction has formed the basis for human society. We should not be so willing to give this up because a small minority of people find the other sex distasteful for th…
Oh goody. Now we don't need females /s Why does anybody think this is a good idea? The 'right' of same-sex couples to have children via gametes their own bodies cannot produce is not at all obvious. For centuries, the interdependence of the sexes for reproduction has formed the basis for human society. We should not be so willing to give this up because a small minority of people find the other sex distasteful for th…
And the 'right' of you or me to stop them is?
Oh goody. Now we don't need females /s Why does anybody think this is a good idea? The 'right' of same-sex couples to have children via gametes their own bodies cannot produce is not at all obvious. For centuries, the interdependence of the sexes for reproduction has formed the basis for human society. We should not be so willing to give this up because a small minority of people find the other sex distasteful for th…