11–16 of 16 posts
A lot of trouble for very little? If its absolutely important for your children to be statistically correlated to you, beyond the 99.9% that all humans are ALREADY correleated? It's been said that adoptive children are sometimes loved too.
Being able to reproduce without needing functional male/female sex organs, using only skin cells and technology, is an interesting step. It could theoretically apply to same-sex couples, the elderly, children, or people with various disabilities, injuries, or other forms of infertility. The same-sex focus of this article (specifically, the "OMG this totally defeats an objection to gay marriage" bit in the intro) is a…
Being able to reproduce without needing functional male/female sex organs, using only skin cells and technology, is an interesting step. It could theoretically apply to same-sex couples, the elderly, children, or people with various disabilities, injuries, or other forms of infertility. The same-sex focus of this article (specifically, the "OMG this totally defeats an objection to gay marriage" bit in the intro) is a…
Very good point, I wasn't saying it totally defeats all objections to gay marriage, just the specific reproductive argument against it. But I agree, politics does tend to detract from science.
A lot of trouble for very little? If its absolutely important for your children to be statistically correlated to you, beyond the 99.9% that all humans are ALREADY correleated? It's been said that adoptive children are sometimes loved too.
Four billion years of evolution have tended to make us prefer our own children to those of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which probably doesn't relate much to laboratory modification of your genome.
It relates to your previous comment.