Creating Babies Without Men

[Palmyrion]

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

[Ashmoria]

I think its something we don't have to worry about.

[Farropia]

Knowing that LGBT is a minority, it's more likely that this scenario could never happen, unless the babies share the same sexual orientation as their mothers. We're just one step closer to cloning! Remember Dolly the Sheep?

[Val Halla]

It's cool that we can have LGBT people have their own biological children

[Cruithneach]

Yeah, no need to worry. We're still miles away from a kind of female-dominated dystopia and even if it was close, the vast majority of women prefer male sexual partners. We'd still have use

[Palmyrion]

Knowing that LGBT is a minority, it's more likely that this scenario could never happen, unless the babies share the same sexual orientation as their mothers. We're justone step ccloser to Cloning! Remember Dolly the Sheep?

Sure, a handful of babies won't be a major problem, but once scaled up to ~7 billion, our genetic pool would be very, very small, and the implications of a very small genetic pool are obvious.

Though, I will expect feminists to say this is "propaganda made by a patriarchal society to advance its misogynistic agenda".

[Petrolheadia]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

[Cruithneach]

Knowing that LGBT is a minority, it's more likely that this scenario could never happen, unless the babies share the same sexual orientation as their mothers. We're justone step ccloser to Cloning! Remember Dolly the Sheep?

Sure, a handful of babies won't be a major problem, but once scaled up to ~7 billion, our genetic pool would be very, very small, and the implications of a very small genetic pool are obvious.

Though, I will expect feminists to say this is "propaganda made by a patriarchal society to advance its misogynistic agenda".

Feminazis, not feminists. A feminist is an egalitarian.

[Lingria]

To be honest. This sounds really, really dumb. I usually keep my conservative ideals off nationstates, but this is just really dumb and morally wrong. I get it, gay people want kids. There are dozens lf different options than a highly experimental thing, that requires bone marrow or whatever you need.

[Ifreann]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

Cloning is nothing like inbreeding.

---

To be honest. This sounds really, really dumb. I usually keep my conservative ideals off nationstates, but this is just really dumb and morally wrong. I get it, gay people want kids. There are dozens lf different options than a highly experimental thing, that requires bone marrow or whatever you need.

What's dumb about it? What's morally wrong about it?

[Kractero]

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

Hahahahahaha

Implying feminism gains ground because of this.

[Cruithneach]

To be honest. This sounds really, really dumb. I usually keep my conservative ideals off Nationstates, but this is just really dumb and morally wrong. I get it, gay people want kids. There are dozens of different options than a highly experimental thing, that requires bone marrow or whatever you need.

It should be researched more, though. Imagine a gay couple being able to have their own baby without having to adopt or the like.

[Lingria]

What's dumb about it? What's morally wrong about it?

The Lord put two genders on this planet to build this world. Not Adam and Steve, or Eva and Eve. I dont wont to sound like a....ass, put it simply, but Homosexuals should at least look at other options first.

[Lingria]

To be honest. This sounds really, really dumb. I usually keep my conservative ideals off Nationstates, but this is just really dumb and morally wrong. I get it, gay people want kids. There are dozens of different options than a highly experimental thing, that requires bone marrow or whatever you need.

It should be researched more, though. Imagine a gay couple being able to have their own baby without having to adopt or the like.

I doubt it'll be an effective option till at least 2080.

[The Blaatschapen]

Remember Dolly the Sheep?

Yes

I don't think this is something to worry about. Creating babies with men is quite simply too much fun for non-LGBTs.

[Palmyrion]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

A round of applause and a bonus highlight for a main problem of this.

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

Hahahahahaha

Implying feminism gains ground because of this.

I was simply quoting the article.

Sure, a handful of babies won't be a major problem, but once scaled up to ~7 billion, our genetic pool would be very, very small, and the implications of a very small genetic pool are obvious.

Though, I will expect feminists to say this is "propaganda made by a patriarchal society to advance its misogynistic agenda".

Feminazis, not feminists. A feminist is an egalitarian.

Difference, please. Though, we can take it to TG's since this isn't about feminism, but rather, creating babies without men.

[Val Halla]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

Really? I'm pretty sure that it... Wouldn't. Doctors aren't stupid

[Jochistan]

Cloning?

[Lingria]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

Really? I'm pretty sure that it... Wouldn't. Doctors aren't stupid

Uuh.....Doctors are still human, they fuck up. Like....a lot.

[Tekeristan]

What's dumb about it? What's morally wrong about it?

The Lord put two genders on this planet to build this world. Not Adam and Steve, or Eva and Eve. I dont wont to sound like a....ass, put it simply, but Homosexuals should at least look at other options first.

I say we should go all out! Let's mix a fw million samples of DNA, purge the imperfect ones and grow the perfect! Craft a clean human race of healthy, natural individuals!

*rant rant*

Just having fun.

[Zoice]

Well, I think it should be illegal, since using that would be essentially inbreeding and put the kids in ginormous danger of genetic diseases.

Inbreeding is a problem because if you have one copy of a recessive bad allele, and your sibling also has one copy, then there's a chance that your kids would get one copy from both of you and end up with a total of two copies and the bad allele will be expressed (generally that's how it works). If you're cloned, you just have the same genes, it's like growing a twin, there's no second copy of the recessive bad allele.

[Palmyrion]

It should be researched more, though. Imagine a gay couple being able to have their own baby without having to adopt or the like.

I doubt it'll be an effective option till at least 2080.

Why not now?

To be honest. This sounds really, really dumb. I usually keep my conservative ideals off Nationstates, but this is just really dumb and morally wrong. I get it, gay people want kids. There are dozens of different options than a highly experimental thing, that requires bone marrow or whatever you need.

It should be researched more, though. Imagine a gay couple being able to have their own baby without having to adopt or the like.

This process requires a female, not a male. That said, gays still need to adopt.

[ArgenAnon]

I would be worried if the whole cloning process would be done by women, but that won't happen, they can barely stand eachother, imagine a world of women only. :^)

[Ifreann]

What's dumb about it? What's morally wrong about it?

The Lord put two genders on this planet to build this world. Not Adam and Steve, or Eva and Eve.

The Lord also gave us a powerful curiosity about the world around us and the intelligence to discover how it works. If he didn't want us to use those things to improve the lives of our fellows, then he probably shouldn't have told us to love and care for one another.

I dont wont to sound like a....ass, put it simply, but Homosexuals should at least look at other options first.

I'm sure they will. And this is one of their options. Or will be once there's been sufficient research.

[Val Halla]

Really? I'm pretty sure that it... Wouldn't. Doctors aren't stupid

Uuh.....Doctors are still human, they fuck up. Like....a lot.

You don't appear to be aware of the existence of gene therapy