Creating Babies Without Men

[Zoice]

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.

Your religious beliefs are your own, and no one but you has to abide by them. Religious beliefs should not impact public policy.

[The Princes of the Universe]

There are enough already-born kids out there who need loving homes, and that's ignoring all the serious ethical issues surrounding cloning.

[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.

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.

So, uhh, you will not get the allele expressed? Therefore cloning poses zero risk of developing genetic defects other than the genetic defects of the "base" organism?

Though, in the sense of evolution, that means the genetic pool will be reduced to only one gene sequence and would hamper evolution.

[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.

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

It's completely wrong, though.

---

There are enough already-born kids out there who need loving homes, and that's ignoring all the serious ethical issues surrounding cloning.

Serious ethical issues like what?

[Palmyrion]

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

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

Though, it needs to be applied when you are still an embryo for maximum effect and maximum success rate...

[Val Halla]

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

It's completely wrong, though.

---

There are enough already-born kids out there who need loving homes, and that's ignoring all the serious ethical issues surrounding cloning.

Serious ethical issues like what?

Remember that when criticising the "gay agenda" you're always right

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

Though, it needs to be applied when you are still an embryo for maximum effect and maximum success rate...

So?

[Petrolheadia]

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.

So, uhh, you will not get the allele expressed? Therefore cloning poses zero risk of developing genetic defects other than the genetic defects of the "base" organism?

Though, in the sense of evolution, that means the genetic pool will be reduced to only one gene sequence and would hamper evolution.

Exactly. Humans should evolve by standard procreation. Not that I'm homophobic, but the only good method of procreation is non-inbreeding intercourse, since it has a low genetic disease rate compared to inbreeding and allows evolution => betterment of human race.

[SD_Film Artists]

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

Yes, matron-mother. I'm glad you have the mercy to still require our use. *bows and walks off*

[Zoice]

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.

So, uhh, you will not get the allele expressed? Therefore cloning poses zero risk of developing genetic defects other than the genetic defects of the "base" organism?

Yep.

Though, in the sense of evolution, that means the genetic pool will be reduced to only one gene sequence and would hamper evolution.

I don't think this is really a problem. If every single person was cloned from the same person, like the clone army of Django Fett, then that would be a problem if Django has a genetic disease or vulnerability. If he doesn't, or if the clones are genetic are altered to fix the disease, then they're fine. And if we have this level of technology, we can just continue to engineer ourselves. With crops we engineer them, rather than rely on breeding to change them. Same with people, when we're advanced enough.

[The Alexanderians]

Better source than the Dailymail please.

[The Princes of the Universe]

There are enough already-born kids out there who need loving homes, and that's ignoring all the serious ethical issues surrounding cloning.

Serious ethical issues like what?

Let's say someone uses my DNA to make a clone (though why anyone would want to do that would baffle me to no end). Is that clone his own person or my property?

[Pranovia]

This is exciting for the forever single crowd

[Palmyrion]

Better source than the Dailymail please.

http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couple ... -children/

http://time.com/3748019/same-sex-couple ... -children/

http://theweek.com/articles/470736/comi ... hout-sperm

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

It never ceases to amaze me how eager some people with absolutely no fucking clue about genetics are to wade into the subject and make grand pronouncements about viability and ethics. Dunning-Kruger at work, I guess.

[East Catalina]

This is exciting for the forever single crowd

I would be a horrible parent.
Probably.

[Ifreann]

So, uhh, you will not get the allele expressed? Therefore cloning poses zero risk of developing genetic defects other than the genetic defects of the "base" organism?

Though, in the sense of evolution, that means the genetic pool will be reduced to only one gene sequence and would hamper evolution.

Exactly. Humans should evolve by standard procreation. Not that I'm homophobic, but the only good method of procreation is non-inbreeding intercourse, since it has a low genetic disease rate compared to inbreeding and allows evolution => betterment of human race.

Restricting people's behaviour for the sake of evolution is basically bullshit.

[Zoice]

Serious ethical issues like what?

Let's say someone uses my DNA to make a clone (though why anyone would want to do that would baffle me to no end). Is that clone his own person or my property?

It's like a child. His own person, and while the clone is young you're responsible for it, but it can be taken away if you're abusive or neglecting it.

[Ashmoria]

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

Yes, matron-mother. I'm glad you have the mercy to still require our use. *bows and walks off*

its not just sex.

its also opening jars, taking out the trash, changing the oil and going up on the roof.

[Palmyrion]

This is exciting for the forever single crowd

I would be a horrible parent.
Probably.

I will be worse than you

Exactly. Humans should evolve by standard procreation. Not that I'm homophobic, but the only good method of procreation is non-inbreeding intercourse, since it has a low genetic disease rate compared to inbreeding and allows evolution => betterment of human race.

Restricting people's behaviour for the sake of evolution is basically bullshit.

Tru dat

Eugenics ftw

[Lingria]

Yes, matron-mother. I'm glad you have the mercy to still require our use. *bows and walks off*

its not just sex.

its also opening jars, taking out the trash, changing the oil and going up on the roof.

And entertainment, and Government, and history, and cleaning out the gutters, mowing the law, fixing the suspension. Ect ect.

[Hirota]

Better source than the Dailymail please.

I'm digging, and found a lot of talk about this in 2001. Old news methinks.

[Ifreann]

Serious ethical issues like what?

Let's say someone uses my DNA to make a clone (though why anyone would want to do that would baffle me to no end). Is that clone his own person or my property?

Let's say your parents had identical twins instead of just you. Would that be two people or would one twin be the property of the other?

[The Princes of the Universe]

mowing the law

I wasn't aware that the law needed mowing.

[Lingria]

mowing the law

I wasn't aware that the law needed mowing.

Of course it does! It always needs to...uh...be cut down to good perfect 2 inch size!
#datsave

[Pranovia]

I wasn't aware that the law needed mowing.

Of course it does! It always needs to...uh...be cut down to good perfect 2 inch size!
#datsave

More than 3 inches is kinda better ehehehe