I came across this story the other day and it got me thinking. First of all, I think it is highly unethical, and second, can anyone else see the irony of, when I googled "all female society", the first listing that came up was from Amazon.com?
Here's anther link on the subject of gamete tehnology: Human Sperm made from bone marrow cells I agree with you that the possibilities suggested are unethical.
I am always worried when the media takes the implications of stem cell research to the bizarre possibilities as they have done here. The scientists involved are actually looking at their discovery as a way of treating infertility in men. But the media chooses to put a different spin on it, and places emphasis on the female-only reproduction issue.
Stem cell research, in my opinion is necessary. However, articles like this give the opponents of reseach, ammunition to lobby governments to end much needed funding, and in many cases to makes such research illegal.
For many people with serious diseases stem cell research is their only hope. I speak from the experience of having someone close to me that has such a disease.
Is it really 'unethical', or is it just a very strange idea? Who would be harmed by the production of artificial sperm from a woman's bone marrow?
As a technologically enhanced method of conception, how is it different, ethically, from in vitro fertilisation? As a possible waste of medical resources, how is it different, ethically, from cosmetic surgery?
NNN, I think I have a tough time getting my head around the idea of female only reproduction, that's my point here. Invitro-fertilisation involves male sperm and a female egg. Cosmetic surgery has an effect only on the individual that chooses to have it .
But in the case of developing sperm from female bone marrow, isn't there the unknown effect on the unborn child to consider, and consequently future generations?
Yes, of course. The child is a potential victim - but the same can be said, ethically, of just about any new medical procedure or drug in the area of fertility.
NNN, my view, strictly from a reproductive standpoint, is that since nature hasn't come up with this on its own, who knows what the potential outcome could be. There's a reason for sexuality and sexual reproduction.
Next, we'll hear about the woman, who conceived a child, using sperm, produced with her own bone marrow. That just hits too close to home to asexualtiy, and on some twisted level, incest.
There's a very interesting phenom. in which actual cells -- not reproductive cells, I don't mean the egg -- migrate into the fetal body from the mother's body during pregnancy. It's called microchimerism.
(Chimerism is when a twin's body or a part of it gets incorporated into the body of the other twin.)
So a boy or girl might have some ovarian tissue from its mother in its body.
(God is such a kidder!)
Let's call the original mother "M".
So if this tissue could be found in M's son, then it might be used to generate offspring that is a cross between M and her son, all cells coming from the male, using a surrogate mother, and the offspring could be male or female which is determined by the son's Y chromosome.
Or not. Sounds like a bad idea.
But if the daughter of M had the same ovarian cells from M, the union of their cells could not produce a male. So it would be a kind of parthenogesis.
But I still like the old fashioned way best.
Posts: 6376 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
my view, strictly from a reproductive standpoint, is that since nature hasn't come up with this on its own, who knows what the potential outcome could be. There's a reason for sexuality and sexual reproduction.
If there's a reason, what could that be? Sounds too much like an article of religious faith rather than science. Most things that have never been done before carry some unforseen risks, but historically the reason we've always done it this way, is that we derive some pleasure in the method as well as we still don't know of a better way. IMHO.
But I'm sure you'll come up with some inane retort.
I'll try to follow the rules of mature and civilized behavior. But will you kindly explain what I have done to provoke the puzzling and venomous response?? How have I offended you?
Originally posted by Lighteningrodd: Hmmm...so is it safe to say that when it comes to the reproductive process, men can be considered obselite....
I think it's a vicious feminist conspiracy to make us obsolete, but they may arguably have a point. The world would certainly be a lot more peaceful without us in it.
The idea of sperm created from a woman's cells is, as dance girl pointed out, pretty far out there - a possibility suggested by the research. "Next, we'll hear about the woman, who conceived a child, using sperm, produced with her own bone marrow" is even more speculative and hypothetical. Using a reductio ad absurdum like that - imagining the possibility of incest - tends to suggest that actually it's difficult to make the case that creating sperm from female cells is itself unethical.
Originally posted by newnickname: Using a reductio ad absurdum like that - imagining the possibility of incest - tends to suggest that actually it's difficult to make the case that creating sperm from female cells is itself unethical.
Originally posted by frankvan: But will you kindly explain what I have done to provoke the puzzling and venomous response?? How have I offended you?
You have not offended me in any way. I was just surprised at your response. You, an obviously educated man, surely is familiar with basic biology, and the benefits of sexual reproduction. But it seems no matter how logical and/or sensible a post from 'kendor' may be, you always feel the need to shoot it down. You and others.
Scotty, I usually hate internet acronyms but, YOMANK!
Yes, I think so, but, to be honest, I'm not sure now if 'reductio ad absurdum' was the term I wanted. Anyway, you're using an extreme and very hypothetical case (a hypothesis based on a hypothesis, involving aberrant behaviour) to back up your idea that the news describes something 'highly unethical'.
It's as if you said that cosmetic surgery is higly unethical because 'Next, we'll hear about someone who wants to give their child a nose three feet long' Why would anyone want to have a child through incest with herself?
The hypothesis in the story was about two mothers - thus preserving genetic diversity.
It's difficult to say whether this medical research is ethical or not. It certainly has disturbing implications - connected to reducing the mystery and sanctity of a life to something like a construction of Lego building blocks.
(But, Scotty, these are really big, tough spiders.)
Stem cell research, in my opinion is necessary. However, articles like this give the opponents of reseach, ammunition to lobby governments to end much needed funding, and in many cases to makes such research illegal.
Just to make sure everyone's clear on this, the stem cells we're talking about in this case are not embryonic stem cells; they are bone marrow. Bone marrow stem cells are non-controversial (or at least they were before this ), are not subject to federal funding restrictions, and are already used in medical treatments. They do not involve the destruction of embryos. In fact, bone marrow and other adult stem cell research is advocated (quite possibly to the point of over hyping it) by opponents of embryonic stem cell research.
