You also need us to lift heavy things and reach tall places.

Plus, what would you have to shake your head knowingly about if it weren't for us?

BTW, JP5: Elsewhere you mentioned you had ethical problems with this procedure. What, exactly?

__________________
Man up.

I've thought of one application of this technology that could raise ethical questions.

It would appear to allow a woman to reproduce all by herself, using an egg from her ovaries and sperm from her own marrow.

I'm not sure that's an ethical problem -- it's really nothing more than a do-it-yourself sperm-donor kit -- but given the potential for genetic defects it should probably be banned for the same reason cousins aren't allowed to marry.

__________________
Man up.

My ethical problems are of the same issues we've discussed here....as in making men extinct. It's a bit too "Frankenstinish" IMHO. Just as cloning is.

__________________
Clintonite after Clintonite. My question is, "So when does this so-called CHANGE start?"

They've succeeded in producing sperm from male marrow, but not female marrow. They may very well find they cannot produce from women.

My concern is we'll never know the results of this type of manipulation until it's actually tried. Who knows what we'll end up with?

___________________

The Fertility Secrets Handbook

You've probably never been to Alabama.

__________________
http://notfjords.blogspot.com

Wasn't that the drean of betty Friedan the infamous femi-Nazi !!!!

__________________
" Sarah Palin HAS elected BARACK Obama THE PRESIDENT"

Could a woman be the father of her own child?

While the biological hurdles might be overcome if women can also produce sperm, with relation to lesbian relationships and adoption, the conservative arguments still hold firm. There are things that only a male dad can provide a child, and there are things a female mom can provide the child that a male father cannot. There are also things that the combination of male and female can provide a child that single sex pairs cannot provide. There is the issue of the child understanding the world being negatively altered by his or her parental figures. The question of where babies come from will be forever changed. Even if the child does understand the parents' relationship, problems might arise unrelated to comprehension. Too often, selfish people just say "Yay me, I can have a baby now" without thinking of the consequences of their actions or the impact they will have on their child. Civil rights extend to children, too. What about the right of the child to have a stable home environment that he can easily understand and is comfortable with?

Also, I have heard the question of the lack of importance of men that this would create. My answer is simply that if women can have sperm, then men could get eggs.

This creates a scary precedent in my mind. If women will decide to not interact with men because they can do it all within themselves, and men decide the same for women, there will be a voluntary segregation of the races that will increase tension and decrease tolerance. Policy should, if possible, give people reasons and incentives to come together, not pull apart. Even if men become only good for reproduction one day, that is better for society than creating a culture of complete isolation and suppression.

And please think about the real children before acting like children.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Los Angeles voters=dumber than rocks.

I guess it is at some level possible, in the biological sense i mean :-/

All thought it would pretty much bring into effect half (or forth?) of all the resessive disease genes one would carry (and we carry them a bunch).. The changes are that the child would be monstrously retarded & extremely sick, if it would ever survive as a fetus to the birth..

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Even if accepted as true, that simply makes such parenting arrangements less than ideal, not actively harmful. There are plenty of gay couples that would make better parents than plenty of straight couples.

Never mind that there's no evidence children are "confused" or "damaged" by having two dads or two moms. They seem to accept their home situation as normal.

Using "might get teased about it on the playground" as the basis for an ethical rule is extremely weak, IMO. By that standard, it's unethical to let your children be short, wear glasses or have funny-sounding names.

Yeah, that's likely. Because women are suddenly en masse going to decide they're lesbians, or want to be single moms, or would prefer to conceive through a painful surgery rather than sex.

__________________
Man up.