Science going too far? [Archive] - hibs.net Messageboard

Sir David Gray

10-07-2009, 12:04 AM

I meant to post this yesterday but I've just got round to it today.

What's everyone's thoughts on the latest "breakthrough" of scientists claiming that they are now able to create sperm in a laboratory?

I personally think this news is a frightening development. At the moment this sperm has been produced by using stem cells from embryos, which basically kills a potential human life, in order to create another life. I believe that is morally and ethically wrong.

If, as the scientists are hoping, they are able to eventually create this sperm through skin cells taken from the infertile male, then I could just about live with that.

But even then, this would potentially have a devastating impact on children who are in the adoption system. Infertile couples who might have chosen to adopt in the past would just decide to go down this new route, which would leave thousands of children left on the scrapheap, unable to live in a stable and loving home evironment.

On top of everything else, there are some very scary possibilities which may come out of all this. One such scenario is that dead men may be able to father a child from beyond the grave. I would sincerely hope that there would be some very strict measures put in place to make sure this would not be allowed to happen.

Although it's not possible just now, another awful thought is that, in future, it may not be outwith the realms of possibility for the sperm to be produced from female skin cells, which would make it possible for a woman to effectively be mother AND father to a child.

I think it's also worrying that the mice who have been born, using these techniques, suffered from ill health and had various growth and respiratory issues, before later dying.

I know the Daily Mail's not a very popular newspaper amongst a lot of people on here but this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198202/MICHAEL-HANLON-Are-brink-society-need-men.html) article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

I'm guessing I'll be in the minority on this one (what's new? :wink:) but I just thought this would create a good debate.

Finally, to answer my own question in the thread title, I think this is a case of science going too far.

Over to you...

Sergio sledge

10-07-2009, 12:01 PM

HibsMax

10-07-2009, 12:28 PM

But even then, this would potentially have a devastating impact on children who are in the adoption system. Infertile couples who might have chosen to adopt in the past would just decide to go down this new route, which would leave thousands of children left on the scrapheap, unable to live in a stable and loving home evironment.
This is a weak argument. DO NOT blame the infertile couples for taking whatever measures they can to have their OWN child. Should we be looking to ban In Vitro as well?

On top of everything else, there are some very scary possibilities which may come out of all this. One such scenario is that dead men may be able to father a child from beyond the grave. I would sincerely hope that there would be some very strict measures put in place to make sure this would not be allowed to happen.
Why? I am sure this happens all the time right now. Men already give sperm to sperm banks. I don't know what checks and balances are in place but I am sure it's possible that a man could give up his sperm and then die shortly afterwards, resulting in the same "horrifying" situation.

I think it's also worrying that the mice who have been born, using these techniques, suffered from ill health and had various growth and respiratory issues, before later dying.
Yes, that is scary and that's why it's important that these trials are carried out on poor, unsuspecting animals before humans (but that's a different debate).

I personally don't think science is going too far but then that's not going to surprise many people either. We're not talking about farming manufactured humans for body parts (kinda like the movie Coma), we're talking about helping people have their own children. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. To return to your adoption objections, remember, infertile couples are NOT responsible for these children. It is NOT the responsibility of infertile couples to adopt these children just because they cannot have any of their own. There are many more people you might think to blame before them. It seems quite ironic to be talking about life and death in the same post but perhaps if some people had abortions rather than giving birth to an unwanted child, the system might be a little less burdoned. Again, that's another, different debate.

Go, Science!

(((Fergus)))

10-07-2009, 02:10 PM

Some thoughts about this:

1) Scientists are not creating life here or "making sperm", all we can ever do is manipulate existing life.

2) It is not possible to conceive a child without male and female. In this case, the so-called sperm material is derived from stem cells which are themselves the product of the male and female combination, i.e., there is no "virgin birth".

3) Reproduction consists of two aspects which in health are not separate but in sickness always are: a) sensation and b) function. All sexual perversions (contraception, masturbation, voyeurism, homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, sadism, etc., etc.*) involve the separation of the sensation and the discarding of the function for no reason other than the pleasure of (at least one of) the participants. As a counterpart to that, we also practice the function without the sensation (artificial insemination, IVF, cloning). The technology in this story is another instance of that.

4) It's a sign of how sick/perverse our society is when something as natural, yet intimate, as reproduction has to take place within the glare of the laboratory and under the eyes of strangers. For sure, it is better that life goes on - no matter how degraded it becomes there is always the hope of restoration - however there is a price to pay and the offspring produced from this and other artificial techniques face another level of suffering from that experienced by previous generations. Better for people to address the reasons why they are infertile and regain their natural fertility than to continue down this road. Of course, for many - not least the scientists - the allure of this road is irresistible.

* No offence to any masturbators, homosexuals, sadists, paedophiles, etc. reading this. Dispute the definition of perversion if you want, however the classification is I think correct.

CropleyWasGod

10-07-2009, 02:19 PM

3) Reproduction consists of two aspects which in health are not separate but in sickness always are: a) sensation and b) function. All sexual perversions (contraception, masturbation, voyeurism, homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, sadism, etc., etc.*) involve the separation of the sensation and the discarding of the function for no reason other than the pleasure of (at least one of) the participants. As a counterpart to that, we also practice the function without the sensation (artificial insemination, IVF, cloning). The technology in this story is another instance of that.
* No offence to any masturbators, homosexuals, sadists, paedophiles, etc. reading this. Dispute the definition of perversion if you want, however the classification is I think correct.

Going to hijack the thread for a moment here.

You missed out oral and manual sex. Pure perversion, indeed. And contraception? Perversion?

Your surname isn't Ewing by any chance, is it?

Danderhall Hibs

10-07-2009, 02:32 PM

I can create sperm in a laboratory.

In fact I reckon I could create sperm anywhere in the world.

Phil D. Rolls

10-07-2009, 04:48 PM

I suppose they said the same things about blood transfusions, heart transplants and test tube babies.

wpj

10-07-2009, 05:26 PM

I didn't realise there was a shortage! :dunno:

HibsMax

10-07-2009, 10:20 PM

I believe there is another purpose that can be served by this, albeit one that doesn't really seem that relevant just now. Space travel. As things stand right now humans can't really travel to any other planets with the exception of, perhaps, Mars. But I'm not talking about traveling to planets within our own solar system but planets inconceivable distances away. Such a journey could potentially take many generations to make. What happens if something catastrophic goes wrong and all the females end up sterile? All the females die? All the newborns are male? All sorts of things. We need a backup plan. Technology such as this could pave the way to such a plan.

There are some things that we are assured of. Life on our planet WILL come to an end. If humans want to continue then we need to find a new place to live. Fortunately we have a little while to figure that out. ;) Of course our universe will also come to a screeching halt one day so we need to figure out where to go after that.

We could just sit back idly and think, "I don't care, that doesn't affect me" but if everyone thought like that we would still be wearing loin cloths, eating raw meat and hitting women over the head with a club when we got horny.

Times move, we have to move with them.

Sorry for the slight digression.

matty_f

10-07-2009, 11:24 PM

To be honest, I don't think science can go too far. There are obvious moral implications with this sort of thing, however being able to do it may have far reaching consequences in other areas of medicine. Quite what they'd be, I have no idea, however we need people to be pushing the boundaries of what we're capable of.

It's probably not beyond the realms of possibility that something like this could help scientists discover a cure to cancer, or HIV, or whatever else we can't treat just now.

Being honest, I can't say I know enough about what this means in the wider scheme of thing, however I would guess that the way it has been reported has been sensationalised to an extent.

greenlex

12-07-2009, 09:38 AM

I reckon childless couples are childless for a reason. Its best not to **** around with nature IMO. :bitchy:

PeeJay

12-07-2009, 02:06 PM

I reckon childless couples are childless for a reason. Its best not to **** around with nature IMO. :bitchy:

So, are you perhaps suggesting that - in general - all the medical advances we have made shouldn't be put into practice because "nature" probably "knows best?", even when it gets it wrong, as if frequently does? - As has already been mentioned, this would mean no blood transfusions, heart bypasses, eye operations ... and so on? Are you perhaps suggesting we should just meekly accept things the way "nature" made them and leave them as they are? Let people suffer, nature knows best!

As to your first statement: what reason would that be then? And how can giving "childless couples" a helping hand ever be wrong in anyone's eyes?

Stuff "nature": I'm on mankind's side!

HibsMax

12-07-2009, 02:36 PM

greenlex

13-07-2009, 06:46 PM

So, are you perhaps suggesting that - in general - all the medical advances we have made shouldn't be put into practice because "nature" probably "knows best?", even when it gets it wrong, as if frequently does? - As has already been mentioned, this would mean no blood transfusions, heart bypasses, eye operations ... and so on? Are you perhaps suggesting we should just meekly accept things the way "nature" made them and leave them as they are? Let people suffer, nature knows best!

As to your first statement: what reason would that be then? And how can giving "childless couples" a helping hand ever be wrong in anyone's eyes?

Stuff "nature": I'm on mankind's side!
No not at all suggesting that medicine and other things are not helping releive suffering and shouldnt be explored. I am suggesting that if nature has decided that a couple should be childless then that should be that. No one is suffering other than the couples need to fufill their natural or percieved needs. If nature in this case is saying no then I feel that should that. Noboby is going to die for want of having children. They are only fufilling their own needs as adults. Same goes for same sex parents. Shouldnt be allowed as its only to fufill the "parents" needs and not the children.
I would also go as far as say some socially and mentally challenged individuals should not be allowed to procreate as the are unable to fufil their responsibilities as a parent. My opinion likes but when I see some kids and how they are even at pre school years and how their parents are treating them and their lack of parenting skills I wonder how the hell they will turn out. What chance do they have? I doubt I am alone in my thinking but if I am then I can live with that.

PeeJay

14-07-2009, 06:04 AM

No not at all suggesting that medicine and other things are not helping releive suffering and shouldnt be explored. I am suggesting that if nature has decided that a couple should be childless then that should be that. No one is suffering other than the couples need to fufill their natural or percieved needs. If nature in this case is saying no then I feel that should that. Noboby is going to die for want of having children. They are only fufilling their own needs as adults. Same goes for same sex parents. Shouldnt be allowed as its only to fufill the "parents" needs and not the children.
I would also go as far as say some socially and mentally challenged individuals should not be allowed to procreate as the are unable to fufil their responsibilities as a parent. My opinion likes but when I see some kids and how they are even at pre school years and how their parents are treating them and their lack of parenting skills I wonder how the hell they will turn out. What chance do they have? I doubt I am alone in my thinking but if I am then I can live with that.

Disagree with you entirely - I know several couples who have had a helping hand in the art of procreation, many of them are loving families with happy children - I don't personally know any "same sex" couples with children, but I'm sure that there too, children are looked after lovingly and that the children are 'glad to be alive': how can that be a bad thing? While accepting that this may not always apply, I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with giving parents and children an opportunity to be happy and lead fulfilled lives, even if it does mean correcting nature's failures?

With respect, I find your remarks regarding socially and mentally challenged people offensive in the extreme.

J-C

14-07-2009, 08:55 AM

CropleyWasGod

14-07-2009, 09:01 AM

Is all this not just the human race progressing/evolving?

This comes back to another thread here about religion and evolution, the religious will take the moral high ground and the others will see it as the human race moving on even further.

There also those who are religious who will take the view that all of these discoveries are God-given, so that we should therefore embrace them.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, in my view.

J-C

14-07-2009, 09:09 AM

There also those who are religious who will take the view that all of these discoveries are God-given, so that we should therefore embrace them.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, in my view.

Very true.

greenlex

14-07-2009, 10:43 AM

Disagree with you entirely - I know several couples who have had a helping hand in the art of procreation, many of them are loving families with happy children - I don't personally know any "same sex" couples with children, but I'm sure that there too, children are looked after lovingly and that the children are 'glad to be alive': how can that be a bad thing? While accepting that this may not always apply, I cannot for the life of me see anything wrong with giving parents and children an opportunity to be happy and lead fulfilled lives, even if it does mean correcting nature's failures?

With respect, I find your remarks regarding socially and mentally challenged people offensive in the extreme.

Why are you offended by my opinion?
The childs welfare IMO should take precedence over the needs of the adults. Imagine being a kid with two dads and no mother or two mothers and no dad. I am sure they will be having a ball at school and "glad to be alive" It'll be nice and settled at school for them on their path to full education and growing up to be good contributing members of society. Not saying they cant but it surely is not in their interests.
There are hundreds of unwanted babies up for adoption every year. This IMO is better than messing around with nature. Before you get offended again I have direct experience of this on more than one level.

ps I saw a piece on TV (it may have been comic relief) where a kid was looking after his blind parents. NO child should have to do this IMO. Loving yes and very very touching but it is not right.
ps I hope this doesn't offend you too much. Its just my opinion.

CropleyWasGod

14-07-2009, 10:49 AM

greenlex

14-07-2009, 10:58 AM

I have to say that I am offended as well. What you are suggesting... correct me if I am wrong... is that parents need to be able-bodied, solvent and heterosexual.

Desirable as those qualities may be, they certainly are not qualifications for good parenting. Taking it further, those kind of "social purification" concepts are redolent of many extreme and dangerous regimes that have blighted recent history.
Not at all Cropley. Heterosexual yes. The others no. I was merely commenting on what chance childeren have of growing up as decent members of society when their parents have not got a clue. The percieved way to "help" these children is to try and keep these families together almost no matter what. That is not helping the children. Recently we have had two young deaths due in the main to drug abuse. Should these people be allowed to have children? Physical disability is no barrier and I never mentioned this other than commenting on the piece I saw on TV.Lets face it if we were not to feel something for that kid then it wouldnt have been filmed or shown.
Homosexual couples may be loving parents but if the childs welfare is being paramount then hetrosexual couples would be better (being loving and supportive is a given). IMO.
I take it you have never been spat at and told to Eff off by a child who is barely out of nappies and cant even string a sentance together.

J-C

14-07-2009, 10:58 AM

I've known a few couples who should never have been parents, too selfish etc and on the other hand I know a gay couple who've just got married and they would make great parents but unfortunately biologically they can't have kids. Good parenting is not about hat sex you are or prefer but about teaching kids good morals and guidance until they are old enough to face the big wide world.

PeeJay

14-07-2009, 12:01 PM

Why are you offended by my opinion?
The childs welfare IMO should take precedence over the needs of the adults. Imagine being a kid with two dads and no mother or two mothers and no dad. I am sure they will be having a ball at school and "glad to be alive" It'll be nice and settled at school for them on their path to full education and growing up to be good contributing members of society. Not saying they cant but it surely is not in their interests.
There are hundreds of unwanted babies up for adoption every year. This IMO is better than messing around with nature. Before you get offended again I have direct experience of this on more than one level.

ps I saw a piece on TV (it may have been comic relief) where a kid was looking after his blind parents. NO child should have to do this IMO. Loving yes and very very touching but it is not right.
ps I hope this doesn't offend you too much. Its just my opinion.

Sorry, nature does not know best! How can you say a childless couple who then – as a sort of last resort - make an enormous effort to conceive a child by whatever means made available to them is wrong because nature (sic) wanted it otherwise? We have all read about or know of lads out drunk (or junkies, whatever) on a Saturday evening impregnating some willing female whereupon lo and behold a child comes along: well that’s nature taking its course, but how is that better than a couple desperate to have a child and travelling a lengthy, well-considered path to achieving their goal – I don’t get your stance on this, it’s not properly thought through, if you ask me? Why stick with this opinion?

Your opinions are of course something you are entitled to, but who are you (or whomsoever you elect to be the arbiter in such instances) to say that “blind, socially or mentally challenged” people should not be allowed to have children: where do you draw the line? Who decides? Nature enables all kinds of people to also conceive children, but you appear to keep on moving the goalposts to suit your opinion!

As to “Homosexual couples may be loving parents but if the child’s welfare is being paramount then heterosexual couples would be better (being loving and supportive is a given)” this is an astonishingly ill-advised comment, surely this does not apply to ALL heterosexual couples, you just have to look at the amount of child abuse in so-called social-norm families, so nothing is a “given” as you suggest with regard to love and support! What evidence do you have the same-sex couples are not good parents?

IMO your post was extremely offensive because it seems to be suggesting that there is an elite who are entitled to decide who shall be permitted to procreate and who not, that is bad enough, but you fail to qualify this statement by stating who should be entitled to decide - "normal people perhaps"? You also seem to be suggesting that when ‘normal’ couples conceive everything is as it should be (i.e. as nature intended) and therefore everything is fine regarding the child’s upbringing, education, love and support, etc., but that’s not the case surely: as previously mentioned, look at the number of single mums around? What about their children in the school, or does that not matter anymore because there are so many of them that they are becoming the norm?

And as to a child’s welfare being “paramount”: surely this is only partly true, after all it is the parents who do the long, hard slog of helping them along the road to becoming well-balanced citizens, how can you simply disenfranchise the parents like that.

IMO , good parents are good parents are good parents: it’s irrelevant if they’re blind, deaf, dumb, white, black, tall, short, fat, thin, hetro, homo (and any other permutation you like) – come to think of it, even some Hearts fans make good parents!:wink:

RyeSloan

14-07-2009, 12:18 PM

Future17

14-07-2009, 05:47 PM

Is all this not just the human race progressing/evolving?

I suppose the argument is that one day we will progress/evolve to extinction.

Potentially that process could be either delayed or expedited by scientific advancement or restriction on scientific advancement. We simply don't know enough about nature to truly understand the consequences and implications of our actions. That's what makes the whole thing part of the learning process.

I suppose another question is; if the end of the roads lead off a cliff anyway, does it really matter how fast we're driving?

greenlex

14-07-2009, 06:59 PM

Sorry, nature does not know best! How can you say a childless couple who then – as a sort of last resort - make an enormous effort to conceive a child by whatever means made available to them is wrong because nature (sic) wanted it otherwise? We have all read about or know of lads out drunk (or junkies, whatever) on a Saturday evening impregnating some willing female whereupon lo and behold a child comes along: well that’s nature taking its course, but how is that better than a couple desperate to have a child and travelling a lengthy, well-considered path to achieving their goal – I don’t get your stance on this, it’s not properly thought through, if you ask me? Why stick with this opinion?
My opinion is that the childless couples should adopt. I though I made that clear? Obviously not.
Teenage girls will get pregnant. Always have always will. Some choose to be mothers and do a great job and others don't but I dont get the point you are trying to make here. I am talking about couples who are totally unable to fufill their duties as parents here.

Your opinions are of course something you are entitled to, but who are you (or whomsoever you elect to be the arbiter in such instances) to say that “blind, socially or mentally challenged” people should not be allowed to have children: where do you draw the line? Who decides? Nature enables all kinds of people to also conceive children, but you appear to keep on moving the goalposts to suit your opinion!

As to “Homosexual couples may be loving parents but if the child’s welfare is being paramount then heterosexual couples would be better (being loving and supportive is a given)” this is an astonishingly ill-advised comment, surely this does not apply to ALL heterosexual couples, you just have to look at the amount of child abuse in so-called social-norm families, so nothing is a “given” as you suggest with regard to love and support! What evidence do you have the same-sex couples are not good parents?

IMO your post was extremely offensive because it seems to be suggesting that there is an elite who are entitled to decide who shall be permitted to procreate and who not, that is bad enough, but you fail to qualify this statement by stating who should be entitled to decide - "normal people perhaps"? You also seem to be suggesting that when ‘normal’ couples conceive everything is as it should be (i.e. as nature intended) and therefore everything is fine regarding the child’s upbringing, education, love and support, etc., but that’s not the case surely: as previously mentioned, look at the number of single mums around? What about their children in the school, or does that not matter anymore because there are so many of them that they are becoming the norm? I have never mentioned single mothers so I dont know why this is included. **** happens and as said above some are good mothers and others aren't. A bit like EVERY couple to be honest
I dont know who would decide to be honest and I certainly wouldnt like the job. All I am saying is I see couples who shouldnt have been allowed to have kids. Is this so hard to understand?

And as to a child’s welfare being “paramount”: surely this is only partly true, after all it is the parents who do the long, hard slog of helping them along the road to becoming well-balanced citizens, how can you simply disenfranchise the parents like that.
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that if the parents are doing their best but failing miserably then thats ok? Just bad luck and that the childs welfare should come second to giving the parents a bash at it for their needs?

IMO , good parents are good parents are good parents: it’s irrelevant if they’re blind, deaf, dumb, white, black, tall, short, fat, thin, hetro, homo (and any other permutation you like) – come to think of it, even some Hearts fans make good parents!:wink: I agree on all but the homosexuals. They may be great parents better in fact than every hetrosexual couple on earth but IMO its still not best for the child.
Be honest would you have had a happy childhood if you had had homosexual parents? I know where I was brought up my schoollife would have been miserable. I guess I would have been loved at home but as I spent most of my time as a kid with my mates at school or kicking about the streets then being ripped for my parents sexual persuasion would have been the norm and that would have had an affect on me that wouldn't have happened if they were Hetrosexual. Good parents possibly but good for the child? I doubt it.

Sylar

14-07-2009, 07:10 PM

I've no intellectual addition to the thread, but the latest post makes me think of a Frankie Boyle joke:

"Everyone talks about how f***ed up kids from same sex parents would be, but I think it would be brilliant. Remember those arguments when you were a kid which resulted in the "my dad's bigger than your dad", "my dad could batter your dad". Imagine being able to say "my dad'll **** your dad....and he'll enjoy it" :greengrin

Anyway, pardon the interruption.

As you were....

Phil D. Rolls

14-07-2009, 07:11 PM

I agree on all but the homosexuals. They may be great parents better in fact than every hetrosexual couple on earth but IMO its still not best for the child.
Be honest would you have had a happy childhood if you had had homosexual parents? I know where I was brought up my schoollife would have been miserable. I guess I would have been loved at home but as I spent most of my time as a kid with my mates at school or kicking about the streets then being ripped for my parents sexual persuasion would have been the norm and that would have had an affect on me that wouldn't have happened if they were Hetrosexual. Good parents possibly but good for the child? I doubt it.

Laughed my head off at a programme about George Melly's last days. His son said what a hard time he had around about the age of 14 when George revealed all about his gay youth. Everytime the old man was on TV the son would pray "please don't tell everyone you're a poof".

At the end of the day though, I think the only harm it could do a child is the derision the would get because the world is so homophobic. Is a gay couple any more or any less likely to abuse their child, or pass on wisdom etc

The only real problem that I can see is that the family wouldn't fit in with what others see as "normal". Whose problem is it really? Because if we are honest, very few of us have a "normal" family life - every family has it's own idiosyncracies.

greenlex

14-07-2009, 07:16 PM

Laughed my head off at a programme about George Melly's last days. His son said what a hard time he had around about the age of 14 when George revealed all about his gay youth. Everytime the old man was on TV the son would pray "please don't tell everyone you're a poof".

At the end of the day though, I think the only harm it could do a child is the derision the would get because the world is so homophobic. Is a gay couple any more or any less likely to abuse their child, or pass on wisdom etc

The only real problem that I can see is that the family wouldn't fit in with what others see as "normal". Whose problem is it really? Because if we are honest, very few of us have a "normal" family life - every family has it's own idiosyncracies.

I agree Mr Rolls but I am thinking of the child here and not the "parents" needs. A childs childhood could be seriously miserable and have a real affect on them growing up. Not needed IMO

PeeJay

14-07-2009, 08:12 PM

"My opinion is that the childless couples should adopt. I though I made that clear? Obviously not." :confused:

Side stepping the point I made with reference to your 'nature knows best' claim is clouding the issue, not my response, which was that childless couples who can be helped by current medical developments, should be able to do so - this is my point! You - if you recall - are against this: I disagree - perhaps you should reconsider your overtly arrogant stance regarding my ability to understand your POV? My initial point was that certain people do not consider their actions or the consequences when engaging in sex, by contrast, childless couples undertake a long, hard, considered endeavour to achieve their wish: a wanted child or an unwanted child, what is best for the child? You offer up adoption, but that is usually the last resort for most childless couples, isn't it? BTW, you may very well be "talking about couples who are totally unable to fufill their duties as parents here" but that was not my point, we were discussing helping childess couples to have a baby or leaving it up to nature, as she "knows best" - in your world at least!

Your statement: "I dont know who would decide to be honest and I certainly wouldnt like the job. All I am saying is I see couples who shouldnt have been allowed to have kids. Is this so hard to understand?" proves my point IMO that you haven't thought this through enough. It's one thing to adopt such a dogmatic position, but to then to simply opt out and say someone else should work something out hardly bolsters any heartfelt belief you may have in this matter. Should I simply assume that you have first-hand and permanent evidence that this is irrevocably so, in the cases you are referring to? BTW, please don't tell me you work in social services and you're reducing everything to what goes on in that sector of our society, if so you ought to have mentioned that, because I'm talking about society in general, if not forget it! Anyway, don't all parents make mistakes, some more profound than others?

You say - "Are you saying that if the parents are doing their best but failing miserably then thats ok? Just bad luck and that the childs welfare should come second to giving the parents a bash at it for their needs" - Well NO actually - I'm saying that a family consists of parents and children, I don't see any reason to disenfranchise a part of that unit: you seem to be suggesting that everything has to be done for the child's best - but what does that actually mean in practical terms? Naturally, all parents make mistakes and sometimes they even fail miserably, sometimes the parenting is the very best available, but still a child rebels for some reason - that's life: in some sense we are all just having a bash at it: it's the first time for most of us, we're bound to screw up sometimes! We have to deal with problems as and when they arise: some will do so far better than others, surely?

You say "agree on all but the homosexuals. They may be great parents better in fact than every hetrosexual couple on earth but IMO its still not best for the child." I'm not sure if this is a homophobic issue you have or what? If they can be great parents, then the child will benefit: I don't get how you feel "great parents" can be bad for the child - unless you're referring to something as mundane as "sticks and stones"? In your previous post however you also said that a blind couple, with a child looking after them, was "not right" and unfair on the child - so one has to ask do you agree on everything or not. Anyway, who said life was fair? BTW I had a good friend at primary school whose parents were deaf - he didn't suffer anymore in the playground than the other kids.

You say - "Be honest would you have had a happy childhood if you had had homosexual parents?" I know ...?" Well, I can't really say, because that's not the way it was, but then again you might as well ask if I would have had a happy childhood if my parents had been rich, black or RC etc, etc? It's along time since I went to school, but recall clearly that kids would be 'ripped' by other kids for anything - being fat, wearing glasses, having funny hair, spots, being inarticulate, being articulate: the list is endless - most kids come through that, surely? I don't have any evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off than other kids - we shouldn't simply assume it though just because some people view it to be wrong: where's your evidence?

BTW - I don't mind discussing the issue with you or anyone for that matter, and I certainly don't profess to know all the answers, but I don't think there's any need for you to be so "high and mighty" with your attitude. I understand everything you've written: I just don't agree with most of it. Anyway, have a nice evening; I'm out of here! :bye:

greenlex

14-07-2009, 10:11 PM

"My opinion is that the childless couples should adopt. I though I made that clear? Obviously not." :confused:

Side stepping the point I made with reference to your 'nature knows best' claim is clouding the issue, not my response, which was that childless couples who can be helped by current medical developments, should be able to do so - this is my point! You - if you recall - are against this: I disagree - perhaps you should reconsider your overtly arrogant stance regarding my ability to understand your POV? My initial point was that certain people do not consider their actions or the consequences when engaging in sex, by contrast, childless couples undertake a long, hard, considered endeavour to achieve their wish: a wanted child or an unwanted child, what is best for the child? You offer up adoption, but that is usually the last resort for most childless couples, isn't it? BTW, you may very well be "talking about couples who are totally unable to fufill their duties as parents here" but that was not my point, we were discussing helping childess couples to have a baby or leaving it up to nature, as she "knows best" - in your world at least!

Ok I concede I may be on the wrong track here about childless couples but why do we need to mess around with nature when adoption is a perfectly good option and IMO it shouldn't be used as a last resort.

Your statement: "I dont know who would decide to be honest and I certainly wouldnt like the job. All I am saying is I see couples who shouldnt have been allowed to have kids. Is this so hard to understand?" proves my point IMO that you haven't thought this through enough. It's one thing to adopt such a dogmatic position, but to then to simply opt out and say someone else should work something out hardly bolsters any heartfelt belief you may have in this matter. Should I simply assume that you have first-hand and permanent evidence that this is irrevocably so, in the cases you are referring to? BTW, please don't tell me you work in social services and you're reducing everything to what goes on in that sector of our society, if so you ought to have mentioned that, because I'm talking about society in general, if not forget it! Anyway, don't all parents make mistakes, some more profound than others?
Are families working with social services not part of society likes? You seem to want to disenfranchise from society in general? Why is that?

You say - "Are you saying that if the parents are doing their best but failing miserably then thats ok? Just bad luck and that the childs welfare should come second to giving the parents a bash at it for their needs" - Well NO actually - I'm saying that a family consists of parents and children, I don't see any reason to disenfranchise a part of that unit: you seem to be suggesting that everything has to be done for the child's best - but what does that actually mean in practical terms? Naturally, all parents make mistakes and sometimes they even fail miserably, sometimes the parenting is the very best available, but still a child rebels for some reason - that's life: in some sense we are all just having a bash at it: it's the first time for most of us, we're bound to screw up sometimes! We have to deal with problems as and when they arise: some will do so far better than others, surely?

You say "agree on all but the homosexuals. They may be great parents better in fact than every hetrosexual couple on earth but IMO its still not best for the child." I'm not sure if this is a homophobic issue you have or what? If they can be great parents, then the child will benefit: I don't get how you feel "great parents" can be bad for the child - unless you're referring to something as mundane as "sticks and stones"? In your previous post however you also said that a blind couple, with a child looking after them, was "not right" and unfair on the child - so one has to ask do you agree on everything or not. Anyway, who said life was fair? BTW I had a good friend at primary school whose parents were deaf - he didn't suffer anymore in the playground than the other kids. I bet he would if they had been homosexual.

You say - "Be honest would you have had a happy childhood if you had had homosexual parents?" I know ...?" Well, I can't really say, because that's not the way it was, but then again you might as well ask if I would have had a happy childhood if my parents had been rich, black or RC etc, etc? Why would I might as well ask this?It's along time since I went to school, but recall clearly that kids would be 'ripped' by other kids for anything - being fat, wearing glasses, having funny hair, spots, being inarticulate, being articulate: the list is endless - most kids come through that, surely? I don't have any evidence that children of same-sex couples are worse off than other kids - we shouldn't simply assume it though just because some people view it to be wrong: where's your evidence?
The same evidence that you have.I know kids and they can/are very cruel when it come to these type of things. Why are you insistant on lumping all groups together? I am specifically commenting here on Homosexual couples having children. Who is it best for, them or the children? Why are YOU using rich,Black or RC etc in your argument?

For the record I am not homophobic and have two (that I know of )very good friends who are homosexual and have often had this very discussion with them.

BTW - I don't mind discussing the issue with you or anyone for that matter, and I certainly don't profess to know all the answers, but I don't think there's any need for you to be so "high and mighty" with your attitude. I understand everything you've written: I just don't agree with most of it. Anyway, have a nice evening; I'm out of here! :bye:
Dont mean to be high and mighty with my attitude so please accept my apologies. Goodnight.:agree:.

Sir David Gray

14-07-2009, 11:21 PM

I'm pleased to see that I've begun such an invigorating debate! :greengrin

I would just like to reply to a few of the points that have been raised as a results of my original post and also points made by others;

This is a weak argument. DO NOT blame the infertile couples for taking whatever measures they can to have their OWN child. Should we be looking to ban In Vitro as well?

I'm not blaming the infertile couples, I'm just saying that this latest development will potentially have a disastrous effect on children who are in the adoption system.

My own personal opinion is that if couples are not able to conceive naturally, if it is possible to give nature a little "push" in the right direction by using the sperm of the man involved and the eggs of the woman involved and doing something scientifically that will end up with a child being born, I think that is perfectly fine.

However, if that process does not work, I do not agree with people donating sperm and eggs. Again in my opinion, couples who wish a child, but who are not fortunate enough to be able to have one using their own sperm and eggs, should adopt.

So having said all that, to answer your question of whether we should ban IVF as well, if the process takes place using the man's own sperm and the woman's own eggs, I think IVF is fine. But not if we're talking about donations from third parties.

I also do not agree with women in their late 50's, 60's and 70's being given IVF treatment in order to have a baby. I believe that women get the menopause for a reason.

I suppose all that also leads into another issue that has been brought up on this thread, homosexual couples being parents.

Obviously I've already said that I am opposed to people receiving egg and sperm donations, so apart from adopting (which I'll touch on later), that would make it impossible for me to agree to homosexual couples becoming parents. Something else that I strongly believe in is that children are conceived through the egg of a WOMAN being fertilised by the sperm of a MAN for a reason. If homosexual couples were meant to have children together, it would be possible for two men or two women to procreate by having sexual intercourse with each other.

I believe that children are supposed to have a female mother and a male father in their lives at all times. Now obviously that doesn't always happen. The father can die during the course of the pregnancy, either parent could die during the course of childhood or the parents could divorce and the child might never see their mother/father again. Those are things that can't really be avoided but I think it is important that we do not DELIBERATELY create children who are devoid of either a mother or a father because I believe that a child is best brought up in an environment where they have the influence of both a mother and a father.

So all that explains why I would be opposed to homosexual couples adopting children. I know that people are now going to pick out the point I made in my original post about how this new breakthrough would have a serious impact on children that are up for adoption and now I'm talking about excluding some people from the adoption process. All I can say to answer that is what I've said already - I believe that children should be brought up by one male and one female.

Finally, I would just like to make it clear that I am not completely against the use of science. I think in many cases it can be extremely useful. However, I do not believe that just because a clever person in a laboratory somewhere has managed to create some sort of breakthrough, it should be unconditionally accepted. I believe that there are certain moral boundaries that should just not be crossed, even if scientific advancements allow for such a thing to happen.

Hence my thread title of "science going too far?"

Phil D. Rolls

15-07-2009, 10:18 AM

I agree Mr Rolls but I am thinking of the child here and not the "parents" needs. A childs childhood could be seriously miserable and have a real affect on them growing up. Not needed IMO

True, but kids have no problem finding things to make others' lives a misery. I think that, with good parenting, the child could find a way through it and grow up a stronger character.

In many ways it's no different from the problems faced by kids with disabled parents, or parents who can't provide all the latest sports gear or mobile phones. They have to show the kid that society is sometimes full of w*nkers.

It's also for others in society to educate their children not to be bullies and discriminate. Easier said than done I agree. I suppose the first steps have to be creating a society where adults don't discriminate against gays.

HibsMax

15-07-2009, 08:47 PM

I'm pleased to see that I've begun such an invigorating debate! :greengrin
Next stop, the Death Penalty Revisited. :wink:

However, if that process does not work, I do not agree with people donating sperm and eggs. Again in my opinion, couples who wish a child, but who are not fortunate enough to be able to have one using their own sperm and eggs, should adopt.
Why? What is wrong with using another man's sperm? Think about what you're saying here. It's not OK for a couple of have a child using someone else's sperm and / or egg, but it IS ok for a couple of adopt someone else's child.......a child that has come from another couple's sperm and egg? I really don't see why couples should be forced into adoption. Your point about (potential) orphans is not lost on me. I wish there were no orphans but there are. If we take your line of thought a little further, should childless couples even be given a choice of which child to adopt or should we dictate to them who they get based on some system that assures the most needy children are adopted first? That seems like the natural progression since your concern is with the welfare of the children.

I also do not agree with women in their late 50's, 60's and 70's being given IVF treatment in order to have a baby. I believe that women get the menopause for a reason.
I hear what you're saying and I kinda agree but you're on dangerous ground when you start talking about a woman's "window of opportunity". Girls start menstruating when they are reaching their teens but I doubt you would agree with me if I said that's nature's way of suggesting it's time for her to start a family. Right? It might have been once, many years ago but that's generally not accepted in civilised parts of the world.

I believe that children are supposed to have a female mother and a male father in their lives at all times. Now obviously that doesn't always happen. The father can die during the course of the pregnancy, either parent could die during the course of childhood or the parents could divorce and the child might never see their mother/father again. Those are things that can't really be avoided but I think it is important that we do not DELIBERATELY create children who are devoid of either a mother or a father because I believe that a child is best brought up in an environment where they have the influence of both a mother and a father.
I'm not going to disagree with that because again I kinda agree with you but what facts are you basing your opinion on? Is there any evidence to suggest that children brought up by a man and a woman, a single Mom, a single Dad, two Moms or two Dads are any better off than other children? That's a genuine question.

So all that explains why I would be opposed to homosexual couples adopting children. I know that people are now going to pick out the point I made in my original post about how this new breakthrough would have a serious impact on children that are up for adoption and now I'm talking about excluding some people from the adoption process. All I can say to answer that is what I've said already - I believe that children should be brought up by one male and one female.
In theory I agree with you but as has already been mentioned, being a good parent has little, if anything, to do with a person's sexual orientation IMO.

Finally, I would just like to make it clear that I am not completely against the use of science. I think in many cases it can be extremely useful. However, I do not believe that just because a clever person in a laboratory somewhere has managed to create some sort of breakthrough, it should be unconditionally accepted. I believe that there are certain moral boundaries that should just not be crossed, even if scientific advancements allow for such a thing to happen.
But just because you hold a certain set of values doesn't mean that everyone has to live by those values. Nor should they. If a person doesn't believe in God, then they are less likely to think that they are doing anything wrong (in terms of playing God).

I think we have to be very open-minded about this. Something could happen, I don't know what but something, that renders the entire human race sterile. Do we all just quit our jobs and enjoy what little of our lives remain or do we thank Science for providing the answer to the problem? Some people will be like, "It's God's will" or something like that. Not me. Break out the test tubes and let's get busy. :wink:

Twa Cairpets

15-07-2009, 09:21 PM

Really interesting thread.

I had a look at the Mail article, then read the Newcastle University Press Release http://http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/human-sperm-created-from-embryonic-stem-cells1.
The first thing is that never, ever believe everything you read in the Mail. The scare element of the story is that women wont need men and sperm can be created from women. They cant - they need a "Y" chromosome.

Just for a wee bit of background, this guy has, however, produced mouse sperm from mouse stem cells and fertilised an egg, although there were significant problems and abnormailities. On the human side, there is a lot of debate about what has been made
"Some experts challenged the research, saying they weren't convinced Nayernia and his colleagues had actually produced sperm cells. Several critics also said the sperm cells they created were clearly abnormal. I am unconvinced from the data presented in this paper that the cells produced by Professor Nayernia's group from embryonic stem cells can be accurately called 'spermatazoa," said Allan Pacey, a senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield. Pacey said in a statement that the sperm created by Nayernia did not have the specific shape, movement and function of real sperm. Azim Surani, a professor of physiology and reproduction at the University of Cambridge said the sperm produced by the Newcastle team were "a long way from being authentic sperm cells."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_sc/eu_britain_lab_spermhttp://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_sc/eu_britain_lab_sperm

Ethically, I think it does need some every serious control and legislation, but if it helps the infertile, then why not. The fact that IVF has shown that conception by other means doesnt lead to social breakdown suggests to me that if it helps further mankind, then go for it.

Thats my view anyway

Sir David Gray

16-07-2009, 11:52 PM

Why? What is wrong with using another man's sperm? Think about what you're saying here. It's not OK for a couple of have a child using someone else's sperm and / or egg, but it IS ok for a couple of adopt someone else's child.......a child that has come from another couple's sperm and egg? I really don't see why couples should be forced into adoption. Your point about (potential) orphans is not lost on me. I wish there were no orphans but there are. If we take your line of thought a little further, should childless couples even be given a choice of which child to adopt or should we dictate to them who they get based on some system that assures the most needy children are adopted first? That seems like the natural progression since your concern is with the welfare of the children.

If you cannot create a child using yours and your wife/husband's sperm and eggs, it is not possible to have your OWN child, at least not in the proper sense of the word. So with that in mind, if you wish to have a child, surely it would make much more sense to encourage infertile couples to adopt an existing child, who is in need of a loving family and a stable home life, rather than getting them to receive donations of sperm and eggs in order to get a child, that would be no more their own offspring than an adopted child would be.

I hear what you're saying and I kinda agree but you're on dangerous ground when you start talking about a woman's "window of opportunity". Girls start menstruating when they are reaching their teens but I doubt you would agree with me if I said that's nature's way of suggesting it's time for her to start a family. Right? It might have been once, many years ago but that's generally not accepted in civilised parts of the world.

I knew you were going to raise that point in response to my comments on the menopause. Of course, you are completely correct in what you say about young girls. Whilst 12 and 13 year old girls, who have started menstruating, may be biologically ready to start having children, they are nowhere near ready in terms of their emotional state, their financial capabilities or their levels of maturity and responsibility.

Thankfully, as far as that goes, we have laws which go over and above nature, which make it illegal for young girls to have children. Unfortunately, in many cases, the law doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but that's another story.

All I was trying to get at was, I don't believe it is right for post-menopausal women to be given IVF treatment, as they are going to be in their 60's and 70's when their children are teenagers. I don't believe that is right.

I'm not going to disagree with that because again I kinda agree with you but what facts are you basing your opinion on? Is there any evidence to suggest that children brought up by a man and a woman, a single Mom, a single Dad, two Moms or two Dads are any better off than other children? That's a genuine question.

I don't have any facts and stats to hand to back this up, but I am of the belief that it has been proven that children are best brought up in a home where they have a mother and a father. If we take a young girl as an example again, she goes through certain things when she reaches puberty that she needs a lot of guidance and advice on. She simply cannot get this advice and guidance if her parents are two males, at least not as easily as she might have done, had she had a mother to confide in.

In theory I agree with you but as has already been mentioned, being a good parent has little, if anything, to do with a person's sexual orientation IMO.

I'm not saying that a same sex couple would definitely make bad parents, in fact a lot of same sex couples may do a better job than some of the heterosexual parents that I see on a regular basis.

It's just a deeply held personal belief of mine that we should not deliberately bring children up in an environment where they do not have a mother and a father.

But just because you hold a certain set of values doesn't mean that everyone has to live by those values. Nor should they. If a person doesn't believe in God, then they are less likely to think that they are doing anything wrong (in terms of playing God).

All I can ever do is give my sincere and genuine opinions on each and every issue that I tackle on here and elsewhere. Sometimes I hear contrasting views which make me reconsider my own position but on this particular issue, I am very unlikely to ever see it from any other angle.

I realise that I am in the minority and that we live in an ultra-liberal society nowadays, where pretty much anything goes, in terms of social issues at least.

As you can probably tell from the majority of my posts, I usually come from a more conservative viewpoint so it's no surprise to me that I find myself at odds with most people.

Of course, if you have no religious beliefs then it's only natural that you won't see anything wrong with things like abortion, euthanasia, sperm donations etc etc. However as a religious person myself, I do see things differently and I don't believe we have a right to be playing God.

I think we have to be very open-minded about this. Something could happen, I don't know what but something, that renders the entire human race sterile. Do we all just quit our jobs and enjoy what little of our lives remain or do we thank Science for providing the answer to the problem? Some people will be like, "It's God's will" or something like that. Not me. Break out the test tubes and let's get busy. :wink:

If the entire human race does end up sterile, it'll probably happen as a direct result of humans going too far with science and ending up with far more than we bargained for.

Like I say, I think in many ways scientific research is extremely useful, but I strongly believe that there are some lines that should simply not be crossed.

I don't expect that plea to be listened to by scientists or by the majority of the population but it is where I stand on this particular debate just now and where I believe I will continue to stand until the day I die.

BravestHibs

17-07-2009, 10:25 AM

.
Whilst 12 and 13 year old girls, who have started menstruating, may be biologically ready to start having children, they are nowhere near ready in terms of their emotional state, their financial capabilities or their levels of maturity and responsibility.

You seem to be struggling with the societal norms and the role that 'nature' plays within them. Are societal norms not, by their very existance there to interfere with the natural norms that you started the thread defending so vociferously and that have to be curbed within a civilised society for the human race to develop?

As your views seem to be tying in with what I would understand to also be the views of certain organised religions is it fair to assume that when you say nature you actually mean 'God'?

Twa Cairpets

17-07-2009, 11:34 AM

If you cannot create a child using yours and your wife/husband's sperm and eggs, it is not possible to have your OWN child, at least not in the proper sense of the word. So with that in mind, if you wish to have a child, surely it would make much more sense to encourage infertile couples to adopt an existing child, who is in need of a loving family and a stable home life, rather than getting them to receive donations of sperm and eggs in order to get a child, that would be no more their own offspring than an adopted child would be.

I knew you were going to raise that point in response to my comments on the menopause. Of course, you are completely correct in what you say about young girls. Whilst 12 and 13 year old girls, who have started menstruating, may be biologically ready to start having children, they are nowhere near ready in terms of their emotional state, their financial capabilities or their levels of maturity and responsibility.

Thankfully, as far as that goes, we have laws which go over and above nature, which make it illegal for young girls to have children. Unfortunately, in many cases, the law doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but that's another story.

All I was trying to get at was, I don't believe it is right for post-menopausal women to be given IVF treatment, as they are going to be in their 60's and 70's when their children are teenagers. I don't believe that is right.

I don't have any facts and stats to hand to back this up, but I am of the belief that it has been proven that children are best brought up in a home where they have a mother and a father. If we take a young girl as an example again, she goes through certain things when she reaches puberty that she needs a lot of guidance and advice on. She simply cannot get this advice and guidance if her parents are two males, at least not as easily as she might have done, had she had a mother to confide in.

I'm not saying that a same sex couple would definitely make bad parents, in fact a lot of same sex couples may do a better job than some of the heterosexual parents that I see on a regular basis.

It's just a deeply held personal belief of mine that we should not deliberately bring children up in an environment where they do not have a mother and a father.

All I can ever do is give my sincere and genuine opinions on each and every issue that I tackle on here and elsewhere. Sometimes I hear contrasting views which make me reconsider my own position but on this particular issue, I am very unlikely to ever see it from any other angle.

I realise that I am in the minority and that we live in an ultra-liberal society nowadays, where pretty much anything goes, in terms of social issues at least.

As you can probably tell from the majority of my posts, I usually come from a more conservative viewpoint so it's no surprise to me that I find myself at odds with most people.

Of course, if you have no religious beliefs then it's only natural that you won't see anything wrong with things like abortion, euthanasia, sperm donations etc etc. However as a religious person myself, I do see things differently and I don't believe we have a right to be playing God.

If the entire human race does end up sterile, it'll probably happen as a direct result of humans going too far with science and ending up with far more than we bargained for.

Like I say, I think in many ways scientific research is extremely useful, but I strongly believe that there are some lines that should simply not be crossed.

I don't expect that plea to be listened to by scientists or by the majority of the population but it is where I stand on this particular debate just now and where I believe I will continue to stand until the day I die.

Of course, if you have no religious beliefs then it's only natural that you won't see anything wrong with things like abortion, euthanasia, sperm donations etc etc. This is a bizarre connection you're making here. it seems that you are saying: If you have no religion, you automatically support abortion and euthanasia, and therefore by extension all people who are religious do see things wrong with it.

Apart from being a ludicrously arrogant standpoint, its just wrong.

And while we're at it, whats sperm donation got to do with it? You could equally argue that blood transfusion is playing God (which I suppose if one is a Jehovahs Witness one does).

If the entire human race does end up sterile, it'll probably happen as a direct result of humans going too far with science and ending up with far more than we bargained for.

Thank you Nostradamus.:wink:

Baba O'riley

17-07-2009, 11:40 AM

All I was trying to get at was, I don't believe it is right for post-menopausal women to be given IVF treatment, as they are going to be in their 60's and 70's when their children are teenagers. I don't believe that is right.

So do you think some sort of menopause/castration :devil: should be introduced for blokes? Whilst I agree that I don't think it's right that women in their 60's and 70's should be given IVF, there's nothing stopping older blokes from getting younger women pregnant (and they do).

HibsMax

17-07-2009, 02:03 PM

I knew you were going to raise that point in response to my comments on the menopause. Of course, you are completely correct in what you say about young girls. Whilst 12 and 13 year old girls, who have started menstruating, may be biologically ready to start having children, they are nowhere near ready in terms of their emotional state, their financial capabilities or their levels of maturity and responsibility.

Thankfully, as far as that goes, we have laws which go over and above nature, which make it illegal for young girls to have children. Unfortunately, in many cases, the law doesn't seem to make much of a difference, but that's another story.
This is an interesting point you're making here.....and more than a little contradictory. If God made women in such a way as they are ready to reproduce at a certain age, who are we (mere mortals) to say that God is wrong?

Given that the mortality rate was much higher thousands of years ago, girls needed to pop out babies at an earlier age. They couldn't wait until they were 30 because they probably rarely reached that age. We now live much older and medical science helps out where nature lets us down but girls are still as ready to reproduce as they always were. Humans haven't evolved in that respect. Maybe they never will.

Sergio sledge

17-07-2009, 02:56 PM

This is an interesting point you're making here.....and more than a little contradictory. If God made women in such a way as they are ready to reproduce at a certain age, who are we (mere mortals) to say that God is wrong?

Given that the mortality rate was much higher thousands of years ago, girls needed to pop out babies at an earlier age. They couldn't wait until they were 30 because they probably rarely reached that age. We now live much older and medical science helps out where nature lets us down but girls are still as ready to reproduce as they always were. Humans haven't evolved in that respect. Maybe they never will.

There are various studies which have linked the age of the parents to the incidence of various disabilities in babies. For example, some studies have suggested that the risk of a first baby being autistic triples if the mother is over 35 and the father over 40.

I'm not sure how accurate it is, but my wife is a paediatric nurse, and she says that a large amount of the parents of disabled babies are older parents.

This suggests to me that there is an optimum age to have children, and to start playing around with that, i.e. IVF for post menopausal women, is a risk which should not be taken.

Sir David Gray

17-07-2009, 11:35 PM

This is a bizarre connection you're making here. it seems that you are saying: If you have no religion, you automatically support abortion and euthanasia, and therefore by extension all people who are religious do see things wrong with it

Apart from being a ludicrously arrogant standpoint, its just wrong.

I worded that wrongly. As you can probably see from my last post, I was writing it in the early hours of the morning and I was quite tired by the time I finished it.

What I actually meant to say was, if you do not believe in God then it is understandable if you do not have a problem with issues that many religious people would view as "playing God", such as abortion, euthanasia and sperm donation because you do not believe there is a God in the first place, for humans to play the part of.

Of course you do get atheists who are opposed to things like abortion, euthanasia and sperm donations, but it's not going to be because they are concerned about "playing God". It also works in reverse, you do get some Christians who will support such issues.

I was just replying to HibsMax's post where he spoke about people, who don't believe in God, not seeing that they are doing anything wrong by "playing God". I was just saying to him that mindset is understandable, although I accept that being an atheist and supporting abortion etc, does not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

And while we're at it, whats sperm donation got to do with it? You could equally argue that blood transfusion is playing God (which I suppose if one is a Jehovahs Witness one does).

I suppose every single form of medical treatment is technically interfering with nature and strictly speaking is therefore "playing God". If you take paracetamol for a headache, instead of letting the headache takes its course, then that is interfering with nature. On a more serious level, if you undergo chemotherapy for cancer, then you are interfering with nature.

As I have said a couple of times already, I think scientific research has been extremely useful in many cases (for example I would never suggest that paracetamol, or especially chemotherapy, should be banned) but I do believe that there are certain moral boundaries that we should not cross.

Sperm donations are an example of that. Speaking personally, I don't have a problem with blood transfusions, I think that is an example of scientific advances being of great use to us. However, I personally believe that sperm donations are a step too far.

So do you think some sort of menopause/castration should be introduced for blokes? Whilst I agree that I don't think it's right that women in their 60's and 70's should be given IVF, there's nothing stopping older blokes from getting younger women pregnant (and they do).

That's an interesting point actually.

It's interesting that women are biologically programmed to stop producing children when they reach their late 40's/early 50's but men are still able to father children up until the day they die.

I don't have the answer for that one to be honest but I would just hope that most men are responsible and that they don't go about having children when they're 60, with women who are 30 years their junior.

This is an interesting point you're making here.....and more than a little contradictory. If God made women in such a way as they are ready to reproduce at a certain age, who are we (mere mortals) to say that God is wrong?

Given that the mortality rate was much higher thousands of years ago, girls needed to pop out babies at an earlier age. They couldn't wait until they were 30 because they probably rarely reached that age. We now live much older and medical science helps out where nature lets us down but girls are still as ready to reproduce as they always were. Humans haven't evolved in that respect. Maybe they never will.

It is a dicey subject. Whilst I can see where you are coming from, I would never support lowering the age of consent because I don't believe that girls (or boys for that matter), who are aged 12 or 13, fully understand all the implications of having a child. After all, they are still children themselves.

Then there are the financial implications of being able to support a child and adequately provide for it. Someone of that age simply couldn't do that, whereas hundreds of years ago, money wasn't as much of an issue.

However, as much as I think our laws should take precedence over nature for girls who are starting their periods, for women at the other end of the spectrum, I do believe that nature (the menopause) is a good thing because I don't believe it is right that elderly women should be bearing children at 65 or 70. Therefore, I do not support post-menopausal women receiving IVF treatment.

It's interesting the point you make about evolution. You would have thought that if evolution really was on the ball, the fact we now have a much greater life expectancy than we did a few centuries ago, would allow girls to start their first period at a later stage in their life.

Perhaps that is an example of evolution not being all it is cracked up to be.

RyeSloan

18-07-2009, 12:38 AM

I worded that wrongly. As you can probably see from my last post, I was writing it in the early hours of the morning and I was quite tired by the time I finished it.

In other words you were wrong

although I accept that being an atheist and supporting abortion etc, does not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

As your admission tells us.

I suppose every single form of medical treatment is technically interfering with nature and strictly speaking is therefore "playing God".

Correct and again you contradict...you support Chemo; one of the most aggresive treatments medicine has but think sperm donation is the work of the devil.

I don't have the answer for that one to be honest but I would just hope that most men are responsible and that they don't go about having children when they're 60, with women who are 30 years their junior.

Now this is just pure comedy gold....damn awkward when 'nature' doesn't suit the moral code and of course if a 60 year old man dare touch a younger woman through sheer lack of responsibility!!!

However, as much as I think our laws should take precedence over nature for girls who are starting their periods, for women at the other end of the spectrum, I do believe that nature (the menopause) is a good thing because I don't believe it is right that elderly women should be bearing children at 65 or 70. Therefore, I do not support post-menopausal women receiving IVF treatment.

So nature at one end of the scale is good cause it fits but not at the other end because it doesn't...contradiction upon contradiction.

It's interesting the point you make about evolution. You would have thought that if evolution really was on the ball, the fact we now have a much greater life expectancy than we did a few centuries ago, would allow girls to start their first period at a later stage in their life.

Perhaps that is an example of evolution not being all it is cracked up to be.

You obviously clearly totally miss the timescales and the factors involved here.

Sir David Gray

19-07-2009, 11:16 PM

In other words you were wrong

Yes, I hold my hands up, I was wrong. Funnily enough, I'm not perfect and I do make the odd mistake from time to time...

Correct and again you contradict...you support Chemo; one of the most aggresive treatments medicine has but think sperm donation is the work of the devil.

I support most scientific research into things which are going to actually help people possibly recover from illnesses, which chemotherapy falls under. Sperm donations do not help people to overcome illness.

As I've said quite a few times now, it is not possible for infertile couples to have their own child, so I think they would be much better to adopt a living child who is in need of a permanent and loving home, than to create a child through donated sperm. Neither option will give the couple their own child but at least going down the adoption route will help to give at least one child a happy life.

Now this is just pure comedy gold....damn awkward when 'nature' doesn't suit the moral code and of course if a 60 year old man dare touch a younger woman through sheer lack of responsibility!!!

So nature at one end of the scale is good cause it fits but not at the other end because it doesn't...contradiction upon contradiction.

You obviously clearly totally miss the timescales and the factors involved here.

See instead of just mocking everything that I say, why don't you actually add something to the thread by responding with something constructive?

J-C

20-07-2009, 08:00 AM

Yes, I hold my hands up, I was wrong. Funnily enough, I'm not perfect and I do make the odd mistake from time to time...

I support most scientific research into things which are going to actually help people possibly recover from illnesses, which chemotherapy falls under. Sperm donations do not help people to overcome illness.

As I've said quite a few times now, it is not possible for infertile couples to have their own child, so I think they would be much better to adopt a living child who is in need of a permanent and loving home, than to create a child through donated sperm. Neither option will give the couple their own child but at least going down the adoption route will help to give at least one child a happy life.

See instead of just mocking everything that I say, why don't you actually add something to the thread by responding with something constructive?

Sometimes it's not so black and white, it may only be one of the couple that is is infertile, I'm sure most married women who want children would rather be able to have their own child by pregnancy rather than adoption. If after all IVF doesn't work then adoption may be the answer but don't take away the right and the chance for any couple to bear their own kids. If you have kids yourself then you'll know what a wonderful life changing experience it is, how can you deny that right to anyone else.

Dashing Bob S

20-07-2009, 05:00 PM

Science can never go too far. We are curious creatures, it's not in our nature to stop experimenting and inquiring. Yes, there are consequences, and these have too be dealt with through discussion and debate in a democracy, but they pale into insignificance besides those that would come into play if you have an individual or state attempting to put limits on the human imagination.

RyeSloan

21-07-2009, 12:39 PM

Yes, I hold my hands up, I was wrong. Funnily enough, I'm not perfect and I do make the odd mistake from time to time...

Nice of you to admit it. Not the first time you have posted something outragiously offensive to a whole group of people...sure there was 2nd generation immigrants being sent 'home' for breaking a UK law not too recently??

I support most scientific research into things which are going to actually help people possibly recover from illnesses, which chemotherapy falls under. Sperm donations do not help people to overcome illness.

So how else would you describe infertility? The work of God?

As I've said quite a few times now, it is not possible for infertile couples to have their own child, so I think they would be much better to adopt a living child who is in need of a permanent and loving home, than to create a child through donated sperm. Neither option will give the couple their own child but at least going down the adoption route will help to give at least one child a happy life.

Using the 'adoption is better' argument is weak at best...adoption may be right for some couples but not others. Fertility treatments can help parents have children of their own in the fact that the mothers egg can be used or a fathers sperm, also are you trying to say that carrying a child in their womb for 9 months and actually giving birth to one is totally insignificant?

Adoption is of course a critical thing and one that should be supported but to use that as a wepon against helping infertile couples is simply wrong in my book.

See instead of just mocking everything that I say, why don't you actually add something to the thread by responding with something constructive?

Well why dont you stop posting stuff full of contradiction based on your narrow beliefs and then we can all get on with having a balanced discussion????

Sir David Gray

22-07-2009, 10:00 PM

Sometimes it's not so black and white, it may only be one of the couple that is is infertile, I'm sure most married women who want children would rather be able to have their own child by pregnancy rather than adoption. If after all IVF doesn't work then adoption may be the answer but don't take away the right and the chance for any couple to bear their own kids. If you have kids yourself then you'll know what a wonderful life changing experience it is, how can you deny that right to anyone else.

Thank you for that well thought out response.

I have said on several occasions on here that all my opinions, on every single issue, are based on my experiences so far. Maybe if I do have children in the future, I may feel completely differently about this whole debate, but all I can do is say how I feel right now.

What I will say right now is, if I was to be deemed infertile and my wife and I received a sperm donation from another man, that was used to fertilise my wife's eggs, I think I would feel completely out of the picture and pretty useless if I'm being totally honest.

I don't believe I would ever feel that the child was truly mine. Instead he/she would be a product of my wife and some random stranger.

Maybe some men could accept that situation but I don't know if I could be one of them.

Nice of you to admit it. Not the first time you have posted something outragiously offensive to a whole group of people...sure there was 2nd generation immigrants being sent 'home' for breaking a UK law not too recently??

I made a mistake but I wouldn't say that what I said initially was "outrageously offensive" to atheists.

All I implied was that atheists would be unlikely to be opposed to things like abortion and euthanasia. It may have been incorrect to say that all atheists are supportive of such things but to say it's "outrageously offensive"? :confused:

I hardly think so.

As for your second point, it was first generation I was speaking about but I seem to remember that I accepted going too far on that particular issue and later retracted that statement. You don't seem to have mentioned that in your post, though.

Maybe you'll disagree but I think it takes guts to accept when you have overstepped the mark and acknowledge your mistakes.

So how else would you describe infertility? The work of God?

Yes I would say that but, as a couple, if you can get help to have a child, using your own sperm and eggs, I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. I am simply opposed to sperm and/or egg donations from third parties. That is my personal opinion on the matter and you can either agree or disagree with that stance.

Using the 'adoption is better' argument is weak at best...adoption may be right for some couples but not others. Fertility treatments can help parents have children of their own in the fact that the mothers egg can be used or a fathers sperm, also are you trying to say that carrying a child in their womb for 9 months and actually giving birth to one is totally insignificant?

It's not totally insignificant but unless the baby has come from the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother, it's not the couple's own child. It's for that reason that I believe infertile couples, who wish to bring up a child, should look to adopt.

Well why dont you stop posting stuff full of contradiction based on your narrow beliefs and then we can all get on with having a balanced discussion????

I believe I have a right to express my beliefs and opinions, just like everyone else. Unless I am banned, I will continue to give my honest opinion on every single issue that interests me.

If you really find my opinions as offensive as you say you do, I would suggest that you put me on ignore.

I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me but I would much rather have a disagreement based around the issues of contention and not resort to name calling and mocking one another.

I feel as if I am just repeating myself now so unless someone wishes to raise a different point with me or ask me a question, I think I'll now bow out of this thread.

Green Mikey

23-07-2009, 12:54 PM

It's not totally insignificant but unless the baby has come from the sperm of the father and the egg of the mother, it's not the couple's own child. It's for that reason that I believe infertile couples, who wish to bring up a child, should look to adopt.

Do you allow couples that adopt to call the adoptive child their own or because it doesn't come from the eggs and sperm of the parents the child it isn't theirs?

You are on shaky ground here. You are saying that if a couple is infertile they can adopt someone else's child but they can't use science to have someone's child. Its seems your bias against scientific advances have caused you to contradict yourself.

BravestHibs

23-07-2009, 01:58 PM

Thank you for that well thought out response.

I have said on several occasions on here that all my opinions, on every single issue, are based on my experiences so far. Maybe if I do have children in the future, I may feel completely differently about this whole debate, but all I can do is say how I feel right now.

What I will say right now is, if I was to be deemed infertile and my wife and I received a sperm donation from another man, that was used to fertilise my wife's eggs, I think I would feel completely out of the picture and pretty useless if I'm being totally honest.

I don't believe I would ever feel that the child was truly mine. Instead he/she would be a product of my wife and some random stranger.

Maybe some men could accept that situation but I don't know if I could be one of them.

I made a mistake but I wouldn't say that what I said initially was "outrageously offensive" to atheists.

All I implied was that atheists would be unlikely to be opposed to things like abortion and euthanasia. It may have been incorrect to say that all atheists are supportive of such things but to say it's "outrageously offensive"? :confused:

I hardly think so.

As for your second point, it was first generation I was speaking about but I seem to remember that I accepted going too far on that particular issue and later retracted that statement. You don't seem to have mentioned that in your post, though.

Maybe you'll disagree but I think it takes guts to accept when you have overstepped the mark and acknowledge your mistakes.

Maybe that makes you feel better about it but the fact remains that you are a xenophobe. Oh sorry, IMO........ Whenever I hear people with similar views to yourself, and by that I mean, ill considered, narrow minded and verging on racist quite often, I feel sorry for them. Your 'views' serve only to shine a light on your tiny wealth of experience of this world of ours. There is a whole planet out there to be enjoyed and if you weren't so busy disapproving of everything you might find some time to put yourself in other people's shoes instead of clinging desperately on to your Hitler youth ideology and smug sense of White British superiority.

I believe I have a right to express my beliefs and opinions, just like everyone else.
Unless I am banned, I will continue to give my honest opinion on every single issue that interests me.

If you really find my opinions as offensive as you say you do, I would suggest that you put me on ignore.

You've said that to me before, it seems to be a bit of a fallback of yours when someone calls you on your abhorrent views. IMO of course.

I have no problem at all with people disagreeing with me but I would much rather have a disagreement based around the issues of contention and not resort to name calling and mocking one another.

No one is mocking anyone, if anything you are making a mockery of yourself with some of the outrageous nonsense you come out with. IMO.
If you feel you are being mocked, as seems to have been the case on numerous threads it would give me food for thought if it was me, purely due to the fact that it seems to happen so regularly.

.

Sir David Gray

25-07-2009, 01:07 AM

Do you allow couples that adopt to call the adoptive child their own or because it doesn't come from the eggs and sperm of the parents the child it isn't theirs?

You are on shaky ground here. You are saying that if a couple is infertile they can adopt someone else's child but they can't use science to have someone's child. Its seems your bias against scientific advances have caused you to contradict yourself.

Adoption is a very important thing because it allows children, who have been given up by their birth parents, to go to a permanent, loving and stable home.

In an ideal world we would not have any children up for adoption but it's something that will always be present and it's important that we tackle the issue. One of the best ways, in my opinion, is by saying to infertile couples who wish to bring up a child, please enter the adoption process.

I know what you are saying about contradictions etc but to me sperm/egg donations are entirely different from adoptions. For a start, we are not talking about live children in the donation scenario, it is a potential child. They are not being saved in the way that an adopted child would be.

Do you see what I am getting at? I'm not always great at explaining myself but I hope you can at least see where I am coming from.

Maybe that makes you feel better about it but the fact remains that you are a xenophobe. Oh sorry, IMO........ Whenever I hear people with similar views to yourself, and by that I mean, ill considered, narrow minded and verging on racist quite often, I feel sorry for them. Your 'views' serve only to shine a light on your tiny wealth of experience of this world of ours. There is a whole planet out there to be enjoyed and if you weren't so busy disapproving of everything you might find some time to put yourself in other people's shoes instead of clinging desperately on to your Hitler youth ideology and smug sense of White British superiority

I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction of a reply but I feel it is important to defend myself against, what I consider to be, accusations that are quite frankly ridiculous and not to mention libellous.

Quite where you have got this idea from, that I am somehow sympathetic to Hitler Youth ideology and supportive of White British supremacy, is bizarre to say the least and if it wasn't so serious, I might actually laugh.

Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party were responsible for crimes that were unimaginably evil, barbaric and satanic. I do not have one ounce of respect or admiration for Hitler or for what he stood for. If you think otherwise then that is up to you but I can tell you that you are very sorely mistaken.

You also call me a xenophobe. Yes, I'll admit to being less than welcoming to certain cultural influences, but it's only those that come into direct opposition to our way of life that I have a problem with. If that makes me a xenophobe in your eyes, then I'll just have to live with that. I think there will be many people who would agree with me on that point. What I will say though is that I have absolutely nothing against non-white people or non-British people, despite the accusations that you seem to be making.

The people who choose to live peaceful and law abiding lives will be treated in exactly the same manner by me, regardless of what their skin colour is. In the same way that every single criminal in this country will be treated the same way by me, regardless of their skin colour. I have no more time for a white murderer than I do for a black murderer or an Asian murderer.

I really couldn't care less if someone is white, black, brown, yellow or pink with purple spots. I treat people as I find them.

You've said that to me before, it seems to be a bit of a fallback of yours when someone calls you on your abhorrent views. IMO of course.

It's not a fallback in the slightest. It's the standard advice given to each and every single poster on this website, by the admins of this messageboard. If you do not like someone's posts (and since you regularly describe my views as "abhorrent" and repugnant", I would say that I definitely fall into that category where you are concerned), then you should put them on ignore.

I fail to understand why someone would wish to be constantly subjected to views that they find so offensive.

Perhaps you could explain to me why you choose not to put me on ignore as I would really like to know.

BravestHibs

27-07-2009, 03:23 PM

"For a start, we are not talking about live children in the donation scenario, it is a potential child."

Could the same not be said in the case of abortion? Is this yet another contradiction in what is rapidly becoming a laughably long list?

"You also call me a xenophobe. Yes, I'll admit to being less than welcoming to certain cultural influences, but it's only those that come into direct opposition to our way of life that I have a problem with."

It doesn't just make you a xenophobe only in my eyes, it makes you a xenophobe in that you fit the criteria which makes the word itself pertinent to use when describing you.

"I fail to understand why someone would wish to be constantly subjected to views that they find so offensive."

Because I want you to know how ill considered and narrow minded you and your views are.(IMO) These are my opinions in the same way that you have yours. Does that explain adequately?

Sir David Gray

27-07-2009, 06:13 PM

Could the same not be said in the case of abortion? Is this yet another contradiction in what is rapidly becoming a laughably long list?

Could you perhaps expand on that comment? I'm not quite with you.

It doesn't just make you a xenophobe only in my eyes, it makes you a xenophobe in that you fit the criteria which makes the word itself pertinent to use when describing you.

Like I say, if being opposed to certain cultures, which threaten our way of life and which are also in opposition to our legal system, makes me a xenophobe by your standards or by the standards set down in the Oxford dictionary, then I'm guilty as charged.

I don't always say things how I would have liked to have said them, but out of my many posts on this forum, there is only one comment that I have made which I accept was over the top and wrong of me.

Everything else that I have said, I stand by 100%.

Because I want you to know how ill considered and narrow minded you and your views are.(IMO) These are my opinions in the same way that you have yours. Does that explain adequately?

I already know how "ill considered and narrow minded" you think I am, you've told me often enough.

You're quite right to say that that is your opinion, though. If you don't agree with anything else that I say, I would hope that people would at least recognise my strongly held view that every single person in this country should be afforded the right to free speech.

BravestHibs

28-07-2009, 12:25 PM

"Could you perhaps expand on that comment? I'm not quite with you."

My point was that an aborted foetus is also a "potential child" which is how you described IVF.

"Like I say, if being opposed to certain cultures, which threaten our way of life and which are also in opposition to our legal system, makes me a xenophobe by your standards or by the standards set down in the Oxford dictionary, then I'm guilty as charged."

You do realise that a xenophobe is not a good thing to be don't you?

"I don't always say things how I would have liked to have said them, but out of my many posts on this forum, there is only one comment that I have made which I accept was over the top and wrong of me."

You keep mentioning the fact that you realised something you said was "over the top" as you put it. Some might call it racist but it's all about opinions isn't it. Then you seem to flap around as though the fact that you admit that you've said something ridiculous somehow makes you a well rounded individual. Quote:- "Maybe you'll disagree but I think it takes guts to accept when you have overstepped the mark and acknowledge your mistakes."

"If you don't agree with anything else that I say, I would hope that people would at least recognise my strongly held view that every single person in this country should be afforded the right to free speech."

That's certainly what I believe, the difference between you and me is that I think Free Speech should extend to everyone including and regardless of the fact that you haven't got the correct paperwork, believe in a different religion or want to concieve by means of a sperm donation.