5 ms·

Sexual Reproduction for Same-Sex Couples?

13 points by alexbiz 17y ago

bpick 17y ago
This strikes me as something that could be revolutionary. Specifically, it stirs up memories of sci-fi novels and movies where advanced races have given up sex and sexual reproduction because it's "Too messy."
- lsb 17y ago
  Whereas some enjoy it for that very reason.
alexbiz 17y ago
Women could actually outgrow their "need" for men in reproducing. Its kind of scary.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- jules 17y ago
  Luckily for us evolution won't catch up any time soon :) They still have the same hormones the same brains, etc.
pavel_lishin 17y ago
Can't wait for fundies to decry this as science overturning the will of god. The same fundies whose infertile wives undergo medical treatment to enable them to conceive.
lotharbot 17y ago
Being able to reproduce without needing functional male/female sex organs, using only skin cells and technology, is an interesting step. It could theoretically apply to same-sex couples, the elderly, children, or people with various disabilities, injuries, or other forms of infertility. The same-sex focus of this article (specifically, the "OMG this totally defeats an objection to gay marriage" bit in the intro) is an unnecessary politicizing of an otherwise technologically/biologically interesting concept.
- alexbiz 17y ago
  Very good point, I wasn't saying it totally defeats all objections to gay marriage, just the specific reproductive argument against it. But I agree, politics does tend to detract from science.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    In general, I think people who make the "reproductive" argument mean "natural biological reproduction".
JoeAltmaier 17y ago
A lot of trouble for very little? If its absolutely important for your children to be statistically correlated to you, beyond the 99.9% that all humans are ALREADY correleated? It's been said that adoptive children are sometimes loved too.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  Four billion years of evolution have tended to make us prefer our own children to those of others.
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    Which probably doesn't relate much to laboratory modification of your genome.
    - rsheridan6 17y ago
      It relates to your previous comment.
      - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
        It seems a very conscious act to go to the trouble to modify your genome in the lab. Leaving little room for evolutionary impulse to be the guiding factor.
rsheridan6 17y ago
It's a little tougher than this article makes it sound. iPS cannot do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and he cited a paper that has been retracted: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/07/journal-editor.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/07/journal-ed... (bottom line - the "sperm" created for iPS don't really work as such) It's still probably coming eventually. And why stop there? Polyamorous n-tuples could have a kid who was a mix of varying proportions of the parents.

13 points by alexbiz 17y ago

bpick 17y ago

This strikes me as something that could be revolutionary. Specifically, it stirs up memories of sci-fi novels and movies where advanced races have given up sex and sexual reproduction because it's "Too messy."

lsb 17y ago
Whereas some enjoy it for that very reason.

alexbiz 17y ago

Women could actually outgrow their "need" for men in reproducing. Its kind of scary.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jules 17y ago
Luckily for us evolution won't catch up any time soon :) They still have the same hormones the same brains, etc.

pavel_lishin 17y ago

Can't wait for fundies to decry this as science overturning the will of god. The same fundies whose infertile wives undergo medical treatment to enable them to conceive.

lotharbot 17y ago

Being able to reproduce without needing functional male/female sex organs, using only skin cells and technology, is an interesting step. It could theoretically apply to same-sex couples, the elderly, children, or people with various disabilities, injuries, or other forms of infertility. The same-sex focus of this article (specifically, the "OMG this totally defeats an objection to gay marriage" bit in the intro) is an unnecessary politicizing of an otherwise technologically/biologically interesting concept.

alexbiz 17y ago
Very good point, I wasn't saying it totally defeats all objections to gay marriage, just the specific reproductive argument against it. But I agree, politics does tend to detract from science.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  In general, I think people who make the "reproductive" argument mean "natural biological reproduction".

JoeAltmaier 17y ago

A lot of trouble for very little? If its absolutely important for your children to be statistically correlated to you, beyond the 99.9% that all humans are ALREADY correleated? It's been said that adoptive children are sometimes loved too.

rsheridan6 17y ago
Four billion years of evolution have tended to make us prefer our own children to those of others.
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  Which probably doesn't relate much to laboratory modification of your genome.
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    It relates to your previous comment.
    - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
      It seems a very conscious act to go to the trouble to modify your genome in the lab. Leaving little room for evolutionary impulse to be the guiding factor.

rsheridan6 17y ago

It's a little tougher than this article makes it sound. iPS cannot do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and he cited a paper that has been retracted: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/07/journal-editor.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/07/journal-ed... (bottom line - the "sperm" created for iPS don't really work as such) It's still probably coming eventually. And why stop there? Polyamorous n-tuples could have a kid who was a mix of varying proportions of the parents.