Full Speed Ahead to "Post Society:" Biotechnology May Permit Women to Become Biological Fathers
So, now researchers believe they can make sperm from a woman's bone marrow stem cells. And in this way, a woman may one day father a child. From the story in the Independent:
Swell. Call me a dinosaur (again), but it seems to me that some are so intent on destroying any commonality among us, all sense of normalcy, that if the current trends continue--uterus transplants for men have also been proposed seriously--we will just disintegrate like matter spun into space by a huge centrifuge. We may not be able to become post human the way transhumanists want us to, but the idea that we must cater to any and every individualistic desire can definitely make us post-societal.Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.
The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.
But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne....
"Theoretically is it possible," Professor Nayernia said. "The problem is whether the sperm cells are functional or not. I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe. We are in the process of applying for ethical approval. We are preparing now to apply to use the existing bone marrow stem cell bank here in Newcastle. We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself."
Labels: Transhumanism. Post-Societal.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:41 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
OK, dinosaur!!!
j/k
In all serious, this all seems strange, but even if it were possible, and even if regular people actually did it, I don't think society would delve into chaos.
Take a look at sex change operations, even though they've been "possible" for quite while now, it's only a very, very small percentage of the population that actually undergoes the procedure. The rest of us continue with our regular lives, un-impacted by their decisions.
I imagine functional sex changes (i.e., uterine transplants) would even be a much smaller percentage of that.
I think the trans-sexual comparison may not be an apt one, because the number of homosexual couples who wish to bear biological children is likely to be far greater than the number of people who wish to change their biological gender.
As a supporter of gay adoption, let me make it clear that this is not a "family values" issue, but as the 'Dinosaur' said, it is more of a trans-humanist issue.
Also, I might add, its not merely an issue of an adult freely choosing to change something about his/her biological identity, but that of creating a future child via artificial means.
You missed my point.
Family issue or not, homosexual adoption or not, what's been the societal result of sex-change? or test-tube babies for that matter?
We haven't delved into chaos and I would suggest, even if actually worked (which I'm skeptical about), we won't fall into a trans-humanist post-societal chaos. A very, very small percentage of the population would actually want to undergo it and even if they did do so, the effect of it in practice would be in the private sphere anyway.
The only major societal level effect would be Saturday Night Live skits or a South Park episode. It'll be something the rest of us wonder "why the hell are they doing that", but it won't really affect the majority of the population
Is the urge to see one's own gene's walking around so strong that we would abandon the millions of children waiting for adoption?
Paul - well said. Kind of like pet cloning when there are plenty of kitties and puppies already in need of homes.
Royale, it should be banned, even though only a few couples or scientists would be effected by the ban. The kids themselves don't get the benefit of the millions of other unaffected kids that other couples have, they have to deal with 100% of the likely problems that would result from this. And the costs would be enormous, enough to surely care for thousands of people without any health care and fund research that could cure real diseases. This isn't a medical problem and is therefore unethical risk. It opens the door to genetic engineering of all forms. We should enact the egg and sperm law like was recommended in 2004 by Kass's PCBE. Or the stronger version, of course, which ensures that the egg and sperm come from a woman and man, respectively, and are unadulterated. We should really call it a man woman law, that ensures that all people are created equal, by a man and a woman choosing each other to have children together.
There have been very serious societal consequences from IVF ("test-tube babies"), Royale. Whether you like those consequences or dislike them, I don't see how you can deny that they are pretty large. Look at the big debate over ESCR. It wouldn't have even gotten started if there weren't embryos around who have been created outside of the womb. And then there's all the egg-buying-from-women stuff. Actually, IVF has really made a big impact on society.
By the way, it worries me that this might have an impact on bone marrow donations. What if you got a phone call saying that some researchers wanted to use your marrow, donated as _you_ thought, to save someone's life, for this sort of research? I'd probably say, "Thank goodness they called to ask me" and then yell, "No!" so loudly it would break the phone. But it would be a surreal experience. It might make people shy from bone marrow donation out of worry that someone would use your marrow this way without asking first.
John,
No medical necessity? You wouldn't say that if you were a homosexual or transgendered who wanted a child.
Besides, your entire point is at odds against Jimmy's comment where he said that this is not a "family issue." Apparently, to John, it seems that it is.
Jimmy aside, should I be skeptical if the comments here are a referendum against homosexuals or the transgendered? I was giving the benefit of the doubt before....
Lydia,
I said the effects would be in the private sphere. A societal debate about what to do about the 400,000 or so extra embryos does not make the underlying issue a public one. It still is a private matter. Nor does any of that give you standing to sue.
Have the excess embryos lowered air quality, raised crime, lowered property value, swamped Medicare, etc...? No. For the vast majority of us, our lives are not affected, nor would we have standing to sue. In short - the issue is a private one for households.
Uterine transplants, however few there would be, would be a similar private issue.
Royale, it isn't unhealthy to not be able to have offspring with someone of your same sex. Medicine is to cure diseases. An airplane is not a medical device that cures the disease of human flightlessness. Are you saying that homosexuals have a disease? I didn't think so, because the fact is they are perfectly healthy and can have natural children the same as anyone. In fact, preserving the right of everyone - gay and straight - to have natural children is very important, and this works against that right by imposing an alternative that gay couples will be exploited into using, making their children and families into guinea pigs.
So it isn't medicine to perform genetic engineering to create a person for parents of the same sex. There is no right to do it, and no reason to allow it.
As Wesley said: "We may not be able to become post human the way transhumanists want us to, but the idea that we must cater to any and every individualistic desire can definitely make us post-societal."
So, if we are still societal, then it follows that we don't have to cater to these very few people who want to be able to create these narcissistic half clones. We don't have to let them dictate the laws about allowing genetic engineering, we can prohibit genetic engineering. And we ARE still societal, we have a Congress, we have an internet and influential pundits that can spark public discussion and get things accomplished...hint hint Lets pass the natural conception law that stops all cloning, same-sex conception, and genetic engineering.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home