Happy Atheist Forum

In 2007 there was a lot of hype about a new advancement that allowed them to fabricate synthetic sperm from bone marrow, which would allow two women to have biological daughters (no sons, as women lack a Y chromosome). Later I heard that it never made it past the ethics committee. It also utilized stem cell research.

Things have changed slightly in the last couple years, and stem cells research is not as hindered, and I may get to see the new science get developed. I knew that something like this would be held up for awhile, but it won't go away -- if we can develop the technology, then it will only be a matter of time before the obstacles are overcome.  

I of course find it an incredibly exciting prospect -- I'm blown away by the kinds of things humanity can achieve these days. This seems like such a fantastic idea, like the stuff of legends.

What are your opinions?

I have talked to my room mate about this. She is also excited by the possibility. I am too. Not for myself but for my gay friends, or for now my gay woman friends at least. I have no moral objection. I am a nihilist.

It seems that this would permit the extinction of man (assuming men chose to stop procreating or women chose to stop procreating with men, which I think is unlikely) (and the extinction of all humanity is of course possible by other means). I would have no problem with that. That would render the words man and woman redundant. There would only be humans. I'm cool with that too.

I'm not excited for myself, I'm almost forty, I missed the baby boat. I was a lot more of a hard-lining feminist in my earlier life, and was adamant about never conforming, and having children, or being a housewife. My opinions changed over the years, but not fast enough.

There is roughly the same amount of men as there are women, as there is a 50% change of having either, but if an all-female type of reproduction were to become available, while an all-male type did not, it would skew the numbers towards female, and continue to do so as time progressed for as long as the state of affairs remained the same.

If an all-male type were to become available, even if there were an all-female type, the numbers would skew towards males, as their are roughly twice as many homosexual males as there are females in the general population.

Oh no, they don't need us anymore!  

But seriously, I think it's great. Lesbians have just as much right to bear children as heterosexuals. I just wish people considered adoption more often. I don't know how things are upstairs in Canada, but down here in the US the foster system is a serious problem. There are a lot of children that could use a good home.

QuoteI'm not excited for myself, I'm almost forty, I missed the baby boat.

Hitting menopause might mean it's too late to carry a fetus. I assume that is what you are referring too. I don't think that means it's necessarily too late to provide half a genome. You would need a mate who has not reached menopause.

Reminds me of this (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1479#comic) comic.  

Quote from: "Will"Oh no, they don't need us anymore!  

But seriously, I think it's great. Lesbians have just as much right to bear children as heterosexuals. I just wish people considered adoption more often. I don't know how things are upstairs in Canada, but down here in the US the foster system is a serious problem. There are a lot of children that could use a good home.

It is the same here, and up until recently adoption was quite difficult for homosexuals -- the system has since been reformed, and we have the right to adopt nationwide (except for Nunavut, which is a new native territory which largely governs itself), and they promote in-nation adoption.

Quote from: "AlP"Hitting menopause might mean it's too late to carry a fetus. I assume that is what you are referring too. I don't think that means it's necessarily too late to provide half a genome. You would need a mate who has not reached menopause.

I've not hit menopause yet, but fertility plummets after thirty seven. My wife is older than I am, though she has a fourteen year old son.

This never occurred to me but it seems that same sex reproduction doesn't just give more options to same sex couples. It also gives women who for whatever reason are not fertile or cannot carry a fetus (regardless of their sexuality) the opportunity to have a child. Lets say scientists manage to make human female sperm. Combine that with artificial insemination of a woman who is fertile and can carry a fetus. Then virtually every woman has the option of being a mother at any age. The child would inherit 50% of the DNA from the woman from whom the sperm was derived. The child wouldn't get the mitochondrial DNA from her I suppose but that doesn't seem like a big deal. So she would be a biological mother of the child. Am I missing anything?

I also wonder if it would be possible to splice Y chromosomes into the female sperm (if that's how they do it). Then two women would have the option of a male child (in the unlikely event they didn't want to eradicate mankind ). It might be tricky though I just read on wikipedia that the Y chromosome is 60 million base pairs.

Oh dear I just had another crazy idea! 60 million base pairs. Each base pair has 4 possible states (there are 4 nucleotides in DNA). If I were to measure that in computer terms, it's about 120Mbit (60 * 2 because a bit only has 2 states) or 15MB. The whole human genome is about 3 billion base pairs or about 750MB (roughly 1 CDROM). It's not a huge amount of information but it is stored in a very tiny amount of space. Maybe if genome sequencing comes down in price sufficiently we could use DNA as a storage medium, much like a USB flash memory or DVDROM?

It's amazing what can be stored in 750MB of information. Windows XP is bigger than that I think!

In response to DNA being used as a storage medium, the read/write times would be horrendous, and the parity questionable after every change.  But it is true that DNA, as with any molecular storage solution, would be store in quite a small space.

As to the original post, it's fascinating.  I'd half-expect it to appear in medicine in the next 10 years, if I understand how far the research is along, and assuming it's no longer unethical.

The prospect of females ultimately far outnumbering males is a good one to me. ;)

All joking aside, time to probably make alot of you hate me...

I'm against this. Not to the point where I would go out and rally a group of people with picket signs. I'm too close to nihilism for that one. And no, I'm definitely not against it because of the homosexual relationship aspect of it. Anybody who has read my posts on the topic know that I am perfectly ok with gays and lesbians being together.

I simply find it a little bit greedy. Have we as a species not moved past the evolutionary greed to make a baby out of our own DNA?  Aren't there an extremely large amount of unwanted children out there being put through a shitty (for the most part) foster care and government run system? Do we really want to leave more children behind to be "owned" by the governments who are so inept they can't seem to get anything else right? Does anyone else stop for a minute to realize what typically happens to these "products of the system" when they turn legal age and are released from the care of the state?

If you are unable to create a child of your own, whether it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman combination... I say, adopt a f^#@*%g baby, do not artificially create another one because for every one that's created by scientists there's one out there who doesn't get the chance to have a real family.

Is having a child that resembles you that important? Can you not love a child just as much, even if it's not yours? Hell, there are animals that adopt other dead animal's children, why can't we? And for that matter, how many men do you think there are out there raising someone else's baby all the time thinking it is their own?

I'm sorry for the  :hide2:

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"If you are unable to create a child of your own, whether it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman combination... I say, adopt a f^#@*%g baby, do not artificially create another one because for every one that's created by scientists there's one out there who doesn't get the chance to have a real family.

Is having a child that resembles you that important? Can you not love a child just as much, even if it's not yours? Hell, there are animals that adopt other dead animal's children, why can't we? And for that matter, how many men do you think there are out there raising someone else's baby all the time thinking it is their own?

I agree with you in concept... however, not all states let same sex couples adopt either.  And adoption is expensive.  We'd LOVE to adopt a second child to add to our household.. I've ALWAYS wanted to adopt (wrote a theme paper about it when I was just 11).  But when we looked into it, we realized we can't afford the adoption process at all.  While I have a number of friends who have adopted locally... they did it with "help" from their respective churches who footed most of the bill.  We don't have that luxury.

So point me in the direction of a lower cost adoption and I'll jump at the chance.  We can readily affort to have another child in our family.. we just can't afford the adoption fees themselves without taking out a second (or third) mortgage.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Anybody who has read my posts on the topic know that I am perfectly ok with gays and lesbians being together.

I'm glad -- I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable...

QuoteI simply find it a little bit greedy. Have we as a species not moved past the evolutionary greed to make a baby out of our own DNA?

You don't seem to be suggesting that "we as a species" should move past this, but only gay people. Otherwise this type of reproduction existing should be entirely irrelevant.

QuoteAren't there an extremely large amount of unwanted children out there being put through a shitty (for the most part) foster care and government run system? Do we really want to leave more children behind to be "owned" by the governments who are so inept they can't seem to get anything else right? Does anyone else stop for a minute to realize what typically happens to these "products of the system" when they turn legal age and are released from the care of the state?

Is this uniquely a problem for homosexuals, or are you prepared to deny the reproductive privileges of other groups in order to bolster adoption?

QuoteIf you are unable to create a child of your own, whether it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman combination... I say, adopt a f^#@*%g baby, do not artificially create another one because for every one that's created by scientists there's one out there who doesn't get the chance to have a real family.

With the option available, we would be able to create children, and for every naturally created child there is one unadopted child as well. This isn't uniquely true of children created with scientific aid.

QuoteIs having a child that resembles you that important? Can you not love a child just as much, even if it's not yours? Hell, there are animals that adopt other dead animal's children, why can't we? And for that matter, how many men do you think there are out there raising someone else's baby all the time thinking it is their own?

Again, why should this be uniquely true of homosexuals? Why should we be denied reproductive rights for this reason when no one else is?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I'm glad -- I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable...

You might even say that you're GLAAD. Eh? Eh?  

Mike, I don't think "greed" is the right term. Greed suggests a selfishness. It's not selfish to want to reproduce, it's an innate and social imperative for many people and it's necessary to continue the species.

I think that we're adapting in order to better facilitate homosexual parings. We're just a bit too impatient for mutation and natural selection to allow women to create spermatozoa (or the equivalent) on their own, so we're doing it ourselves. Just as we create medicines for illnesses that our immune systems aren't quite ready to deal with yet, or we wear sunscreen to protect us from harmful ultraviolet waves from the sun because our skin hasn't quite adapted yet, we find a way to facilitate our existence through scientific discovery and integrate those discoveries in our lives. I think you'd agree that there's nothing wrong with people being homosexual, therefore I can't imagine there's anything wrong with two women, very much in love, reproducing. Assuming the science is sound, how is it different from me falling in love with a woman and using artificial insemination to reproduce?

Anyway, you don't have to be ashamed or embarrassed for your opinion here.

Quote from: "rlrose328"I agree with you in concept... however, not all states let same sex couples adopt either.  And adoption is expensive.  We'd LOVE to adopt a second child to add to our household.. I've ALWAYS wanted to adopt (wrote a theme paper about it when I was just 11).  But when we looked into it, we realized we can't afford the adoption process at all.  While I have a number of friends who have adopted locally... they did it with "help" from their respective churches who footed most of the bill.  We don't have that luxury.

So point me in the direction of a lower cost adoption and I'll jump at the chance.  We can readily affort to have another child in our family.. we just can't afford the adoption fees themselves without taking out a second (or third) mortgage.

I understand your point. I would like to see all states and countries get to a point where gay couples have all the same rights that heterosexual couples have. It hasn't happened yet, but I hope that we keep progressing to that point.

I would be interested in seeing how much it would cost for this procedure compared to the cost of adoption for comparison purposes.

I would also love to be able to point you too a cheaper, more efficient, adoption process. However, without the energy and money being spent on making that a reality, it's not going to happen. I am saddened by that. The money and time are spent on other, and in my opinion, less important things like artificially creating offspring in laboratories.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I'm glad -- I wouldn't want to make you uncomfortable...

I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. It feels like an underhanded remark trying to state that I actually am uncomfortable with same-sex unions. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that I'm not. Luckily, your opinion has no basis on my thought processes.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"You don't seem to be suggesting that "we as a species" should move past this, but only gay people. Otherwise this type of reproduction existing should be entirely irrelevant.

I am suggesting that I feel that taking care of the children who are already alive and in need of a family should be our first concern. Do you truly believe that only same-sex couples benefit from being able to create a child in a laboratory? I am speaking of any type of situation where science has to intervene to produce an offspring. This statement, coupled with the previous statement, again leads me to believe that your opinion of my stance on the subject of homosexuality is different from the one which I have presented. And yet again, that's your issue, not mine.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Is this uniquely a problem for homosexuals, or are you prepared to deny the reproductive privileges of other groups in order to bolster adoption?

Is it really a reproductive right to bear a child of your own flesh and blood if nature has made you sterile, or if you are in a same-sex situation where reproduction is not possible? Without the science to be able to artificially create a child in a laboratory, would there be any homosexual couples or heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce by natural means who would feel it is their right to have an offspring?

Let me try to clear this up for you... Anybody who is unable to naturally reproduce would be doing a great service by adopting instead of artificially creating a child. Anybody.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"With the option available, we would be able to create children, and for every naturally created child there is one unadopted child as well. This isn't uniquely true of children created with scientific aid.

You are absolutely correct that this is not uniquely true of children created with scientific aid. There are alot of people out there having children who do not have the means to raise a child in the manner which will benefit the child. I find that truly saddening, as I'm sure you do. If it were up to me, that is one situation where I would not mind a system being put into place to stop situations like that from happening. That is clearly wishful thinking however as I am aware that would be a gross violation of human rights.

Just because I have voiced my opinion on how I would like to see this situation play out, does not mean I think it is actually something that will be feasible. I have no doubt in my mind that people will continue to artificially create children no matter what my thoughts on the subject are.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Again, why should this be uniquely true of homosexuals? Why should we be denied reproductive rights for this reason when no one else is?

And yet again, I have never stated that this is uniquely true of homosexuals. I also never stated that homosexuals should be denied the right for anything. I simply stated my opinion on the subject, and you have put words into my mouth.

I personally think that the time, money, and effort put forth into any reproductive science could be put to much better use finding better ways to take care of the children which already exist.

If we paid less attention to our own wants, and more attention to the needs of the children of the world, I think this just might be a better place. Again, this is simply wishful thinking and I know it's never going to happen.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"The prospect of females ultimately far outnumbering males is a good one to me. ;)

All joking aside, time to probably make alot of you hate me...

I'm against this. Not to the point where I would go out and rally a group of people with picket signs. I'm too close to nihilism for that one. And no, I'm definitely not against it because of the homosexual relationship aspect of it. Anybody who has read my posts on the topic know that I am perfectly ok with gays and lesbians being together.

I simply find it a little bit greedy. Have we as a species not moved past the evolutionary greed to make a baby out of our own DNA?  Aren't there an extremely large amount of unwanted children out there being put through a shitty (for the most part) foster care and government run system? Do we really want to leave more children behind to be "owned" by the governments who are so inept they can't seem to get anything else right? Does anyone else stop for a minute to realize what typically happens to these "products of the system" when they turn legal age and are released from the care of the state?

If you are unable to create a child of your own, whether it is a man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman combination... I say, adopt a f^#@*%g baby, do not artificially create another one because for every one that's created by scientists there's one out there who doesn't get the chance to have a real family.

Is having a child that resembles you that important? Can you not love a child just as much, even if it's not yours? Hell, there are animals that adopt other dead animal's children, why can't we? And for that matter, how many men do you think there are out there raising someone else's baby all the time thinking it is their own?

I'm sorry for the  :hide2:

I can agree with this to a certain extent.  But I think it is a lesson that can be applied to many straight couples also, the whole adopting kids part.  I don't really know what else to say, I guess something about this sits uneasy with me.

Quote from: "Will"You might even say that you're GLAAD. Eh? Eh?  :)

Quote from: "Will"Mike, I don't think "greed" is the right term. Greed suggests a selfishness. It's not selfish to want to reproduce, it's an innate and social imperative for many people and it's necessary to continue the species.

I understand what you're saying here. I used "greed" out of lack of having a better word for how I felt about it. No, it is not selfish to want to reproduce, and it is necessary to continue a species. However, I think we have moved past the point where reproduction is something that everyone needs to experience. I am of the mind that overpopulation of the human race is one of the largest threats to the world which we live in, although that is a discussion for another time. I think since we've taken natural selection almost completely out of the process, we've allowed for ourselves as a race to become almost a virus on the Earth reproducing at an uncontrolled rate.
It would be a human rights violation to try to control people's reproductive rights. However, educating people and spending our time and resources on working to take care of the lives which already exist would not be a human rights violation IMO.

Quote from: "Will"I think that we're adapting in order to better facilitate homosexual parings. We're just a bit too impatient for mutation and natural selection to allow women to create spermatozoa (or the equivalent) on their own, so we're doing it ourselves. Just as we create medicines for illnesses that our immune systems aren't quite ready to deal with yet, or we wear sunscreen to protect us from harmful ultraviolet waves from the sun because our skin hasn't quite adapted yet, we find a way to facilitate our existence through scientific discovery and integrate those discoveries in our lives. I think you'd agree that there's nothing wrong with people being homosexual, therefore I can't imagine there's anything wrong with two women, very much in love, reproducing. Assuming the science is sound, how is it different from me falling in love with a woman and using artificial insemination to reproduce?

By doing this ourselves, I think we've taken natural selection almost completely out of the equation. I also worry about modern medicine and how it prolongs our lives. If overpopulation is a concern for me, modern medicine isn't helping. Does this mean I shun modern medicine? No. Can I really try to ask other people to do so? Absolutely not. Can I hold this stance on the issue while feeling like a hippocrate because I cannot come up with a better solution? Yes. I would say this is an issue for another topic, but for me it is entirely relevant to the topic at hand because the more we prolong our lives, and the more we make reproduction more accessible and reliable to everyone (whether they be hetero- or homosexual) the more people we have on an already burdened Earth.

Quote from: "Will"Anyway, you don't have to be ashamed or embarrassed for your opinion here.

Thanks.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. It feels like an underhanded remark trying to state that I actually am uncomfortable with same-sex unions. I hope I'm wrong, but I feel that I'm not. Luckily, your opinion has no basis on my thought processes.

No, it was an underhanded remark meant to convey that I couldn't care less whether or not you are okay with what I'm doing. Also, when I read or hear "I'm perfectly okay with gay people being allowed to be gay" or "I have gay friends!" I know that it will be followed by something that I won't like.

QuoteI am suggesting that I feel that taking care of the children who are already alive and in need of a family should be our first concern.

"Our" as in everyone's?

QuoteDo you truly believe that only same-sex couples benefit from being able to create a child in a laboratory?

We do uniquely benefit, yes, as we are the only group that as a whole have no other possible options.

QuoteI am speaking of any type of situation where science has to intervene to produce an offspring.

So not "our" first concern, but "your" first concern, and only singling out individuals that have correctable reproductive issues, but having absolutely no affect on other groups. Kicking the downtrodden, as they are conveniently already down.

QuoteIs it really a reproductive right to bear a child of your own flesh and blood if nature has made you sterile, or if you are in a same-sex situation where reproduction is not possible?

Yes, it damn well is. Nature doesn't dictate my rights. Nature doesn't dictate what is good, and what isn't, that is naturalistic fallacious reasoning. Society, and people dictate what rights are, and to say that one group has a right to reproduce, but another does not for this reason would be fallacious reasoning. The world is overpopulated, and could use for a lot of people to die off, so lets just stop sending aid to third world nations and let nature take it's course, or stop giving medical treatment to individuals above fifty and let nature take its course.  

QuoteWithout the science to be able to artificially create a child in a laboratory, would there be any homosexual couples or heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce by natural means who would feel it is their right to have an offspring?

Yes. Although I don't have to have a child with a woman, that is all I am being denied. Homosexuals are not infertile (by default anyway), I could have gotten artificially inseminated, and if I were denied that even, I could go hit the bars. The end result is the same, the only thing I am truly being denied is the right to have a child with whom I want to have a child. As long as I play it "naturally" it is my unalienable right to flood the world with children!

I am damn sick of having to justify for myself what is taken for granted by everyone else.

QuoteLet me try to clear this up for you... Anybody who is unable to naturally reproduce would be doing a great service by adopting instead of artificially creating a child. Anybody.

But only one group is actually being disallowed reproductive rights, that is what is relevant.

QuoteThat is clearly wishful thinking however as I am aware that would be a gross violation of human rights.

Unless they're gay.

QuoteJust because I have voiced my opinion on how I would like to see this situation play out, does not mean I think it is actually something that will be feasible. I have no doubt in my mind that people will continue to artificially create children no matter what my thoughts on the subject are.

I am too, but unfortunately there are a hell of a lot of people like you, and believe it or not, apathy and indifference is a far greater obstacle to overcome than opposition.

QuoteAnd yet again, I have never stated that this is uniquely true of homosexuals. I also never stated that homosexuals should be denied the right for anything. I simply stated my opinion on the subject, and you have put words into my mouth.

Homosexuals are the only group that would be affected as a whole, so it is uniquely affecting us.

QuoteI personally think that the time, money, and effort put forth into any reproductive science could be put to much better use finding better ways to take care of the children which already exist.

I don't see why we can't have both. A policy that only affects 2-4% of the population is hardly going to make a difference.

QuoteIf we paid less attention to our own wants, and more attention to the needs of the children of the world, I think this just might be a better place. Again, this is simply wishful thinking and I know it's never going to happen.

Stop saying "we", "our", "the species" when you don't mean everyone.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"No, it was an underhanded remark meant to convey that I couldn't care less whether or not you are okay with what I'm doing. Also, when I read or hear "I'm perfectly okay with gay people being allowed to be gay" or "I have gay friends!" I know that it will be followed by something that I won't like.

Well thank you for clearing that up. Now that I know that I had no chance for civil discourse from the start with you, I will not bother continuing further in this discussion with you.

Thank you for being honest, this time.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Well thank you for clearing that up. Now that I know that I had no chance for civil discourse from the start with you, I will not bother continuing further in this discussion with you.

Where was I uncivil? Saying that I don't care whether or not I have your permission to be gay makes me uncivil? I'm not going to pretend that this isn't an emotional subject for me, but that doesn't preclude me from being civil, and I think it is unjust to say that I have not been.  

I think you are just looking for an excuse to back out, rather than resolve this.

QuoteThank you for being honest, this time.

When was I dishonest?

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I understand what you're saying here. I used "greed" out of lack of having a better word for how I felt about it. No, it is not selfish to want to reproduce, and it is necessary to continue a species. However, I think we have moved past the point where reproduction is something that everyone needs to experience. I am of the mind that overpopulation of the human race is one of the largest threats to the world which we live in, although that is a discussion for another time. I think since we've taken natural selection almost completely out of the process, we've allowed for ourselves as a race to become almost a virus on the Earth reproducing at an uncontrolled rate.
It would be a human rights violation to try to control people's reproductive rights. However, educating people and spending our time and resources on working to take care of the lives which already exist would not be a human rights violation IMO.

Overpopulation is an issue that people should pay attention to, but remember that for the foreseeable future the term is quite relative. Things like unclean water, limited availability of food and poverty are all economic issues. We have more than enough water, food, and space for every person in the world. Shoot, I'd be willing to bet Earth could sustain 12 billion people. It's just a matter of ensuring that everyone can access the opportunity to be financially stable. Assuming you have access to good work, you can then afford clean water and good food, and economies will grow.

Still, even if this procedure becomes common, lesbian couples wishing to reproduce aren't going to constitute more than a small fraction of the population. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong), about 4% of adults 18-45â€"common child bearing yearsâ€"are gay, and of that population, only a fraction are in committed monogamous relationships, and of that fraction, only some wish to have children... and of those, only some are female/female as opposed to male/male. We're not talking about a large group of individuals, so we're not necessarily talking about a large allocation of resources. Call me an optimist, but I think we can handle overpopulation and lesbian reproduction simultaneously.  :beer:

The true number of homosexuals in the population is impossible to accurately estimate, as many of a stake in keeping quiet, and many don't even consider themselves to be homosexuals.

The current estimates put it at somewhere between 2-13%.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"The true number of homosexuals in the population is impossible to accurately estimate, as many of a stake in keeping quiet, and many don't even consider themselves to be homosexuals.

The current estimates put it at somewhere between 2-13%.

I've said this same thing about atheists on several occasions.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Well thank you for clearing that up. Now that I know that I had no chance for civil discourse from the start with you, I will not bother continuing further in this discussion with you.

I've reconsidered, and would like to apologize. My reaction to your comment was needlessly thin-skinned, and I took offense when none was intended. I then continued in any unfriendly tone, which you did not deserve. I apologize for that.

I don't believe that my emotional investment precludes me from being able to take dissent on this issue, though perhaps it requires more diligence in my self-examination than I previously allowed for.

If you chose to continue, and I do not expect you to, I will make a better attempt to keep myself civil.

Quote from: "Will"I've said this same thing about atheists on several occasions.

I think that it is especially true of women. Women have a stronger tendency to conform to social norms than men do. Women have a greater instinctual tendency to play things safe, and not rock the boat. For women becoming a social outcast has been historically far more dangerous than it has been for men.

I lived a straight life till university, and I kept my mouth shut about what I really thought and felt, and I truly think that if it wasn't for the atmosphere, and freedom I enjoyed at university, that I very well could have continued to do so.

When I met my wife she was married to a man, with a six year old son.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I think that it is especially true of women. Women have a stronger tendency to conform to social norms than men do. Women have a greater instinctual tendency to play things safe, and not rock the boat. For women becoming a social outcast has been historically far more dangerous than it has been for men.

I lived a straight life till university, and I kept my mouth shut about what I really thought and felt, and I truly think that if it wasn't for the atmosphere, and freedom I enjoyed at university, that I very well could have continued to do so.

When I met my wife she was married to a man, with a six year old son.

I don't know that this is a gender-specific trait. My last girlfriend had the subtlety of a cruise missile and the timidity of a tyrannosaurus rex. She was an alpha in every sense of the world, and I loved that about her.

Conformity is something that just happens to be in some people and not in others, regardless of gender. Sure, in the past (and certain places still) gender roles were and are forced on people since birth, and as a result of their environment some women may have felt it wasn't their place to have strong opinions, but insofar as innate tendencies, a person's nature, many, many women are very strong and very capable of proudly thinking outside the box and doing what needs to be done.

You yourself were able to break through what I'm assuming were imposed societal norms eventually. You're a strong, independent woman and you're true to yourself. Had you been born a gay man, there's no way to know if you would have eventually admitted who you were to yourself. Many gay men go their whole life denying their attraction to men, which is a shame.

I extrapolated it from this (http://suicidegirls.com/news/culture/23567/) article. Though, a statistical significant number by no means precludes women from absolutely refusing to conform. My hero, Susan B Anthony was by no means willing to conform. I find it difficult to read almost anything she has written about feminism without getting teary-eyed.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"I've reconsidered, and would like to apologize. My reaction to your comment was needlessly thin-skinned, and I took offense when none was intended. I then continued in any unfriendly tone, which you did not deserve. I apologize for that.

I don't believe that my emotional investment precludes me from being able to take dissent on this issue, though perhaps it requires more diligence in my self-examination than I previously allowed for.

If you chose to continue, and I do not expect you to, I will make a better attempt to keep myself civil.

Thank you Hitsumei. I really do appreciate that. And your apology is accepted. ;)

I apologize for any harsh tones I may have taken with you as well. The reason I previously stated that I would choose to back out of this topic is because I can be a bit of a hot head when I am trying to get someone to understand why I am thinking the way I am, especially when I am struggling to find the words to explain while still trying to tread lightly.
This being the Happy Atheist forum, I did not want to lose my temper and write something which I would later regret. Knowing myself, I may have done just that.

Again, thank you. And here's to many more discussions on the best forum on the web.  
I really have enjoyed reading your contributions to the forum, even the ones which I sit on the opposite side of.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"I apologize for any harsh tones I may have taken with you as well.

No need, I take full responsibility. You approached the topic tentatively, but I did not appreciate that.  

QuoteThe reason I previously stated that I would choose to back out of this topic is because I can be a bit of a hot head when I am trying to get someone to understand why I am thinking the way I am, especially when I am struggling to find the words to explain while still trying to tread lightly.
This being the Happy Atheist forum, I did not want to lose my temper and write something which I would later regret. Knowing myself, I may have done just that.

I understand, a discussion won't go anywhere with angry participants. I think that I am generally capable of keeping my emotions in check, but I am only human -- for now...  :beer:
I really have enjoyed reading your contributions to the forum, even the ones which I sit on the opposite side of.[/quote]

I'm glad to hear that, I enjoy your posts as well.

QuoteOh no, they don't need us anymore!  

But seriously, I think it's great. Lesbians have just as much right to bear children as heterosexuals. I just wish people considered adoption more often. I don't know how things are upstairs in Canada, but down here in the US the foster system is a serious problem. There are a lot of children that could use a good home.

I'm with this guy. I'm all for advancing the science(If only to gain further mastery of the universe.) and gays should definately have the ability to reproduce/adopt. I think adoption should really be considered first though(Even for heterosexual couples). There are so many children forced to just drift from foster home to foster home. I grew up with a lot of these kind of people. I've heard so many horror stories. One girl I knew was raped repeadedly(Thankfully the guy was put in prison for this. Hope the bastard meets Bubba in there. I know a few ex cons and they tell me that rapists really catch hell in prison.). And in many cases the foster parents just want the stipend/slave labor. I've even visited friends whose foster house was unsanitary(Extremely so. Pet feces everywhere.), their foster parents treated them like unwanted pets for the most part, and a few were drug use was going on(Meth and pot). So definately anyone who wants kids should think adoption first. I know I will if I ever want children.

QuoteOh dear I just had another crazy idea! 60 million base pairs. Each base pair has 4 possible states (there are 4 nucleotides in DNA). If I were to measure that in computer terms, it's about 120Mbit (60 * 2 because a bit only has 2 states) or 15MB. The whole human genome is about 3 billion base pairs or about 750MB (roughly 1 CDROM). It's not a huge amount of information but it is stored in a very tiny amount of space. Maybe if genome sequencing comes down in price sufficiently we could use DNA as a storage medium, much like a USB flash memory or DVDROM?

Dude read Illium and Olympos by Dan Simmons. The DNA/protein storage actually happens in there(Fictitiously). Its all in binary. Great books!

If they do this for men we could have YY babies.

Wow, this one went all over the place!  I guess I missed it while I was focused on the other thread with men not wanting the babies so this could actually merge right in and be the answer to so many people's dreams!!

Seriously though I think it is indeed interesting, but don't like that it limits it to only being able to have girls, only because I think the joy of boys should also be a possibility, but that would defeat the purpose as that's already available through invitro.  I know that adoption is not a possibility in most states, as I actually tried to have my son adopted by close family friends and Virginia would not allow it.  We even had only one of the men come in for the adoption alone and they disallowed it stating that they "didn't allow for single men to adopt"...whatever, they knew what we were trying to do.  (Good news they have a boy and a girl now which is wonderful!  Not in Virginia though.)  I just can't wrap my head around why we would deny the adoption of the many, many children that would love to have a home to the people that are capable and wanting to provide that home.  If we could work out that problem we wouldn't have to explore these areas, although the biological aspect of it is important I think if it wasn't so difficult to adopt it wouldn't feel as necessary.  

I wonder are they looking to our amphibian friends as they can change gender when necessary for reproduction and some can reproduce all by their lonesome.  That would be neat too!

I for one look forward to the arrival of our gynoverlords.