Scientists grow sperm from stem cells

[Guest Warwick Green]

A check with a dictionary finds the following definition of embryo "In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development."

Doesn't that mean that sperm was required to create the embryo in the first place?

Scientists have turned stem cells from an embryo into sperm that are capable of producing offspring, it was announced yesterday.

The advance in reproductive science raises new opportunities to treat male infertility and the possibility that women could make sperm.

The professor behind the research believes that, when safe, the advance could help men with certain types of infertility to become fertile, to remain fertile for longer and, controversially, could even one day enable a lesbian couple to have children that, at the genetic level, are truly their own.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_11072006

[PocketRocket]

Lets not get overjoyed. For reproductive purposes, this makes men pretty much superfluous.

[Guest Warwick Green]

IVF: no father will be required

Fertility doctors will no longer be required to consider the need for a father when addressing the welfare of children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation.

Caroline Flint, the public health minister, told MPs yesterday that the Government was likely to scrap the requirement, making it easier for lesbian couples and single women to have IVF babies.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 states: "A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father)."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_13072006

[MightyAC]

IVF: no father will be required

Fertility doctors will no longer be required to consider the need for a father when addressing the welfare of children born as a result of in vitro fertilisation.

Caroline Flint, the public health minister, told MPs yesterday that the Government was likely to scrap the requirement, making it easier for lesbian couples and single women to have IVF babies.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 states: "A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father)."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_13072006

"(including the need of that child for a father)." So right now a single woman of sufficient means to support a child cannot buy a spermsicle and have a baby? If that is the case then the The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should have been ammended already.

[geoffrey]

Normally I don't sit in the camp with the relgious right despite being religious myself. But this is one of those few situations where I have to go, "oh s***, time to start building my Ark."

I think we need to be very careful before we start created babies that could not otherwise exist. Eliminating a sex from the species is frighening too, what's the point of men anymore (or soon, what's the point of women... stem cells could grown to an artifical womb).

I suggest reading an old book, A Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. I feel, sadly and somewhat with a tinfoil hat on, that this is the long-term direction of our society. No need for family, no need for love, just mass produced children form fitted and breed into their roles.

I try to make this point with too much religious reference, I'm not saying that this is wrong because my God tells me so (though he does). I'm saying if I were in charge, I'd be very careful about going around destroying key elements of society, like families or even parents altogether.

It's frightening. I never saw SSM as a huge threat to the family, but this, I see as the family's doom, long-term of course.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Normally I don't sit in the camp with the relgious right despite being religious myself. But this is one of those few situations where I have to go, "oh s***, time to start building my Ark."

I think we need to be very careful before we start created babies that could not otherwise exist. Eliminating a sex from the species is frighening too, what's the point of men anymore (or soon, what's the point of women... stem cells could grown to an artifical womb).

I suggest reading an old book, A Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. I feel, sadly and somewhat with a tinfoil hat on, that this is the long-term direction of our society. No need for family, no need for love, just mass produced children form fitted and breed into their roles.

I try to make this point with too much religious reference, I'm not saying that this is wrong because my God tells me so (though he does). I'm saying if I were in charge, I'd be very careful about going around destroying key elements of society, like families or even parents altogether.

It's frightening. I never saw SSM as a huge threat to the family, but this, I see as the family's doom, long-term of course.

In a way we already have that. Lesbian couples can "order" a baby using an anonymous sperm donor so effectively there is no father. And not just a couple, a single woman can do it to.

[MightyAC]

In a way we already have that. Lesbian couples can "order" a baby using an anonymous sperm donor so effectively there is no father. And not just a couple, a single woman can do it to.

Do you think same sex couples or single parents should not be able to obtain children through current methods...adoption, sperm donor or surrogate?

[Drea]

Normally I don't sit in the camp with the relgious right despite being religious myself. But this is one of those few situations where I have to go, "oh s***, time to start building my Ark."

I think we need to be very careful before we start created babies that could not otherwise exist. Eliminating a sex from the species is frighening too, what's the point of men anymore (or soon, what's the point of women... stem cells could grown to an artifical womb).

I suggest reading an old book, A Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. I feel, sadly and somewhat with a tinfoil hat on, that this is the long-term direction of our society. No need for family, no need for love, just mass produced children form fitted and breed into their roles.

I try to make this point with too much religious reference, I'm not saying that this is wrong because my God tells me so (though he does). I'm saying if I were in charge, I'd be very careful about going around destroying key elements of society, like families or even parents altogether.

It's frightening. I never saw SSM as a huge threat to the family, but this, I see as the family's doom, long-term of course.

Don't worry Geoffrey, this is not going to destroy the "traditional" family because people will always want to have sex and having sex sometimes ends up as procreating.

What is the big issue if a woman chooses to raise a child on her own anyway? If you never have something (a father for example) you never miss it. I ask my only child sometimes "son, would you have wanted me to have more children so you'd have brothers and/or sisters?" "NO WAY" is his immediate answer. He's never had them so therefore he cannot miss them.

I'm not saying that this is wrong because my God tells me so (though he does).

He does??

How?

No where in the Bible does it say anything whatsoever about this issue or the abortion issue. Heck good god-fearing people used to put babies out in the woods to die if they didn't have the means to feed it or if it had problems of one kind or another.

[Guest Warwick Green]

In a way we already have that. Lesbian couples can "order" a baby using an anonymous sperm donor so effectively there is no father. And not just a couple, a single woman can do it to.

Do you think same sex couples or single parents should not be able to obtain children through current methods...adoption, sperm donor or surrogate?

Same sex couples have the same legal rights as hetero couples to adopt. I see no problem with that. As for singles they should have the same rights as married folk to bring up a kid. Lord knows there are already plenty of single parents out there.

[Kindred]

Lets not get overjoyed. For reproductive purposes, this makes men pretty much superfluous

And your point is? The posts questioning the rights of single women to have children makes that seem like a good idea. Where do some men get the idea they control the world and the reproductive rights and choices of women?

[BubberMiley]

It's frightening. I never saw SSM as a huge threat to the family, but this, I see as the family's doom, long-term of course.

Why do you have so little faith in the family unit that this would spell its doom? I don't think it's nearly so fragile.

[geoffrey]

What is the big issue if a woman chooses to raise a child on her own anyway? If you never have something (a father for example) you never miss it.

Statistically false, children without fathers are much more likely to be criminals.

All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on crime or delinquency. Seven of the eight studies that used nationally representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent or other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or delinquent acts. For example: A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in the past year. (Todd Michael Franke 2000)

Or how about how much more likely they are to be complete failures:

EFFECTS OF FATHERLESSNESS (US DATA)

1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)

2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS

80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)

70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

5 times more likely to commit suicide.

32 times more likely to run away.

20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out of high school.

10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.

9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.

20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Source: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/gender/econ/nodad.htm

Then dealing with just single parent families in general:

"Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency." Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents' to monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them.

So much for the guy's being abusive theory, I hate when statistics rain on the feminist parade.

Raising a child without any fatherly influence is irresponsible at best and in my opinion negligent. All the data points to the consequences. I'm sure we'll hear the 'data means nothing, my kid is good' argument though.

Considerably higher chances of dropping out of school, doing drugs, commiting violent crimes.

Get with the program, fathers are a critical aspect of children's lives. It disgusts me to think that some women are so absorbed by the feminist movement to say that fathers are unnecessary. The evidence is against you, common sense is too.

[Guest Warwick Green]

All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on crime or delinquency. Seven of the eight studies that used nationally representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent or other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or delinquent acts. For example: A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in the past year. (Todd Michael Franke 2000)

Are we talking about families that at one time were two parent and then became single parent after a divorce? Not the best environment, being brought up in a broken home. What about the situation of a woman has never married and just decides to bring the child up herself? What is the experience with those children? What is the experience with the chidren of lesbian or gay families?

[Drea]

Get with the program, fathers are a critical aspect of children's lives. It disgusts me to think that some women are so absorbed by the feminist movement to say that fathers are unnecessary. The evidence is against you, common sense is too.

The feminist movement is over. Finished. Done.

We women are now equal members of society. We choose whether or not to marry, we choose whether or not to have children. We are no longer simply breeders under the control of men. Men and women now share all in relationships including raising the children and earning the money.

That being said:

Not all fathers are perfect. Not all men are cut out to be fathers. A child who does not know his father does not miss him, he/she may lack a male role model but does not actually miss the father who has never been there.

On the same token not all mothers are perfect and not all women are cut out to be mothers.

I laughed at the stat: 164% more likely to have premaritial birth. Guess that means 164 out of every 100 daughters are going to have kids before marriage? LOL

Don't get me wrong -- I've known many men who are good dads or step dads.

I am also of the thinking that men usually get the short end of the stick in divorce/custody arrangments.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Get with the program, fathers are a critical aspect of children's lives

I think the program we have to get with is the realization that marriage is becoming less and less stable and more and more kids are being brought up by single parents. That's the reality of family life today. Given that so many marriages are ending up in divorce I can understand that some women, from the get-go, would like to raise children on their own without the hindrance of a male around.

[geoffrey]

I laughed at the stat: 164% more likely to have premaritial birth. Guess that means 164 out of every 100 daughters are going to have kids before marriage? LOL

Basic stats my dear. If 100 kids out of thousand had kids before marriage, then 164% more would be 264 out of a thousand.

We women are now equal members of society. We choose whether or not to marry, we choose whether or not to have children. We are no longer simply breeders under the control of men. Men and women now share all in relationships including raising the children and earning the money.

Generally men don't share in relationships raising children anymore, the sad nature of our family courts system. I see you agree with me later on.

Don't get me wrong -- I've known many men who are good dads or step dads.

I am also of the thinking that men usually get the short end of the stick in divorce/custody arrangments.

They generally do and the children suffer greatly because of this.

--

You don't think that with all these stats about the negative effects of not having 'dad' around, today's court outlook 'blame the dad, it's always his fault' might be a major contributing factor to gangs and crime?

Fathers are equals in relation to raising kids, no one in my judgement can say that kids are just as well off without a father. I couldn't disagree more with the thought, and this is my premise behind my disagreement with homosexuals adopting kids, they don't have the balance of gender roles in their household (well they might hey, someone has to wear the pants...). You know what I mean.

[gc1765]

could even one day enable a lesbian couple to have children that, at the genetic level, are truly their own.

I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. If it requires sperm (ie another source of genetic material) to make the embryos used to generate sperm then how do the children end up with only the genes of the mothers? Since it takes at least 1 sperm to make sperm, that genetic material will be in the children won't it? And even if it is possible, since women only have X chromosomes (no Y chromosome) all the children will be female which would lead to....the end of the male gender. Yikes.

Also, I agree with geoffrey, it helps for young males to have a father as a role model in their lives. Then again, how important is it for young females to have a male role model, afterall if we assume for a minute that this technique will be the only method of reproduction, then the world will be entirely female.

[Charles Anthony]

In a way we already have that. Lesbian couples can "order" a baby using an anonymous sperm donor so effectively there is no father. And not just a couple, a single woman can do it to.

This is a very important observation. The science will never be able to compete.

The clones will be relegated to rich weirdos.

The geneticists and Dr. Frankenstein can make all of the advances and discoveries and the money they want, but the the male sperm donor will always be able to supply children at the cheapest and convenient rate. In fact, maybe they could even re-inject some fun!

[Guest Warwick Green]

EU Agrees to Limited Use of Funds in Stem Cell Research

In a compromise deal that will allow current large-scale projects the finances they need to continue running, the EU agreed Monday to allow limited amounts of bloc funding for stem cell research.

European Union ministers went some way to appeasing eight of the bloc's members, including Germany, who had called for a complete ban of stem cell research funding when it was announced that the money would allow limited use of EU cash for research involving human embryonic stem cells.

The agreement bans research that involves destroying human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells. However, the EU said unspecified "subsequent steps" involving human embryonic stem cells would not be included in the ban and would be eligible for funding.

"The financing ... from EU funds is possible, but subject to very tight ethical rules and procedures," said Jukka Pekkarinen, head of the Finance Ministry's economics department....

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2108923,00.html

[Drea]

Generally men don't share in relationships raising children anymore, the sad nature of our family courts system.

I see many young fathers today fully participating in their children's lives. Participating a lot more than the men of my father's generation. The former do everything from participating (as much as possible LOL) in the birth to changing diapers and taking time off work to care for the new baby. I'd bet money that my father, and those of his generation, never ever changed a diaper or looked after a crying infant in the middle of the night!

You don't think that with all these stats about the negative effects of not having 'dad' around, today's court outlook 'blame the dad, it's always his fault' might be a major contributing factor to gangs and crime?

Sometimes it is the father's fault. Sometimes the mother's. One cannot just make blanket statements that all family court decisions are "for" the mother. Regarding crimes and gangs -- why does Dad not come around more often? Sometimes it's because the mother won't let him (he can fight for visitation rights in court) but oftentimes it's because he's just too lazy or has gotten on with his "new" life.

Fathers are equals in relation to raising kids, no one in my judgement can say that kids are just as well off without a father. I couldn't disagree more with the thought, and this is my premise behind my disagreement with homosexuals adopting kids, they don't have the balance of gender roles in their household (well they might hey, someone has to wear the pants...). You know what I mean.

I've never known a person who was raised by homosexual parents. Have you? Until there are children grown to adulthood in such families we will not know the implications and therefore cannot offer a truly informed opinion.