Hmmm, I'm all for progress but something seems a bit sinister about using this to allow two women to create a life. Something seems particularly unnatural about that, it conjures up images of mutants and creatures that shouldn't exist.

I'm not worried about the angle of it being unnatural--medicine is all about the unnatural--but I am worried about the angle of it being untested, given what could happen if the process doesn't work. I would definitely want to see this rigorously tested in animals before it's tried in humans, and I say this as someone who has no small number of lesbian friends who have conceived via IVF or other means.

The right wing will, of course, obsess over this "safety" aspect of things long after it's actually relevant, so we'll probably also have human examples of birth by stem cell sperm production in South Korea, continental Europe, and so forth.

Definitely an exciting development, in any case!

Cheers,

TH

Sounds awesome!

I don't see how this is any more unnatural or morally troubling than in vitro fertilization or other such technologies.

So long as it proves safe for everybody (of course not everything is safe, so relatively) I have no issues with it.

All we need to do now is develop artificial eggs and a uterus for gay couples and we're all set.

Maybe I'm just slow, but don't embryonic stem cells come from an embryo? That would imply the existence of an embryo made from the old fashioned kind of sperm as the source of this sperm.

Once you had the stem cells you could keep making lots of sperm in perpetuity, but wouldn't you need to start somewhere?

Maybe the Telegraph got it wrong? K. Nayernia's latests publication is entitled "Derivation of male germ cells from bone marrow stem cells." This was published July 2006.

That makes more sense, doesn't it?

If that is the same study, this would be a case of remarkably stupid journalism, would it not?

(The Telegraph lists Karim Nayernia as the leader of the project)

NB: He ALSO has the article about sperm from embryonic stem cell lines. But that DOES NOT equal lesbian babies. It's the other article that implies you can get lesbian babies.

Bryan McKay,

If we could possibly develop artificial eggs and a uterus for gay couples, wouldn't that be great?

What is the problem with that? Is it just that people like you and xyz are worried about interfering with God's creation?

I understand that a lot of medicine could be termed essentially unnatural. "Unnatural" is a word I rarely use as it can be argued that everything comes from some kind of natural source. I hesitated to use it here but decided on "particularly unnatural" because it seemed to express the feeling I'm trying to get across.

Maybe it's just an idea you have to get used to but in this form, actually creating life seems a bit sinister.

It seems a world away from taking a Paracetamol, it's really getting down to the low level building blocks of life.

Being a biology geek, I pulled the article this refers to. They used embryonic stem cells induced in culture to form sperm cells. The article is "In Vitro-Differentiated Embryonic Stem Cells Give Rise to Male Gametes that Can Generate Offspring Mice" in this weeks developmental cell.

Pretty cool stuff... Although in order for adults to use this, they'd have to use somatic nuclear transfer or embryonic cloning.

Of course, it probably bears noting that said lesbian couple could only have female children.

xyz,

It seems a bit sinister to you to use this "to allow two women to create a life", but you have no problem with it helping to cure infertility in men? Hmmm... Why so selective?

What is the problem with that? Is it just that people like you and xyz are worried about interfering with God's creation?

There's no problem with it. You just completely misinterpreted my comment as something negative. It was an honest misreading, no hard feelings.

Jenn,

I was refering to what was written since last time I checked lesbians are women. Replace that with "two men" if you like.

Methinks you have a chip on your shoulder.

So basically, xyz, it's okay to you only if it improves the lives of heterosexual men?

If I have a supposed chip (from what, no clue), what's your excuse?

soujourer,

I'm not in the slightest bit religious, I don't have a big problem with it and I'm not about to start campaigning against it. I certainly wouldn't say something shouldn't happen just because I "feel" it's a bit sinister.

I was just saying it stirs up a bit of a strange emotion in me.

Drop the attitudes!

Jenn,

Crikey. I never said anything like that. I'm not homophobic or anti-women. I'd like things to benefit everybody.

xyz,

i think the misunderstand stems from your omission of declaring that infertile heterosexual men being able to have synthesized sperm would be "sinister".

or is something actually more wrong, to you, with homosexuals having children than infertile men having children?

cheers,

Puckalish,

No there is nothing "more wrong" in that to me whatsoever. That was not what I was trying to say at all. In fact I really wasn't trying to say the whole concept was "wrong". My statement was emotive and nothing more, it wasn't supposed to be a compelling argument.

As I said before you can substitute "two men" for "two women", and you can make them of any sexual persuasion you wish.

So basically, xyz, you like to kick puppies and make little children cry?

Even though this in my mind is an extreme scenario with many hoops to go through before becoming that will affect us in our daily lives... I can help but think that maybe we should continue working on using stem cells to oh cure cancer, paralysis, damaged heart tissue, etc before creating more lives in our crowded world. I understand that lesbian/gay couples probably desire to have children, their own children. It's a natural desire that I myself didnt even realize the importance of until I was told that, due to a chronic medical condition that has me on meds the rest of my life, I might not be able to have my own. But I also see this (being adoption) as an amazing (an expensive) way to give back to society... I don't know..

noname,

Apparently so. Particularly lesbian puppies created in laboratories.

"something seems a bit sinister about using this to allow two women to create a life."
Posted by: xyz

"I understand that lesbian/gay couples probably desire to have children, their own children."
Posted by: mzbldinhart

Do you mean a child derived from each same-sex parent, or just biological children? Because lesbians certainly DO have their own children. They are not infertile. Many, many lesbians have children, created from prior marriages or relationships, and even large extended families.

I think when strange discussions like this come it's easy to forget that.

When the Washington DC Easter Egg Roll picnic was held this year, I think it surprised a lot of straights to see gay families. I guess it's hard to shove an entire family, including SUV, soccer ball and golden retriever, into the closet. It gets a little crowded.

Sperm banks are an option, too, or a friend for a sperm donation.

I suppose I always figured that someday science would figure out how humans can reproduce without an opposite-sex requirement, since we all have DNA and estrogen and testosterone. Maybe this new scientific discovery is one road to that or maybe it's not. But it's probably one of the last things we have to worry about.

I remember hearing something along the lines of this story a couple years ago, out of Australia I think...
They were working on impregnating female mice with *somethingoranother* they used from other female mice. We discussed it in my women's studies class at the time, but I don't remember anything else about it...

I think it is great. What could be wrong about giving couples who really want children the ability to have their own?