lab made sperm?

CarlottaVonUberwald said:
uhuh- fertitlity isnt the test of a good parent i always say

i mena some poeple who are fertiel have 10 kids but couldnt raise one right

meanwhile thre perfect parents just cant have children because there infertile :(

That unfortunately is the way of the world, you just have to go with the good and the bad. And no fertility is not the test of a good parent, but getting past fertility problems that is a test.:confused:

 
no what im saying is...if we can give one good parent hope to have a child i nthe best possible way and at the same time get closer to understanding techniques that could later be used to sure a disease we are onto a winner


although the RSPCA check out your home and background checkyo u before giving you a dog im sure something similar could be a pplaied to expensive fertility i dont see how someone who wants children to that extent would disagree to it.
 
star.torturer said:
guessing is like gabling i guess

though thats off toppic

it is , fertility is compleatly random

betting and gambling isnt random thoguh

usually weighted..whichi suppose fertility is in a way.. but still no ST
 
weaveworld said:
Hey....

If you are getting a kid at the end of it all - I am all for it!

Its not about playing god, its about helping people.

If it helps people then im sure this can be great, however, I worry about the long term implications of such measures, as with all new areas of research there are reactions and side effects that only become apparent later on.
On the web page it stated that six of the seven mice lived untill adulthood and the ones that did survive all had abnormal patterns of growth, such as difficulty breathing.
This is just a reaction which affected the mice, our genetics are different who knows what will be a side effect on a person, are they willing to go ahead with such a procedure regaurdless?
No matter how much testing on animals they do, safetly cannot be a certainty untill people are used as subjects, this became apparent in March this year when 6 men were taken seriously ill after the first clinical trail on humans for the drug TBN1412.

In this situation it would involve creating a baby purely as a test subject to see if it can be done, to me that is not a morally justifiable action.

Dont get me wrong I am all for medical advancements but I feel that we shouldnt be so hasty in seeking out such means to an end.
Stem cells are such an exciting area of science and im personally holding out hope of a cure one day for my ailment..
.
 
i think that before any government les it get to human stage wed be fairly safe and i think we have to take a risk somewhere...
 
CarlottaVonUberwald said:
i think that before any government les it get to human stage wed be fairly safe and i think we have to take a risk somewhere...


Is taking such a risk with a human life justifiable?

In this case, it would only be bringing a life into the world for an experiment.
I doubt that it would be allowed to be put in to practice in many countrys, especially not in the UK, with the European Court Of Human Rights, this act would certainly be viewed as inhumane.

Yet imagine if a baby was produced and the same effects happened to it that happened to the mice, growth defects etc...

Is the deprived life of this child worth truely worth it?

What if this techique cannot be perfected, how many disabled children need to be born for us to learn this?

Is experimenting on people truely for the greater good?

Even so, can we really live with the fact that babys suffered so to bring further life into the world, can that truely be an act of a civilised society?

These are the questions people should ask thierselves before taking the next step and progressing this experiment on people.
 
yes... in general ( obviously i expect a level of testing first a programme suprort and knowledge of specific cases)
 
While I agree that all reasonable testing should be done, there comes a time in any new medical advance when human testing is inevitable; and there is always the risk of lost lives, including those procedures which are still experimental (where humans are concerned) that are intended to improve the chances of life in children. We cannot, unfortunately, eliminate all risk with this. What we can do, is to run as much testing as possible beforehand to work out as many of the problems as possible; there's also the fact that information sharing from other branches of genetic science can come into play here, to help understand why certain things happened here, and how to avoid them in future, if they can be avoided. There are many, many safety precautions to heed, and this is only now being discovered, really. So we've a long way to go before human testing will come about. But remember that in vitro fertilization, in its early days, often ended up disastrously. Various medications have produced terrible birth defects. But, because the nature of the universe is as it is, this is the way we learn, by painful trial and error -- sometimes horrendously painful. Take all the precautions we can, learn as much as we can, then when the time comes, do the best we can ... and pray.
 
Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to generate eggs? They are, after all, finite and not that numerous to begin with, whereas male gametes number in the hundreds of millions and are produced constantly from puberty on. And while couples may want children with their own DNA, wouldn't it be far easier to collect from a sperm bank for couples in which the male is infertile than it would be for an infertile woman to secure a donor egg, assuming she could carry it to term?
 
because some people couldnt handle having what they see as anothers child..

also recently legal issues about sperm donation are being raised again.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top