Pathenogenesis
In yesterday’s newspaper, there was a small article about an embryo that had been conceived by two mothers. From the same people who cloned Dolly the sheep, I believe in the UK, scientists have devised up this new idea, called pathenogenesis. Pathenogenesis is Greek for “virgin conception.” This is where eggs are created without sperm or any outside genetic factors making the eggs exact replicas of the women who donated the eggs. This technique involves “tricking” eggs into dividing by using a shock of electricity to mimic the effect of being fertilized by a sperm.
When I first read the article I thought “how cool would that be?” There are a lot of lesbian couples who would probably love this idea. Granted it would cost a lot of money, but it’d be money that they’d be able to put toward something they wanted. Lesbian couples complain that they have to go to a sperm donor, and some wish that there wasn’t any male involvement when it comes to conception. This idea would be great for this kind of thing. Unfortunately thou, the child would not have genetic resemblances of both mothers, only the egg that has already been fertilized would the child get the genetic make up. In essence, one egg is being the “host” of the fertilized egg. At least that is the idea I got from reading the articles.
I think if I chose to have a kid, and this option was available, I’d surely take it. And then there would be no legal battle (hopefully) with who the father would be, b/c there literally wouldn’t be one. I’m a firm believer in the fact that a child doesn’t need a male figure in their life to grow up “successfully” what ever that means. People sometimes have this idea that there NEEDS to be a father figure, hence why lesbian adoption is so controversial in some places. But I think if the parent or parents are able to give love and be able to nurture their child, why does there need to be a male influence? Isn’t it about who the parent or parents care for the child, not the matter of what gender the parent is? A bit off the subject here..but I could see a lot of lesbian couples, even just single women being in favor of this idea. But it’s bad enough here in Australia how much controversy there is with lesbians and single women wanting to do IVF. But I won’t go into details about that.
In today’s newspaper there was a larger article, and it stated that the main purpose of this scientific idea would be to be a “replacement” for human cloning. So it makes me wonder why under the heading of the article, it stated “producing without sperm controversy” But this idea would go a step further than stem cell research, and this would be another avenue for women who suffer from various diseases would be able to “produce” healthy cells, if you may. They haven’t done research on sperm cells, but scientists are hoping that if this is a successful idea, sperm cell research will come into affect next and both men and women would be able to produce healthy cells to help their bodies fight off what ever battles they are being faced with.
How nice would it be, if a scientific idea such as this would be able to help a lot of people. There is always going to be controversy around anything revolving around cloning of humans, whether it be cells, or an actual human being. But if this is something that can prolong the health of so many people, why not do it? There are so many diseases that are both terminal and not, and so many people are hurting, either by the disease themselves, or a family member or loved one. Prolonging one’s life doesn’t guarantee blissful happiness, but to give someone the chance to live an extra 5-10 years, what harm is in that?
-current mood-RELAXED
When I first read the article I thought “how cool would that be?” There are a lot of lesbian couples who would probably love this idea. Granted it would cost a lot of money, but it’d be money that they’d be able to put toward something they wanted. Lesbian couples complain that they have to go to a sperm donor, and some wish that there wasn’t any male involvement when it comes to conception. This idea would be great for this kind of thing. Unfortunately thou, the child would not have genetic resemblances of both mothers, only the egg that has already been fertilized would the child get the genetic make up. In essence, one egg is being the “host” of the fertilized egg. At least that is the idea I got from reading the articles.
I think if I chose to have a kid, and this option was available, I’d surely take it. And then there would be no legal battle (hopefully) with who the father would be, b/c there literally wouldn’t be one. I’m a firm believer in the fact that a child doesn’t need a male figure in their life to grow up “successfully” what ever that means. People sometimes have this idea that there NEEDS to be a father figure, hence why lesbian adoption is so controversial in some places. But I think if the parent or parents are able to give love and be able to nurture their child, why does there need to be a male influence? Isn’t it about who the parent or parents care for the child, not the matter of what gender the parent is? A bit off the subject here..but I could see a lot of lesbian couples, even just single women being in favor of this idea. But it’s bad enough here in Australia how much controversy there is with lesbians and single women wanting to do IVF. But I won’t go into details about that.
In today’s newspaper there was a larger article, and it stated that the main purpose of this scientific idea would be to be a “replacement” for human cloning. So it makes me wonder why under the heading of the article, it stated “producing without sperm controversy” But this idea would go a step further than stem cell research, and this would be another avenue for women who suffer from various diseases would be able to “produce” healthy cells, if you may. They haven’t done research on sperm cells, but scientists are hoping that if this is a successful idea, sperm cell research will come into affect next and both men and women would be able to produce healthy cells to help their bodies fight off what ever battles they are being faced with.
How nice would it be, if a scientific idea such as this would be able to help a lot of people. There is always going to be controversy around anything revolving around cloning of humans, whether it be cells, or an actual human being. But if this is something that can prolong the health of so many people, why not do it? There are so many diseases that are both terminal and not, and so many people are hurting, either by the disease themselves, or a family member or loved one. Prolonging one’s life doesn’t guarantee blissful happiness, but to give someone the chance to live an extra 5-10 years, what harm is in that?
-current mood-RELAXED
posted by Gaylicious© at Sunday, September 11, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home