Virgin conception' first for UK

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Ask those who can't (for whatever reason) have children, but want offspring who are biologically related to them (ie not adopted).

I was waiting for someone to say that!

This is humans tampering with a power we don't yet fully understand, however this is easily forgotten (if it's even realised) in today's "I want so I'll have" culture.

[marky]

I suppose even if you went away from religius or moral reasons, there is allways nature, "evolution by natural selection"

[downquark1]

Bah, no one has said if a baby could be produced by this method. IF it could it would be a clone. Evolution halts and end of story.

This is almost as bad a the daily mail claiming that replacing the mitocondria from another mother was a form of lesbian reproduction.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I was waiting for someone to say that!

This is humans tampering with a power we don't yet fully understand

So is all medicine.

Your point is...?

[Russ]

Evidently beyond your grasp....

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Evidently beyond your grasp....

Ah, reasoned debate...

You made a vague statement, seeming based on the "man was not meant to know" principle and assumed that I would go "oh, well Russ says so, therefore it must be right!"

Sorry, not going to work.

If you have a point to make, please, make it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

You made a vague statement, seeming based on the "man was not meant to know" principle and assumed that I would go "oh, well Russ says so, therefore it must be right!"

Ah, reasoned debate? Sorry my bad, what I meant was 'pressumption debate'

Bad analogy on your part really - I was talking about the power of creating life. Sustaining life (ie medicine) is a different matter.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Russ D

This is humans tampering with a power we don't yet fully understand, however this is easily forgotten (if it's even realised) in today's "I want so I'll have" culture.

We ,as a race, try things. We make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from those mistakes.

I do agree on the second point though, Russ. We do want things NOW, and don't seem to worry too much about the future consequences.

I think part of the problem is people tend to assume they have a RIGHT to a baby. It's not a right, it's a privilige. Although I can understand that is hard for people to understand.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

We ,as a race, try things. We make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from those mistakes.

I just don't agree that one of the things we should 'try' is to harness to power of created life.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I think part of the problem is people tend to assume they have a RIGHT to a baby. It's not a right, it's a privilige.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Russ D

This is humans tampering with a power we don't yet fully understand, however this is easily forgotten (if it's even realised) in today's "I want so I'll have" culture.

It's not so much a 'I want so I'll have' thing as an 'I need with all my soul' thing. People (especially women) can suddenly find that a switch has been thrown in their heads and then they absolutely must have a child.....It's not rational, it's nature.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Ah, reasoned debate? Sorry my bad, what I meant was 'pressumption debate'

Now that point *is* beyond me since I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bad analogy on your part really - I was talking about the power of creating life. Sustaining life (ie medicine) is a different matter.

Hmm, so what about IVF?
__________________

Originally Posted by Stuart C

We ,as a race, try things. We make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from those mistakes.

Good point.

I think part of the problem is people tend to assume they have a RIGHT to a baby. It's not a right, it's a privilige. Although I can understand that is hard for people to understand.

You're right, I *do* find that hard to understand.

How exactly is having babies *not* a right?

I've not heard of any cases of someone being *denied* the right to have babies, not even people who have eg congenital diseases, except in certain totalitarian regimes.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ask those who can't (for whatever reason) have children, but want offspring who are biologically related to them (ie not adopted).

Ivf still the womans egg donor sperm still hers carried by her but not a biological freak.

Is the world not over populated enough without the impossible becoming possible?Mother nature will win out in the end,us humans think we are so important but we are nothing just well trained monkeys who think we know it all
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

.

How exactly is having babies *not* a right?

I've not heard of any cases of someone being *denied* the right to have babies, not even people who have eg congenital diseases, except in certain totalitarian regimes.

Its ment to be something that happens through procreation if it happens it happens.You have argued about those who cant have babies,here is a radical idea,Ban abortion Ban IVF allow only naturely born babies into the world.Ill get my flame proof coat

[Graham]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Ivf still the womans egg donor sperm still hers carried by her but not a biological freak.

And what about babies who are conceived with donated eggs or donated sperm, but still biologically related to one parent?

Its ment to be something that happens through procreation if it happens it happens.

Who says that it's "meant" to happen that way?

Just because it does in the majority of cases doesn't mean that other methods are somehow "not meant" to happen.

Originally Posted by Graham

Just because it does in the majority of cases doesn't mean that other methods are somehow "not meant" to happen.

Oh come on m8 thats a bit thin,procreation has been done like this for millions of years,Man just likes to think he is God some men more than others

surely you cant contest that man is making a serious mess of things with its interference with nature?

[Dooby]

It sounds like this research is more to do with getting stem cells rather than creating fully developed clones.