Jump to content

Welcome to Emo Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Ivf And Artificial Sperm

- - - - -

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
I don't think we've had a topic on this before, so no time like the present to make it I guess.

For those who don't know what it is, IVF is abbreviated form of In Vitro Fertilisation.
It's a process in which female egg cells are fertilized by male sperm cells outside of the womb.

Scientists have recently managed to create artificial sperm cells, that in the future may be able to fertilize eggs.
I've also read an article stating that scientists are trying to create female sperm for humans- this has so far only been successful for animals.

Wanting to hear your opinions on these two things, or anything in relation. What are your thoughts about this?

For the LGBT on here, would you consider using IVF or artificial sperm in the future?

Perhaps we can get a debate going on it- as long as there's no flame or spam, then that's cool with me.
  • 0

#2
Swagmaster Tom

Swagmaster Tom

    Just shot Marvin in the face

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,992 posts
None of these seriously bother me at all.
But who knows, maybe these experiments will lead to bigger, better things.
  • 0

#3
finality

finality

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • forum re-designers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,517 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Country
  • Fav Band .
Artificial sperm? I hadn't heard about that, I think it sounds like a terrible idea.
IVF is great, though.
  • 0

#4
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
Artificial sperm has already been used to create animals- they're hoping that it can be used in IVF within the next 5 years.

Someone recently told me, think it was Tara, that they're working out a way in which genetics of same sex parents can be put into a cell, to create a child with the genetics of both parents. I'm not sure if this is related to artificial sperm or not.

Found a quote from The Times, stating this-

QUOTE
In the longer term, it may even prove possible to produce sperm from female stem cells, and eggs from male ones, allowing homosexual couples to have children that bear the genes of both parents.

This would also enable a single man or woman to provide both the sperm and eggs needed to create an embryo, so that a person could essentially mate with himself or herself.


For those who want to read the full article, it's here:
http://www.timesonli...ticle685515.ece
  • 0

#5
finality

finality

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • forum re-designers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,517 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Country
  • Fav Band .
If one mates with one's self, is that not essentially inbreeding?
I think artificial sperm has great potential for misuse, and I'm not sure that nature should be messed with to that extent.
  • 0

#6
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
It would probably be classed as asexual reproduction, as it isn't really incest.

I think that, used in the correct way, it could be quite beneficial.
  • 0

#7
finality

finality

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • forum re-designers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,517 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Country
  • Fav Band .
QUOTE (Beth. @ Jul 21 2009, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It would probably be classed as asexual reproduction, as it isn't really incest.

I think that, used in the correct way, it could be quite beneficial.

I know, I didn't mean that it would be incest, rather that the child would have a large risk of being born with horrible deformities.
  • 0

#8
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
Possibly. I suppose they'll probably work on that as well.

I think it'd be more beneficial/ effective with same sex couples, given the fact there'd be two sets of genetics as opposed to one.
  • 0

#9
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
I think finances are a fault with this kind of thing, although in some cases [in the UK at least] you can get it funded on the NHS. I posted an article in the World News thread earlier- first lesbian couple have gotten NHS-funded IVF over here.

Asexual reproduction perhaps wouldn't be such a positive thing- I agree that we should stick with sperm donors/ surrogate mothers for that. It's a good idea for infertile couples or same sex couples, however.
  • 0

#10
The Shining

The Shining

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,691 posts
I don't get it. Why is it so interesting about artificial sperm? Why not just let me let-loose-the-juice and give a free direct injection?
  • 0

#11
The Shining

The Shining

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,691 posts
QUOTE (brunettesrule1000 @ Jul 21 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In animal cases - sometimes literally they just don't mate. But if you want to get a female pregnant, and she won't mate with the other animal, artificial insemination is one of your (very few) options.

In people cases, well, you wouldn't necessarily want to have sex with just anyone, just to get a baby would you? Lesbians for example, if they're not attracted to men, why should they have to have sex with one, just to get pregnant?


Also, beth, awesome on the first NHS funding for lesbian IVF.


You're right.

Also, a very big kudos to you for turning my otherwise trollish post. Damn you're a good mod! I mean seriously, you successfully diverted something that many would think of as spam and make it into worthy of this thread. Fucking brilliant man!
  • 0

#12
Existentialism

Existentialism

    Slow motion accident.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,081 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Country
  • US State:California
  • Fav Band Cassino
  • Fav Song Chesterfield King
I don't like the idea. Call me old fashioned but I believe an offspring should be made from a man and a woman in love together. Of course that rarely happens today anymore, but that's the way a baby should be made. Nature should not be screwed with.

This would cost a great amount of money amirite? Why choose this when couples could adopt the already born children in the world instead of making more that we don't need. People are irresponsible enough with having kids.
We don't need more scientific technology to erase nature and take the easy way out.
  • 0

#13
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
QUOTE (brunettesrule1000 @ Jul 21 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In animal cases - sometimes literally they just don't mate. But if you want to get a female pregnant, and she won't mate with the other animal, artificial insemination is one of your (very few) options.

In people cases, well, you wouldn't necessarily want to have sex with just anyone, just to get a baby would you? Lesbians for example, if they're not attracted to men, why should they have to have sex with one, just to get pregnant?


Also, beth, awesome on the first NHS funding for lesbian IVF.


I thought it was pretty good. smile.gif
For anyone who wants that article and can't be bothered going to the World News thread, link's here:
http://www.pinknews....2005-13339.html

Also for Ishy,

It's a scientific breakthrough I suppose. In a sense, it's further development of IVF, which can prove pretty useful.

QUOTE (Existentialism @ Jul 21 2009, 09:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't like the idea. Call me old fashioned but I believe an offspring should be made from a man and a woman in love together. Of course that rarely happens today anymore, but that's the way a baby should be made. Nature should not be screwed with.

This would cost a great amount of money amirite? Why choose this when couples could adopt the already born children in the world instead of making more that we don't need. People are irresponsible enough with having kids.
We don't need more scientific technology to erase nature and take the easy way out.


I get what you're saying, but what about man and man or woman and woman in love together? I know that they may adopt [in some places at least], but what if they want children that are genetically their own?

It can cost quite a bit of money, but as mentioned previously, some health services have started to fund this- for infertile hetero couples as well as LGBT.
  • 0

#14
Wretch

Wretch

    Barbarian

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nomad
  • Country
  • Fav Band .
  • Fav Song .
The idea of a baby developing outside the womb is great.
Artificial sperm? That's just taking it too far. I dunno, it just seems like we're crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
  • 0

#15
PrOpHeT

PrOpHeT

    Tortured Rose

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
QUOTE (arcadian @ Jul 21 2009, 10:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If one mates with one's self, is that not essentially inbreeding?
I think artificial sperm has great potential for misuse, and I'm not sure that nature should be messed with to that extent.


self fertilization by proxy of a genome created from the genetic code of same said donor would sufferer long term health risks as equal to interbreeding to closely within lineages.
  • 0

#16
Existentialism

Existentialism

    Slow motion accident.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,081 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Country
  • US State:California
  • Fav Band Cassino
  • Fav Song Chesterfield King
QUOTE (Beth. @ Jul 21 2009, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I get what you're saying, but what about man and man or woman and woman in love together? I know that they may adopt [in some places at least], but what if they want children that are genetically their own?

It can cost quite a bit of money, but as mentioned previously, some health services have started to fund this- for infertile hetero couples as well as LGBT.

I don't believe it's right is all. Genetically produced from same sex couples sounds really odd. It's not the way it is meant to be.

I think adoption is a much better alternative, but I do understand that gay couples don't have that option. Therefore, I think legalizing gay adoption should be the first step before even thinking about scientifically altering cells to create a baby, when we already have much more than needed.
  • 0

#17
g4a1102

g4a1102

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts
  • Location:New Bark Town
  • Country
  • US State:District of Columbia
  • Fav Band vcxn

  • 0

#18
Resonance.

Resonance.

    Too cold to shiver.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,495 posts
QUOTE (Existentialism @ Jul 22 2009, 04:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't believe it's right is all. Genetically produced from same sex couples sounds really odd. It's not the way it is meant to be.

I think adoption is a much better alternative, but I do understand that gay couples don't have that option. Therefore, I think legalizing gay adoption should be the first step before even thinking about scientifically altering cells to create a baby, when we already have much more than needed.


It does go against traditional/ natural parentage, but then again, times are changing.

It depends on which country is in question I suppose, with it being legal in some and not in others. Adoption is a good thing, but I suppose it isn't really the same as having a child that is genetically yours.

As Jess [other Jess] said before, why should someone have sex with someone they aren't attracted to in order to make a child, when there is the possibility of having a child carrying genetics from the person they love instead?

QUOTE (brunettesrule1000 @ Jul 22 2009, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What can I say, I'm a pro at taking troll posts seriously laugh.gif oh well, I make it work, so YAY!


Also, I agree that adoption for gay couples should be legalised first, but this is still a good development - if nothing else, it makes us question what we believe is okay, what is acceptable, what kind of "grouping/pairing", we believe is acceptable to raise a child. 


It should be the first step, agreed with that. It is a good development, could lead to bigger things in the future.


  • 0

#19
NothingLeft

NothingLeft

    Nigrescent Black Hole

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Country
  • Fav Band -
Well, you are aware of my views on this topic, but I shall share them with other people also.

It is my belief that to enable complete equal rights for everyone, all people should be able to have a child with the person whom they love, as afore mentioned by Beth.

Furthermore, I'd like to stress the fact that the other options will still be kept open, and that this is only for people who believe that creating a child out of the natural norm is still moral.

I think that this will reduce difficulties on the child also. Some kids struggle with coming to terms that only one of their parents is their natural parent. Even with parents in a heterosexual relationship, a child brought up their entire life by their step-dad might feel something is slightly missing from their life.

All in all, if two fertile people are going to raise a child, and want it to be both of theirs, why shouldn't they? No one has the right to deprive them of that if the opportunity is given.
  • 0

#20
e the e

e the e

    I don't care much.

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,677 posts
I think it's great.
I support all the genetic research shit that's goin down.
I think it'll help us in the end.
It's a bit creepy. But I'm for it. Now we can have Jerin babies!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users