• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could sex becom passe' ?

Sabre

Sabre

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
10,622
Reaction score
13,615
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well perhaps for one reason, but the fun continues....

Within 30 years we will no longer use sex to procreate, says Stanford professor

Within three decades people will no longer be having sex to procreate, a professor from Stanford University has said.

Hank Greely, the director of Stanford’s Law School’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, believes the reproductive process will begin with parents choosing from a range of embryos created in a lab with their DNA.

Although this can already take place, Mr Greely believes it will become far cheaper to do so and couples will opt for this method to prevent diseases.

The process involves taking a female skin sample to create stem cells, which is then used to create eggs.

These eggs are then fertilised with sperm cells, resulting in a selection of embryos.

Screening of the embryos would highlight any potential diseases and the Stanford professor believes the process will get to a point where parents can also potentially have the ability to choose eye or hair colour.
Click to expand...

A bit more of this at: Within 30 years we will no longer use sex to procreate, says Stanford professor | The Independent
 
I don't use sex for procreation purposes anyways. ;)
 
Why would they create eggs when the person has eggs to begin with? Furthermore, what is the pressing need for this to even exist? Hey scientists, do something that nature didn't already do.

Also, the guy is a moron. People are not just going to stop having accidents or wanting to have children the natural way. I don't even see the appeal of designer babies anyway. No surprises in life is boring as ****.
 
Last edited:
I think it is inevitable that sexual reproduction will one day come to an end. We will view sexual reproduction and pregnancy as inefficient and risky. But 30 years is too short a time frame. Maybe technologically we will be able to pull it off in 30 years but it will take much longer to become the norm.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think it is inevitable that sexual reproduction will one day come to an end. We will view sexual reproduction and pregnancy as inefficient and risky. But 30 years is too short a time frame. Maybe technologically we will be able to pull it off in 30 years but it will take much longer to become the norm.
Click to expand...

Why replace natural reproduction with an artifical method? I sure hope this dumb **** is not being funded by the government.
 
I imagine the biggest consumers of this will be lesbians, gay men, and transgenders. Oh and lonely women that want a baby, but can't get a man or don't want a man.
 
Henrin said:
Why would they create eggs when the person has eggs to begin with? Furthermore, what is the pressing need for this to even exist? Hey scientists, do something that nature didn't already do, morons. Stop doing things that don't need to be done and ****ing cure cancer already. You know, something that actually needs done and nature didn't already solve.
Click to expand...

Because if they can control which chromosomes go into the egg and sperm, they can eliminate genetic diseases like Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Huntington's etc. Cancer isn't the only horrible disease in the world, but eliminating genetic predispositions to cancer would be helpful as well. Not morons after all. Think before you post, or people will think you're one.
 
Last edited:
On a related note, they're trying to do the same thing with male cells, but the result always dies quickly.

Gee, I wonder what they could be using that for? Maybe transgenders and gays? I wonder if transgenders have a pressing need to reproduce. No. Oh and I'm absolutely positive taxpayers are paying for this.
 
bearpoker said:
Because if they can control which chromosomes go into the egg and sperm, they can eliminate genetic diseases like Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell, Huntington's etc. Cancer isn't the only horrible disease in the world, but eliminating genetic predispositions to cancer would be helpful as well. Not morons after all. Think before you post, or people will think you're one.
Click to expand...

So why are they trying the same thing with male cells? Is there a reason men need to be able to reproduce with each other? It quite obvious this is not about disease at all, but about creating new means of reproduction that don't have any reason to exist. Sure, it might be useful towards disease, but I don't buy for a moment that is the primary driver here. If that was the primary driver they wouldn't need to create the eggs in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
So why are they trying the same thing with male cells? Is there a reason men need to be able to reproduce with each other? It quite obvious this is not about disease at all, but about creating new means of reproduction that don't have any reason to exist.
Click to expand...

Because male cells have chromosomes too, so the same reasons apply. Women aren't the only ones who can pass on genetic diseases. Did you pay ANY attention in science class?
 
bearpoker said:
Because male cells have chromosomes too, so the same reasons apply. Women aren't the only ones who can pass on genetic diseases. Did you pay ANY attention in science class?
Click to expand...

Ummm...they are trying to turn the male cells into eggs to make babies. To resolve genetic diseases from the man they don't need to make his cells into eggs and then a kid. The only reason they would want to make male cells into eggs is so two men can have children.
 
Henrin said:
Why replace natural reproduction with an artifical method? I sure hope this dumb **** is not being funded by the government.
Click to expand...

avoiding genetic defects may be nice
 
blarg said:
avoiding genetic defects may be nice
Click to expand...

Not sure why controlling genetics is desirable actually. Species evolve by changes in their DNA, so controlling the DNA is really just keeping things still.
 
Henrin said:
Ummm...they are trying to turn the male cells into eggs to make babies. To resolve genetic diseases from the man they don't need to make his cells into eggs and then a kid.
Click to expand...

You're gonna have to show me a link to verify that. If true, then it would be attractive for men who didn't want to have a baby with a female partner.
 
Last edited:
bearpoker said:
You're gonna have to show me a like to verify that. If true, then it would be attractive for men who didn't want to have a baby with a female partner.
Click to expand...

Which is of course not necessary and something scientists shouldn't be doing.
 
bearpoker said:
You're gonna have to show me a like to verify that. If true, then it would be attractive for men who didn't want to have a baby with a female partner.
Click to expand...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2109305-eggs-made-from-skin-cells-in-lab-could-herald-end-of-infertility/

From the sounds of it a woman is still needed to carry and give birth to the child, so yeah, it doesn't really avoid the a woman is needed because two dicks don't reproduce problem.

On that note, since a woman is needed to carry the child there will actually be three parents to the child since some of her DNA will become part of the child. That undermines a good bit of the argument.

1. A woman is still needed.
2. She is actually a parent due to her DNA becoming part of the child
3. She could open the child up to genetic diseases.

Actually, the whole argument is crap from start to finish no matter who it is used for since even if the egg is perfect when it is put in place it could still get a genetic issue during development.

Also, why did they figure out later that the Y would screw it up? The Y is introduced by the sperm, so obviously it will screw up any egg you try to create.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link, Henrin. It's really interesting. This research has a long way to go before it has any practical applications, and who knows what those will be. I still think that eliminating inherited diseases through genetic editing is worth pursuing.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Not sure why controlling genetics is desirable actually. Species evolve by changes in their DNA, so controlling the DNA is really just keeping things still.
Click to expand...

you could probably change things faster and with less death and suffering
 
bearpoker said:
Thanks for the link, Henrin. It's really interesting. This research has a long way to go before it has any practical applications, and who knows what those will be. I still think that eliminating inherited diseases through genetic editing is worth pursuing.
Click to expand...

You would have to combine it with an artificial womb to ensure that. Of course, that isn't a reality yet either.
 
blarg said:
you could probably change things faster and with less death and suffering
Click to expand...

I don't think I trust people enough to know which way evolution should go.
 
Henrin said:
Why would they create eggs when the person has eggs to begin with?
Click to expand...
The article did answer thus question. I highlighted it. [/QUOTE]Within three decades people will no longer be having sex to procreate, a professor from Stanford University has said.*

Hank Greely, the director of Stanford’s Law School’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, believes the reproductive process will begin with parents choosing from a range of embryos created in a lab with their DNA.*

Although this can already take place, Mr Greely believes it will become far cheaper to do so and couples will opt for this method to prevent diseases.

The process involves taking a female skin sample to create stem cells, which is then used to create eggs.*

These eggs are then fertilised with sperm cells, resulting in a selection of embryos.

Screening of the embryos would highlight any potential diseases and the Stanford professor believes the process will get to a point where parents can also potentially have the ability to choose eye or hair colour.[/QUOTE]




Furthermore, what is the pressing need for this to even exist?
Click to expand...
That question was also answered by the highlighted points from the article.
Hey scientists, do something that nature didn't already do.
Click to expand...
Like helping produce children tat are free of genetic illnesses and maladies?

Also, the guy is a moron. People are not just going to stop having accidents or wanting to have children the natural way.
Click to expand...
In time they will.
I don't even see the appeal of designer babies anyway. No surprises in life is boring as ****.
Click to expand...
Meh, I think I the promise of never having a birth defect or the elimination of cancer is a worthwhile thing to give up the surprise.

Also when the doctors ask if you want this it that you can always just say surprise me.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think I trust people enough to know which way evolution should go.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you there. Just look at what humans have done to Collies through their selective breeding. That being said, I doubt that we could ever control enough variables to control evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom