More seriously, parthenogensis is just reproductive cloning, and the technology for that already exists, even if it is banned in nearly every country. Heck, even homosexual reproduction is now theoretically possible, although to my knowledge it has never been tested on humans. Female-female would be easiest. Just inject one woman’s DNA into another’s harvested egg cell and stimulate them to fuse. The male-male variety would still require the donation of a woman’s egg cell and temporary use of a uterus however, given the current state of technology. The donor’s DNA in the egg cell would just be replaced by one of the father’s, or perhaps, a different woman’s. A time will eventually come however when it will become possible to make eggs and sperm from other types of cells, male or female, and harvesting eggs will no longer be necessary.
I expect that once gay marriage becomes legal in most places, the next battle will likely be over partially relaxing anti-cloning laws to allow for human egg nuclear transfers so female-female and even male-male reproduction becomes possible for gay couples.
@ScarletGeisha You’d think that’d be the case, but they also live in a world where despite the existence of superhumans and sentient computers the technology available to the civilian layman is identical to that available to people in the real world, and the only reason for that is to keep things “relatable”. Generally speaking, as a rule of thumb, if it’s not explicitly stated to be so, it probably isn’t, until they ret-con it. Anything is possible, so if it were true, why didn’t they say so?
@Matteller People are often born with terrible diseases even through all-natural heterosexual intercourse. I surmise that the initial push for relaxing laws against egg nuclear transfer will be to eliminate debilitating & life-shortening mitochondrial defects. In a sense, the child would have a 3rd parent, as the egg donor’s mitochondrial genetic line would be passed onto the new child, who if a girl, would be able to pass on the donor’s mitochondria to her descendants the all natural way. This isn’t the same end result as reproductive cloning, but the techniques used are very similar.
People used to say the same thing about blood transfusions (and flying airplanes too for that matter), heck, Jehovah’s Witnesses still reject blood transfusions as being against God’s will. Nevertheless despite the initial discomfort, when shown pictures of suffering, dying children, followed up by pictures of happy cured children, most people will vote for the cure.
your not going to convinse me. and even if god dont mind going this far it will probably open the door to people being able to speacial make children, skin color,eye color,size of build, etc
thats definatly giving god the flipper
@Matteller If God didn’t want man (or woman for that matter) to be poking into this stuff, than I doubt he’d have made man in his own image. I accept that you will not be convinced. And there really is no need to convince you. All that’s necessary is for the majority to feel that saving children from years of suffering and an eventual early death justifies the procedure.
Most new technologies are dangerous if used improperly. Electrical outlets can electrocute curious children as well as light our homes and power our television sets. Natural gas can blow up homes just as easily as it can heat them. Guns can be used to murder as well as to hunt and protect. Even fire has been causing terrible, and often fatal, burns since the beginning of human history. So there is nothing wrong with being wary of new tech. Once new tech becomes commonplace however, it stops feeling unnatural.
I expect there will be a huge debate over where to draw the line. I do not however see picking a child’s eye color to be inherently any worse than removing a baby boy’s foreskin. In fact I tend to see the former as being less bad since it doesn’t cause any pain, nor does it remove something that the child was born with. That’s not to say I believe it must be allowed, only that it’s less invasive and painful than some of the things already being done.
@Matteller: I’m sure you know exactly what God wants considering you’ve probably had plenty of heartfelt conversations with him over a nice cup of tea.
It irks me when people always have to bring religion into discussions like this. You are free to believe what you want, but don’t use it as a “legitimate” argument.
And because this is most likely going to be brought up again, for the record, I’m all for egg nuclear transfer because it will enable me to get pregnant and have children (not going into details there), though I’m still unsure about “build your own baby”.
@Matteller People dismiss religious reasoning because it, by definition, automatically dismisses anything that disagrees with it. The problem with a religious argument is that it completely precludes disagreement. It’s based on it’s own completely irrational nature. “I believe God would think this, therefore this is morally reprehensible.” End of discussion. It doesn’t rely on any sort of evidence. All a religious argument requires is a viewpoint, and conviction. And generally speaking the person making that argument didn’t even decide on their perspective themselves based on anything more than that a religious authority figure told them to think it.
Commenting on the cloning thing, think of it this way, a human can survive with half a brain, it has been tested and proven true.
Well, if you took the other half and put it in to a fully functional body identical to yours, would it have your same personallity? Would it think it was the original? Alas, science has not advanced far enough to prove such a subject, but I thought it would be an interesting theory for those more geeky people reading this thread.
And @ScarletGeisha, I’d just like to say the game so far sounds AMAZING. I can’t wait to see more of it.
First, remember to keep it civil. (This is directed to everyone)
@Daisuke Assuming a person had only half their brain, well we can take guesses, but at the level of understanding we have of the brain it’s all really just that, guess work, at this point. Here is a very interesting article which includes a little information on how a person’s personality might be affected.
Personally I’m interested on what religious people would say about their soul. Assuming they both have at some level the same personality, would they share a soul? Two entirely new souls? One gets the old soul and one starts with a new one?
What about the legal ramifications? Lets say it was done to someone that was later charged with a murder (that they had committed before the transplant). Would they both be convicted? Neither? Would they be tried and/or sentenced separately.
@Matteller Quick summary: It’s a satire about the concepts of people picking the traits of their child if/when technology reaches that level. The doctor starts by asking if they want a boy or girl, then the color of their eyes, then race, sexual orientation (those last two the doctor pushes to be black/gay like him) and “one leg or two” which causes them to lean back and look under the desk. The last significant line is by the wife: “We’re gonna have a gay, black, pirate baby.” WKUK is usually not very ‘political’ so the story line is usually just whatever is funniest.
