next Great Leap Forward: single-sex procreation

By Diogenes (articles ) | Apr 13, 2007

A British scientist thinks that she can enable women to produce sperm, using stem cells drawn from their own bone marrow. The process-- which has already provided promising results in treating men with fertility problems-- could make it possible for lesbian couples to produce their own biological offspring.

It might be possible. But you're wondering: Is it ethical? Funny you should ask:

Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue...

But to whom-- or should I say, to Whom-- do you apply for ethical permission?

Professor Karim Nayernia, of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, anticipated that question, too:

We need permission from the patient who supplied the bone marrow, the ethics committee and the hospital itself.

Let's see: the patient, who wants a baby; the hospital, which wants patrons and publicity; and the ethics committee, made up of scrupulous health-career professionals who are colleagues of Professor Nayernia. What are the odds, doc?

I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe.

Ah, yes: so long as it's safe. But how do you measure safety? Maybe it will work; maybe everyone involved will be healthy and happy. But eventually we all stand before the Judgment Seat, and you're not "safe" there if you suddenly realize that you didn't get quite the right level of ethical permission.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 9 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 10:29 PM ET USA

    Hermaphrodite, here we come!

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 7:17 PM ET USA

    I read this report in the British Press and the comment was made that this would never happen because women only have Y chromasomes whereas men have both X and Y chromasomes needed to create both male and female babies. Women alone could never create male children.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 2:30 PM ET USA

    Laity, would that be considered incest?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 2:28 PM ET USA

    Didn't they do something similar on Jurassic Park? The dinosaurs there were changing gender from female to male, to compensate for the all-female environment, as nature dictated them. Only a feminist could ever want to go to an all-female environment.

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 2:17 PM ET USA

    How do you answer the question, "Where did I come from?" when a child is conceived in this way? When man becomes God. A whole new twist on "Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh".

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 12:42 PM ET USA

    This goes way beyond the garden variety of narcissism, especially the homosexual variety now plaguing mankind. This is demonism by any other name: sick, dangerous, morally and mentally deadly to the women, the potential child, and society. It's root is in the serpent's lying tongue--that Father/Mother of all Lies. It is all part of a pervasive horror that seems to have afflicted affluent societies. Perhaps our own variation of baal worship that ends with human sacrifice. May God protect us!

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 12:18 PM ET USA

    Whatever else one might say about The Passion of the Christ, I thought the decision to depict Satan as an androgyne was brilliant - what better comment on the arrogance of modern secularism, that refuses to accept even so fundamental a God-given reality as the sex imprinted on our bodies? And how can we trust an "ethics" committee that can't see the evil in this proposal to make a valid judgment about anything?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 11:16 AM ET USA

    Lesbian couples? What would stop unisex procreation? not just single-sex, but with one's one self?

  • Posted by: - Apr. 13, 2007 11:14 AM ET USA

    Where does the line of narcissists form?