Babies with no biological mother - breakthrough for male same-sex couples, or further erasure of women?

Yes,,but whatever the ethics of the procedure otherwise - dubious- they seem to plan to apply it to both genders.

Yes but - in the original news story about this they say that to get an egg cell from a skin cell they do this mitomeiosis thing. This involves removing 23 of the 46 chromosomes, so that the cell now has 23.
However, this technique just ditches 23 at random, when what you really, crucially in fact need to do is take one from each pair. Or else you'll be left with some chromosomes missing entirely and some in sets of three (trisomy).
This is a fairly significant problem that sort of got skimmed over in the news report.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo

Unless ive misunderstood genetics, you inherit the x or the y. Not both. So you could get an x from each man. Presumably they could choose.

Erm... they also used some eggs. You know, from women.

I mean presumably if it’s a man’s skin cells then it can only make male babies… they only carry the XY pair.

This already exists it's how Neil Patrick Harris had his twins 😊 he used both his and his husband's sperm to conceive ❤️

With this being off by several years, since they stated only 9% actually survived without abnormalities during their experiment, it sounds like the idea of creating "designer babies" because of their ability of "alternatives" to people (same-sex male couples, infertile women, and single parents). As well as the ability to cherry pick what type of child should and shouldn't have. It almost sounds like they're trying to play "God" in this scenario, and there needs to be laws put in place because the legal field is constantly trying to catch up with science going further than what anyone expects to happen. What is surprising, is that the foster system in any country is often unsustainable and never properly funded, but this is something people are pushing for as they believe it'll be just like buying a car or clothing - just like ordering something off of Amazon. If we can't take care of the unwanted children now, how can this even be considered a worthwhile option to create?

You don't see anything problematic with the statement: "If a person wants something that violates the rights of another person, it's great that science can provide that for them."?

It is a violation of human rights to subject people to human experimentation, and producing a child in an unnatural way is a human experiment that does not end with the child's birth. Sometimes we have to accept that we cannot have what we want, no matter how badly we want it. The world would be a happier place if more people could do this.

Violation of the rights of the child. It should never be allowed to happen, but unfortunately, we all know that human nature means some people will do anything for money. And if we don't do it, the Chinese will do it, and so on....

No one has the right to a child.

Where did I say the baby wouldn’t have a mother? Every baby has at least one mother - the birth mother - regardless of genetics.

Could not agree more!!

Agree. That's why I said "a" biological mother. Though imo giving your body for 9 months is more motherly than giving your ova.

💯 the baby does have a mother in that scenario but is very sad she’s disassociated herself from what she is to that poor baby

Just feel heartbroken for those poor babies 😔 is dreadful, I know a small minority of children don’t have the best mums but you wouldn’t wish it on any child

What is the woman whose egg the baby grew from? I suppose they both are, in different ways.

Just finished reading that. It's spot on

It’s not so much creating a baby whose immediate genetic ancestors are two men that’s a problem, it’s claiming that this means the baby doesn’t have a mother.

The woman who carries the baby for 9 months is the only carer a new born has ever had. She’s the mother. In this case not the genetic parent, but the mother. The men might have given dna and paid for the procedures, but that doesn’t erase her role.

The woman's body makes millions of micro adjustments to hormones/nutrients/blood flow during pregnancy, scientists don't even understand the majority of them yet.

Yes, if we were close to understanding how it all works there would vanishingly few miscarriages and IVF would be pretty much 100% successful.

I don’t see what’s wrong with this. If two men in a same sex couple want to both be genetically related to their baby, it’s great that the medical advancements now exist / will exist to allow them to do that.

There's a part of me that thinks this is utterly fascinating, what we can (potentially) do with science is amazing.

But I firmly believe that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And experimenting on babies like this is totally unethical. I dont actually think we should even be trying to do this. Maybe I would feel differently if I were infertile though.

This is rubbish.

The woman's body makes millions of micro adjustments to hormones/nutrients/blood flow during pregnancy, scientists don't even understand the majority of them yet. Women aren't just an incubator, cells from previous pregnancies pass through to subsequent ones.

They might succeed in getting a child to survive one day, but it will always be the inferior option, and I shudder to think of the complications that will show up through that child's life time.

A horrific experiment.

A child should have the right to have a mother and a father, unless completely unavoidable (death/abuse).

It has been shown time and time again that this is what is best for a child, but as usual the selfish will seek to put their needs ahead of their child's. Any adult that would engage in surrogacy or this bad science experiment is not fit to be a parent, and perhaps biology had already figured that out.