Page 6 | Human embryos made from human skin cells

HeyThereDelila · 2025-09-30T22:10:22+00:00

AIBU to think we’re sleep walking in to dystopia? Scientists in the US have created the first embryos using human skin and sperm, raising concerns that babies could be born who ultimately don’t have a genetic female parent. While this technology looks to be a decade away from being viable, here our fertility regulator (HFEA) met to discuss it in January 2025: they think it’ll be here soon. Reproductive technology seems to be heading to a very concerning place, with all the emphasis on people who want children, come what may, and none of the emphasis on children’s rights or needs. [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2vyee0zlo]]

Finteq · 01/10/2025 21:56

There should be a limit to the age at which they can let the embryo develop. And it should go no further.

Is it 2 weeks currently?

They should never be allowed to experiment on embryos further developed than this or be able.to grow them more than this.

Though different countries have different limits.

And there will always be some scientists who want the fame and glory of being the first so will always tear down any moral boundaries.

MrsSkylerWhite · 01/10/2025 22:18

Finteq · 01/10/2025 21:53

ICSI

Show quote history

Yes, thank you . We decided no.

Original poster

HeyThereDelila · 02/10/2025 09:54

@Finteq lobbyists including the HFEA are pushing for the research time limit on the human embryo to be extended to 28 days

OP posts:

bridgetreilly · 02/10/2025 10:03

We do not need more ways to make babies. We have massively unsustainable population growth as it is.

What we do need is more extended family community and recognition that people without children are a valuable, loved part of that. No scientific research required.

CherryRipe1 · 04/10/2025 08:27

Trying to get my head round it, so an actual female egg (not genetically engineered or whatever) is stripped of its genetic material and fertilized with cells from the parent donors skin as a "sperm" then what? Does it go into a lab incubator artificial womb or back into a female surrogate? Thanks.

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:28

MrsSkylerWhite · 01/10/2025 19:00

Very sadly, infertility is just another human condition. Feeling IVF or cloning is wrong doesn’t make someone cruel.

Show quote history

No, but continually telling a mother her children aren't really hers and repeatedly posting "you got what you wanted" in a rude and accusatory way is cruel.

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:34

Allthatshines1992 · 01/10/2025 19:28

I tried to conceive for 7 years in one relationship, so yes I have experienced infertility.

That's not quite what I said word for word though is it? And you've omitted the context of the discussion.

Cruel is creating an adopted baby with no biological link (who will never know their real parents) for your own gratification.

Show quote history

FFS you can't "create" an adopted baby. You can only adopt one!

Green fairy's child knows who their father is because he is her husband and they can find out who their egg donor is at 18. So they do in fact know who their genetic parents are. The child is growing up with their genetic father and their birth mother. Their actual mother (greenfairy) carried and gave birth to her, a far cry from adopting.

It's not like this child just fell from the air and no one knows where they came from, why are you acting like they did and why do you keep pushing the false narrative that the child doesn't know who their parents are?

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:41

HeyThereDelila · 02/10/2025 09:54

@Finteq lobbyists including the HFEA are pushing for the research time limit on the human embryo to be extended to 28 days

They are lobbying for this because between 14 (the current limit) and 28 days is when the majority of miscarriages happen and when several heart defects and spina bifida develops in the womb.

They want to study this crucial development period to pioneer treatment to prevent reoccurring miscarriage which is devastating to women's emotional wellbeing and to attempt to treat or prevent heart conditions and spina bifida which shortens people's lives or disables them.

Surely you agree to be able to treat these conditions would be a good thing? Why should people suffer if they don't have to? That's the whole point of scientific research.

Do people opposing this actually know anything about the science or is it just a gut reaction to the use of embryos for research?

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:42

bridgetreilly · 02/10/2025 10:03

We do not need more ways to make babies. We have massively unsustainable population growth as it is.

What we do need is more extended family community and recognition that people without children are a valuable, loved part of that. No scientific research required.

Trust me, just accepting childless people and showing them love does not replace the burning biological drive to become a parent.

Allthatshines1992 · 04/10/2025 18:47

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:34

FFS you can't "create" an adopted baby. You can only adopt one!

Green fairy's child knows who their father is because he is her husband and they can find out who their egg donor is at 18. So they do in fact know who their genetic parents are. The child is growing up with their genetic father and their birth mother. Their actual mother (greenfairy) carried and gave birth to her, a far cry from adopting.

It's not like this child just fell from the air and no one knows where they came from, why are you acting like they did and why do you keep pushing the false narrative that the child doesn't know who their parents are?

Show quote history

Do you actually want me to answer?

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 20:30

Allthatshines1992 · 04/10/2025 18:47

Do you actually want me to answer?

Show quote history

Actually yes, I do want you to tell me why you keep saying her baby doesn't know who their parents are when their father is their biological father and they can find their egg donor when they are 18.

Their egg donor isn't their mother btw, a donor is not a parent. Their birth mother is their real mother. But even if you don't agree with that, they know one biological parent already and are growing up with them.

So it is clearly not true that they don't know who their parents are. So why do you keep saying it?

bridgetreilly · 05/10/2025 07:53

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 17:42

Trust me, just accepting childless people and showing them love does not replace the burning biological drive to become a parent.

Show quote history

Sure. But that drive is not a right to be fulfilled at all costs.

LadyGreyjoy · 05/10/2025 09:48

bridgetreilly · 05/10/2025 07:53

Sure. But that drive is not a right to be fulfilled at all costs.

Show quote history

Actually the right to reproduce is a human right. To withhold IVF from couples who would not be able to reproduce with it but are perfectly able to reproduce with it is morally wrong.

It is disengeuous to trot out that if everyone loves and embraced infertile people everything would be fine with no treatment needed. They often need long term health support and grieve the loss of their wanted family and no amount of love from people with with kids will fix that 🙄

incognitomouse · 05/10/2025 11:45

Actually the right to reproduce is a human right. To withhold IVF from couples who would not be able to reproduce with it but are perfectly able to reproduce with it is morally wrong.

I don't agree at all. I believe it's the right to found a family that is a human right.

LadyGreyjoy · 05/10/2025 12:08

incognitomouse · 05/10/2025 11:45

Actually the right to reproduce is a human right. To withhold IVF from couples who would not be able to reproduce with it but are perfectly able to reproduce with it is morally wrong.

I don't agree at all. I believe it's the right to found a family that is a human right.

Well the world health organisation states that access to infertility treatment is a human right that falls under the human right to reproductive health.

"Sexual and reproductive health refers to a broad range of services that cover access to contraception, fertility and infertility care, maternal and perinatal health, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), protection from sexual and gender-based violence, and education on safe and healthy relationships.

Experiencing sexual and reproductive health means that a person has complete physical, mental and social well-being in all matters relating to their reproductive system and its functions. In everyday life, this means that people are able to have satisfying and safe sex lives, to have healthy pregnancies and births, and decide if, when and how often to have children.

Access to sexual and reproductive health services is a human right and should be available to all people throughout their lives, as part of ensuring universal health coverage. This not only contributes to improved health outcomes, but also to gender equality and wider development."

https://share.google/NfChoWPhFZkKJs9tL

Sexual and reproductive health and rights

The World Health Organization defines sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being related to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectfu...

https://www.who.int/health-topics/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights#tab=tab_1

Pinkdragonesque · 06/11/2025 14:41

LadyGreyjoy · 04/10/2025 20:30

Actually yes, I do want you to tell me why you keep saying her baby doesn't know who their parents are when their father is their biological father and they can find their egg donor when they are 18.

Their egg donor isn't their mother btw, a donor is not a parent. Their birth mother is their real mother. But even if you don't agree with that, they know one biological parent already and are growing up with them.

So it is clearly not true that they don't know who their parents are. So why do you keep saying it?

Show quote history

In all countries can the egg donor child contact their biological mother?

Carla786 · 02/12/2025 18:53

FirstCuppa · 01/10/2025 15:35

I don't know if I agree they will be human though. It's a bit like Theseus' Paradox in my mind.

They might be able to make it look human but just as a man made "vagina", it isn't the real natural thing. You can manufacture things to imitate but they are the imitation. Just as AI is an approximation of what a human might make.

Show quote history

Not human? What a horrible thing to think.

Carla786 · 02/12/2025 18:55

Allthatshines1992 · 01/10/2025 16:54

That master race you speak of is what CRISPR gene editing was for. There was a TED talk about it. This one sounds more like it will produce degenerate people.

Show quote history

Why do you think it would produce degenerate people?

Carla786 · 02/12/2025 18:57

InTheMountainsThere · 01/10/2025 17:15

Is it just me missing the joke or he as this thread gone totally tin foil hat?

There are plenty of real, immediate ethical issues without inventing the idea that this is being deliberately persuaded to create a new race - and it f course if babies who can survive outside the womb are born with exclusively human genetic material they are human - how is that even up for debate?

The technique will be being developed because the company/ companies behind it expect to eventually make money from it, not for any more interestingly sinister reason (though profit as primary reason for creating human life is sinister enough obviously).

This

Carla786 · 02/12/2025 19:29

persephonia · 01/10/2025 01:01

I think they only found out by accident that you could fertilise an egg with an egg. So they weren't trying to make it possible for two women to genetically create a child. And my understanding was they deliberately stopped the research at that point (obvs they kept trying to cure mitochondrial disorders) because it would be unethical. We don't know if the egg fertilised egg would grow into a baby because they made the conscious decision not to pursue that research. Rightly.

There is always space for ethics in science. Most established science and medical procedures have ethical guard rails around them. The reason there aren't any guard rails on this at the moment is because the people pushing it don't want there to be ethical guardrails.

Show quote history

No, they didn't“accidentally finding out you could fertilise an egg with an egg”. According to the article, the scientists started with DNA from a skin cell (not a second egg) and placed that DNA into a donor egg whose nucleus had been removed.

In the article they explicitly mention hoping the technique could one day be used to enable lesbian or gay couples do have children genetically related to each person.

The scientists intentionally set out to test whether skin-cell DNA could be made to function like an egg.

I share concerns on this thread, but I thunk it focuses too much on 'women as victims' to only think about women being eliminated by it or made to be surrogates. They explicity say they hope the technique could one day be used for lesbian couples too.