Category: Let's talk
Yesterday scientists announced that they believe they will be able t create sperm and eggs in the future by using stem cells. It is believed that this will be a massive breakthrough in the field of fertility treatments. But have we gone too far? After all, the creation of sperm purely from stem cells must mean that women will be able to have children without any need for there to be men. While I'm in favour of cloaning for the purposes of creating organs for transplants, for instance, for the purposes of allowing childless couples to become parents it is, in my view, way beyond interfeering with nature. So what do you peeps think, has all this technology gone too far? are we creating lives now that potentially should not be created? after all, such a baby created from stem cells might have all sorts of problems, and in reality, we don't know how such a perso will evolve until he/she has lived out his/her life.
I think that it's getting to be a much myself. I mean, it's like scientists are trying to play god, and thats wrong.
I also agree that that's going too far. We already have many children who need a family to adopt them, and if people wanted to have a baby, there are fertility clinics where eggs or at least sperm are donated and used to help make that possible. It would just be too unnecessary. Although I don't know if I'm for or against the stem cell thing, if they're going to use them anyway, they should be used to make organs or anything else a person might need, but we really don't need them just to make sperm and eggs.
Leilani
for some women that may be the only way...and I'm all for it as thre research may allow us to cure or find the answer s to some terrible birth dfects ect...if we don't progress we wither and die...
It's the natural flow of nature for people to die. Every day we try to find the path to immortality when this is in fact not the design of nature. Child birth is also a process left to nature, not to science. If we create sperm/egg cells from stem cells, will the spread of chromosome patterns be correct? Will we end up with babies that might have ended up with uneven strains of DNA, and therefore *could* have some unsightly mutations and or birth defects? Far from religious and eithical questions, we must ask the practical question: Do we really need that kind of development? There are enough people in this world, more than enough. Adoption agencies are overflowing, and sperm banks are fairly readily available.
Will we be creating a monster? Will be creating a "human being" just to watch it die from scientifically introduced defects and such? Lets leave nature to do what it does. "Only in dying: Life", Death
Well this is the thing. And the reality is, that we won’t know until these babies are born with potential problems. And what if the first generation of stem cell babies are ok, but their future offspring have problems, it could take generations to find out, and by then the damage would be irreverseable. I’m afraid that I don’t agree with the notion of creating babies because that is some women’s only chance of having a baby. This might sound harsh, but some things happen for a reason. Some people aren’t able to have children purely because that is how nature intended. The more science evolves, the more obsessed some people become about having children. Years ago, if women were faced with the prospect of infertility, it was very sad, but they accepted it and moved on with their lives, now this need to have a baby becomes an all consuming thing that takes over their lives. And the more technological advances there are, and the more options to become pregnant there are, the more people believe it is a right, not a privilege, to have a child. Well it isn’t. nobody has the “right” to have a child, if it isn’t meant to be, then it isn’t meant to be. We need to stop playing god and let nature do its thing.
Well, I think that with sum wimmin it is a mager los to thare women hood. After all we were made to have babys, I think if I cant have babys I'll try a little. If it dosent work then thare always babys that need to be adoptid. We always shood remember them.
There has to be a limit! OK, so there are many women out there who'd love to do away with men all together, keep us in suspended animation and revive us when they need more spirm and so on, but there are other women who actually kinda like having guys around now and again.
Nature is the hardest mistress of all though. Although it may sound really harsh, not all women are destined to produce offspring, and that should be an end to it. It's nature's way of controling population growth.
We all seem to have forgotten that we are supposed to fit in to the pattern of life on this plannet, not alter the pattern to suit ourselves, although having said that, I do agree with DNA modification if it can oliminate non-life threatening ginettic problems like blindness, deafness etc.
Take for example Retinal Blastoma, perhaps one of the nastiest eye conditions out there, because not only does the victim wind up blind, but they wind up with melignant cancer as well! Now, most RB sufferers don't die from the condition, and often don't die from possible complications either, but their on-going care is a drain on medical resources that could be better used in terribly poor countries for example.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people with RB shouldn't receive treatment, of course I'm not! But if it were possible to, A, detect RB before birth, and B, modify DNA strands so that the affected Genes were fixed and my child could grow up without MRI scans ever-looming round the corner, the worry of new cancers developing and so on, I think I'd have it done.
I am totally against designer babies however! That is, babies modified esthettically or mentally! We don't want or need any more than nature's quoter of super-beings wandering around now do we!
I am only in favour of ginettic modification if there is an actual detectable problem that can be fixed to provide a better standard of living for the next generation.
Matt
im with alex on this one, cuz what if ur in a gay relationship and you wanna have a family?
bw couldn't have said it better, "we are meant to fit into the patern of life, not alter the patern of life to suit ourselves". I think genetic defects are one thing, they often are debilitating and in some cases fatal, and iradicating such defects can never be a bad thing, however as was also pointed out here, the reason some cannot reproduce is to keep the population down - it's nature's way. And as for gay couples who want to have children .. well harsh as this may seem, if you are in a gay relationship, then the lifestyle you have chosen means that naturally, you are not able to have children. men were not made to have children with men, or women with women, again, that's nature's way, and it's only because science has recently evolved that this seems to have changed. My view would be the same of a single person who said "i don't have a partner but I want to have a baby", well unfortunate, if you want a baby, find a partner who can give you one. And lg while I sympathise with someone who can't have children, and while advances such as IVF are tremendous and I can see their benefits to childless couples, however, such treatments like IVF, where a healthy egg, and healthy sperm are mixed outside the uterus and then implanted to result in pregnancy differ vastly from creating a life from cells which initially were not meant to creat life. and potentially creating deformed and mutated children just to satisfy some woman's "need" to have a child is way beyond the limit. I do not think that kind of option should ever be available to potentially childless couples, as someone who is so desperate to have a baby will do anything to have a child, and I think the line needs to be drawn.
SB due to genetic screening that will not be the case ...
Feck! Some things happen for a reason... that is such a patronising, narrow minded, outdated view.Say for instance you had been paralysed in an accident, and you badly wanted a child, knowing that you would not be allowed to adopt, this breakthrough would probably be your only option, would you really turn it down and deny yourself this one chance to bring a much wanted child into the world..I doubt it very much....
Feck! Some things happen for a reason... that is such a patronising, narrow minded, outdated view.Say for instance you had been paralysed in an accident, and you badly wanted a child, knowing that you would not be allowed to adopt, this breakthrough would probably be your only option, would you really turn it down and deny yourself this one chance to bring a much wanted child into the world..I doubt it very much....
yes I would. before I fell pregnant with Nathan I was faced with the possibility that I might not be able to have children. It took me a long time to get pregnant and I came to the realization that actually, it might never happen. My view was then, and still is, if I couldn't have children naturally, then I wouldn't have them at all. Moreover, if i became parallized and I was unable to conceive naturally due to the nature of my parallasys, I would question whether I would be able to look after/care for a child on my own, without the need for help from others. if I was unable to do that, then I wouldn't have a child.
christ how hard hearted and clinical you are....nothing is ever cut n dried
christ how hard hearted and clinical you are....nothing is ever cut n dried
not at all. I've seen what the inability to have a child can do to people, and I've seen it turn from the wish to have a baby, to an all consuming obsession that obliterates everything else. The desire to become a parent gives way to an unhealthy drive to become pregnant, no matter what the cost, both financially and emotionally, sometimes with no thought to the baby that that person will actually have. I remember once watching a programme about multiple births, and about the heartache that parents had been through and the fertility treatments they had undergone in order to achieve their dream of having just one baby. one such couple had fertility treatment and the woman became pregnant with quintuplets. (five babies). She did not wish to have selective reduction in order to allow her to carry one or two babies to term. well as is the case with multiple pregnancy, the babies are never carried to term as there are too many in too small a space, so these particular babies were delivered at just 28 weeks gestation, very small, very weak, and with serious health problems. and over the next month, that couple watched their five babies die, one by one, until they were left with just one baby who is now so severely disabled that he has no normal quality of life. Think that someone should have a child at any cost? i think not!
In saying that you still advocate this needless view that all this anguish and obsession was meant to be, even when the obsession eventually ends in a long stay in a mental ward..how hypocritical you can't have it both ways....I am not saying that women should be allowed to have a child,in spite of everything I do think there needs to be guidlines, but you cannot dismiss a womens desire for a child, with a pat on the head and there there it was meant to be dear.. this patronising self righteous bullshit is the last thing they need to hear
if someone is so obsessed over having a child that it lands them in a mental hospital then maybe it's as well they can't have one.
there you go again that's it end of story you are so inflexible ..I welcome any development in medicine particularly stem cell treatment that will bring an end to birth defects or illness in children..its intolerant inflexible attitudes like yours that prevent the british scientists from fully exploring this fantastic new treatment...I'm just glad there are more positive progressive minded people in this world ..more power to their elbow and vastly more money for research
the only reason it becomes that much of an obsession is because science has allowed it to. years ago if a woman couldn't have a baby she accepted that she wouldn't have children, and moved on with her life, yes it was sad, but dwelling on it was pointless. But now we have this and that and the other treatment for infertility, and women put off having babies because they know that if they can't have one naturally they can pop down to the IVF clinic and while we know it's not that simple, that's what some think. And people pour thousands, and thousands, and thousands of pounds into treatments that might never even work, get themselves into endless debt and have nothing to show for it. I'm sorry, but there has to come a time when we say, enough's enough! it is not anyone's right, to have a child. A child is a blessing, most are fortunate, and are able to have children, but for some that does not happen, and yes I think your lifestyle should play a part! I don't think that we should play god and mess with nature to allow two women for instance to have a baby that is biologically both of their's, we're screwing with nature and it's wrong.
and where will we draw the line! will we soon all have to have stem cell babies rather than naturally conceived ones in order to have a perfect nation?
count to 10 Al...that is where the guidelines come in dear..we would need to have a cut off point..and we need only go back to the horrific operations carried out by one Joseph Mengele in his crazed pursuit of perfection to remind us where to draw the line...
yes, guidelines in countries such as this, but we can't be so sure in other countries where these practices are not so strictly regulated.
Then the country in charge of the research will need to ensure that vital funding sources are limited to less than the rogue nations need to progress, beyond the limits of what is acceptable...All that is need is cooperation but in this world, that is bigger dream than the possabilities offered by stem cell treatment
i totally disagree with you claire, but whatever floats your boat. if a gay/lesbian couple wants to have a family, let them. people dont have the right to tell us what we should, and shouldnt be able to do. im sorry, but stuff like this just pisses me off!
It’s one thing though a gay or lesbian couple having a baby through means of IVF, or artificial incemination, where one partner is the biological parent and carries the baby but with doner sperm, or in the case of a gay couple with one of the men donating sperm and using a surrogate mother to have the child, whilst perhaps a little unconventional, there are at least two biological parents, a mother, and a father, even though one might not have a part in bringing up the child. But when you want to use science to create a child that is the biological child of two women, or two men, that is interfering with the basic concepts of nature. Whether we like it or not, we have males, and females in this world, and men were meant to have children with women. End of story. That does not mean that being gay/lesbian is necessarily wrong, but if you choose to live with a partner who is the same sex as you, then biologically, you are not able to have a child with that partner. That has nothing to do with morals, it has nothing to do with what people believe is right or wrong, it is basic biology. Men do not have children with men, and women do not have children with women, to make that happen is changing the whole meaning of what humans stand for, and nothing in the world will make that right.
Yeah all this research is bound to be abused by one country or another eventually. All the experimentation and breeding programs that were undertaken by the nazis in the second world war will be as nothing compared to what is going to be possible within the next decade!
God! Can you imagine a world where a president like George Bush decides that America must embark on it's own Vunder Kint program so that it can have the fastest, most inteligent, most resistant to pain soldiers, astranaughts, mathematitions, scientists etc? It's the kind of thing a president like him, the current one, would do! Lets design a biological weapon of mass destructification mister vahs president, and lets ginettically engineer good, loyal, honest patriotic American children who are completely resistant to the biological agent!
Something like that is coming folks, just watch.
I love Americans generally, but this administration has scared me shitless I tell you! And Bush is only just a little bit unbalanced! Imagine what things would be like if we got someone even more military minded up there. Oh gee folks? I don't like south curria anymore, I think we'll withdraw our support there. England's getting a bit big for it's boots guys, I think we better just remind the world who's boss.
That's why all this technology is really beginning to scare me just a little, because America has the power to abuse it entirely, and whether you want to admit it or not, much of the classified research caried out over there is under the umbrella of one inteligence or defence or other military agency or another.
Even when the US does something which appears binnevolent like giving 10 million dollars of ade to a country in need, it's simply re-acerting that America is king of the World, and by the way, you'd better not forget it.
The really frightening thing, is that we expect countries like Iraq to abuse such technologies if they get their hands on it, but America does it with a convincing smile and a hearty slap on the shoulder. They can say it's in the interest of national security, or, so-andso's a really dangerous dictator with weapons of mass destruction and he's got to go! Who's gonna argue with America after all! Go back to the war in Iraq. If evry other country had refused to back America up, regardless of whatever sanctions the US decided to impose on countries who refused to go along with the program, the US would still have gone in there and done what it did.
That's my point! No other country in the world appears to have the power to stop America from doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Ginettically modified children of the future to make America an even more powerful country? No problem! The single largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction possessed by any country on Earth? No problem! Sponsered by Mcdonalds.
Matt
Bullshit! SB what I hear is the same poisonious fascist rehtoric that so called christians have used for decades to turn society against the gay/lb and bi comunity.
No wonder homophobia still exists, and gay men and women are still beaten to a pulp, when narrow minded eejits like yourself, persist in shoving this fascist filth down our throats..it's time you moved on and faced reality dear its 2005 NOT 1940!...And by holding this opinion you are inviting your son to grow up as a homophobe, something Alasdair and Louis will be spared they will grow up tolerant, open minded and able to think for themselves!..You should practise some free thinking before engaging your disgustingly prudish mouth..
Also what do your wonderfully straight humans stand for hmm greed, idiocy, war, destruction, lies, false accusations,victimisation and bullshit ..need I go on get a grip woman gay adoption is a fact and IT'S ABOUT BLOODY TIME!
amen alex, thanks man.
it has nothing to do with fashism, it has to do with nature. I have no issue with gay adoption, and no one said anything about that, what I said was, it is wrong to alter human biology in order to meet the needs of someone's lifestyle. if you choose to live with a partner of the same sex as you, biologically, you cannot have a child that is both of yours, and that is the way it should stay. if same sex couples wish to have families, then that is their perogative, they may choose to adopt, or one or other can have IVF treatment, but to alter human biology is fundamentally wrong. we are not homafrodite.
I find it interesting, Goblin, that you make all these derogatory statements about "straight" people, calling them this or that, and yet in that same message, manage to make gay/bi people seem insecure, self-conscious, defensive, and generally unstable. I've seen nothing but good, well constructed debating points from Sugar Baby, where as I've seen little less than vulgarity and a slew of disparaging remarks and accusations.
Lets take first a biology lesson then, shall we? How many "gay" couples can get together, strip off their clothing, pound their brains out, and then expect to be pregnant? The answer is an obvious... ZERO. Nature had never once intended for any living entity to engage in sexual, much less reproductive, activities with the same gender.
Secondly, lets take a religious course. While I myself may not hold to the Christian beliefs and theologies, a few points of theirs carry merit. (1) Within that Garden wherein Adam took his first breath, God made no man for his companion and lover. He took of the flesh of Adam and made from it a woman... not a man. As some have jokingly before said: "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." (2) When Noah embarked upon his forty days and nights of drifting: taken aboard were two of each kind of animal... one male, one female. Never once were two females of the same species called, nor were two male members.
Thirdly, lets take that sociology course and investigate public criticism and cruelty. Yes, it indeed is *very* true that the public can be deadly hateful against homosexual couples. How then, do you think a child of that union would fair in an environment which exposes he or she to such discriminists? Do you think they'd bloody take the time to ask him/her about all the differing aspects of his/her mom and mom or dad and dad? Answering that question: No, that would definitely not be the situation. Those people would, given the chance, beat that kid to a bloody pulp for something he/she could not have controlled. So, by taking that child in, you may have inadvertently condemned him or her to a life of ridicule, rejection, turmoil, and danger. Would this be good parenting?
Assuming then that you did have a child in a homosexual marriage or coupling, and assuming that said child had indeed been involved in such an incident, how would you react? You'd go out there and cause more violence or upheaval. You wouldn't be able to help it, because emotions sometimes trigger irrational reactions. What do you think such an outburst would earn you? What image would you then have cast on homosexual couples, even if not by design?
People would resent you, they'd then call homosexual couples unstable, disturbed, violent. Even if such probably isn't the case, public view is rarely ever so pleasant as to gloss over these details.
So, but taking in that child then, you would have started a conflagration of turmoil that may have otherwise been avoided. I don't know you, but if it came to having parents who were homosexual, with the prospect of future dangers or being an orphan, I must indeed elect the latter.
Now, take these equations into account. Add then the fact that that child will have been a "test tube baby." If that ever touched people's ears, you know how they'd react. So, by fulfilling your own selfish and unnatural desires, you have created a human being to be a martyr, a social target, a public bulls eye... society's excuse, so to speak.
Assuming that you can deliver arguments and concepts in a less vulgar, more intelligent manner, I'd truly like to see your response. I may indeed be wrong on some counts, and then again I may not.
Just as a note of side interest: You mentioned that this was the year 2005, and no longer 1940. A homosexual marriage is as unnatural now as it was back in the Iliad. Nature, or God/the Gods, never intended a man and a woman to couple with his or her own's gender. This is why women are designed with a receptacle and men with a device for her to receive in copulation and reproduction...
I have no problems with gay couples, because what they do with themselves is their matter. When they begin to conceive of notions to condemn children to such life-long torments however, I draw the line. If you want a child so much, go marry someone of the opposing gender, as you're intended to in the first place.
Excuse me many people are born hemaphrodite or inter-sexed so your quite wrong and war is against nature yet we stil persist...furthermore I stand by my opinion the gay adoption and eventual right of gay/lb and bi couples, to have children by A.I, can't come soon enough. My friends and I have already celebrated this landmark ruling, as it now allows them equality are you advocating sexual aparthheid.From where I'm sitting it sounds as if you are endorsing that cruel and ignorant regime to the hilt ..
...........................................................
Wraith I see you are still a patronising self righteous pain at least you have ceased whining about your tragic childhood.....for now
you see what I mean Goblin? Instead of attempting to give a good reason as to why I believe wrongly, you insist on insults and bashing, the mental equivalent of a child when it comes to defending opinions.
By the way, I don't seem to remember whining about my childhood, so if you'd care to enlighten me on which post that was, I'll be happy to oblige you and take a look.War is against nature? Are you truly blind? Have you been any where near to nature? Tell me, oh wise one, what do animals do to gain their place? They kill, they fight. What do plants do to gain the best soil and sunlight? They smother out the rest. Your statement that war is against nature is completely wrong. I'm not advocating war by any means, but it is completely following the rules of nature... Proving one's alpha male status, showing one's strength, etc. This is all nature. Can you seriously say that nature is a peaceful garden?No where had I made any reference to hermaphrodites and or other sexual differentials. I was debating on the ethics and morals of homosexual parenting. What were you?
And, yes, I do advocate heterosexual paths. Why? Because it's natural.
Again, prove to me your statements... Where had I been whining about my childhood, where in nature is fighting and killing not the rule, where do you find a sanctuarious paradise in nature?
To elaborate on my most recent post: Just because I advocate and otherwise support heterosexual couples, does not mean I hate homosexuals. One should not read what he only wants to read, but the entirity of the article if he intends to attempt to make an informed retort against the person making the statement.
I said towards the end that I had no problem with homosexuality, up until they introduce a child into the picture. Goblin, you brought up the subject of hermaphrodites and what not. How do you think they are treated by the general public, Goblin? Are they loved, honored, well-respected, etc? Do you see politicians, famous performers or other people of note with that condition? No, you see what society views as "normal". And before you get on your high horse to bash me and call me a discriminating bastard, I said society views as normal, not I view as normal.
I don't see how promoting what is a naturally occurring phenomenon classifies me as ignorant, cruel, or otherwise inhumane. I follow the script of nature, that which is presented in the circle of life and the promotion of strong ecosystems.
You also completely glossed over my argument about how that child would be raised, leaving me to believe that you had no sufficient answer or provision for this. If you ever intend to adopt and or otherwise obtain a child for parental desires, I certainly pray that you being these considerations into mind. However, with as offensive as you are, I can only imagine the product of such a parenthood. That poor child may not be beat up because he has homosexual parents, but because he just naturally pisses everyone off, because that's what hos father(s) will have taught him.
You also contradict yourself when you state that war is against nature, and yet in that same message, you continue to make disparaging remarks which are completely irrelevant to the subject matter. Such an act is one of conflict or provokation, and therefore akin to some form of natural challenge: E.G., war. I figured you'd be a much gentler person if you thought war and suffering to be against nature. Might I suggest you attending school once more? You seem to have missed a few lessons in ecology, sociology, political history, and anthropology, as well.
for some bizarre reason i have this feeling that both Wraith and SugarBaby could be finding there way onto goblin's ignore list very soon if not already! look if all you too can do is be ignorant and derogatory toward him then please shut up! *sarcastic grin*.
if i were goblin i some how think that my life would have ended a long time ago due too internal hemorrhaging from laughing all the time! i mean he doesn't genuinely take himself seriously does he?
In my opinion, stem cell research and cloaning are good ways to produce same organs that can be used for operations and transplants, like what was said earlier. It’s cool if those organs are used to better the life of someone else like eye transplant for example or heart and or kidney transplant but sperms and egg cells. Wow I think there going a bit far than what they should. I don’t agree with cloaning sperms and egg cells because its no longer natural and it’s seems like Science is playing with God’s work. So, I don’t agree with it. But as far as I know, Technology would and will go further than what we expected. I cant do anything even though I disagree.
yes, babies are born inter-sexed, it is quite a rare occurrence and is not deemed to be normal development. And the parents of that child have to make the agonising decision whether to bring that child up as a boy or a girl. The child has to undergo numerous surgery throughout its lifetime, is usually incontinant so wears nappies throughout its life, unable to lead a normal life, usually shunned by its peers - I hope you are not advocating inter-sexuality as being normal, because it is far from it. It is tragic that some children are born like this, but they will never be seen as being normal, they will be seen as having a disability, due to the fact that something went wrong with their development in the uterus.
And I have to say that I agree with wraith, while I personally have no issue with homosexuality, after all what couples do in the privacy of their own lives is up to them, as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, and that’s where the difference comes into it. If couples choose to be together in a gay relationship, they’re not hurting anyone, but when they start bringing innocent children into the equasion, moreover expecting us to change the fundamental principles of human biology to satisfy their selfish desires to have a child, it becomes morally and ethically wrong. There is a vast difference between allowing a gay couple to adopt a child, or have one via means of a surrogate or through artificial incemination using doner eggs or sperm, and allowing us to change human nature purely because gays and lesbians feel they have a right to live the life they want and that the world should change to suit their needs/desires. As I have said before, I have no issue with gay people adopting, if that means a child will have a loving home as opposed to no home at all, but screwing with nature is wrong.
Well Said Wrathe and SugarBaby. I think homosexual couples should not be eligible for artificial insemination of any kind, and especially not using public money. To use those funds for heterosexual couples is already, in my view, very questionable, especially coules who are over 40 and chose to work all their lives rather than hav children. I understand their desires but the world is full of abandoned children that need a home and if they really wanted a child so bad they should have had one while they were in a position to do so physically. Just like being blind or tied to a wheel chair I think bein homosexual comes with a price, the price being that you cannot conceive naturally. If you are responsible and can prove it and you want a child you can adopt a child and give him/her a better life and raise them that way but you have chosen not to be able to conceive naturally (well, sure it may not be a choice I suppose it is just a built in well disability .. and I only say that from a reproductive standbpoint, after all, if you desire peole of your own gender you can't conceive just like you can't drive if you don't have any sight). I think people must live with the consequences of their choices, in this case, the inability to conceive naturally and I'd not want to pay to have these people's dreams of having their own children come true, just like I would not give money to a charity that allowewd sick dhilcdren to kill animals as their lat wish (they had a program on tv here about a 9 year old boy who suffered from deadly cancerred and an organization that sponsorred him to go out with a shot gun and kill a bear, because that's what he had always wanted and it was his last wish, I think the bear would've been much better off alive and I don't see how granting this to a 9 year oold child improved any lives whatsoever).
And, I agree with sb and wrathe, I have nothing against homosexual coules at all and wish themall the best, only they have to realize what their coices or desire entail, it's not all perfect.
cheers
-B
Oh ho hypocrisy rears it grotesque head spoken like a true preacher
There are many reasons that children are teased, and there has been research done that indicates that children raised by gay parents can grow up well-adjusted. I also think it depends on the community, and the way the parents and child handle it. I'm sure it must be difficult, but so is being blind, or biracial, or having a disability, or wearing hand-me-downs, or any other thing a child can be teased about. Now back on topic, I would be afraid that creating sperm/egg cells from stem cells would be like cloning a human being, and would be concerned about possible defects. There are plenty of errors in nature, but I would think there would be even more by imperfect, human scientists new at the process.