Humanity in a Brave New World

At the risk of confirming suspicions of conservatives’ reactionary squeamishness, I have to admit to huge, visceral aversion to this sort of thing:

Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman’s bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.
The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.
But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer.

On first look, it would seem that neither the standard pro-life nor the standard secular community objections apply, but where does that leave one’s sense that we are on the cusp of changing human society in irrevocable ways and with barely a thought of the consequences. Of course, Christians believe, in the words of Mel Gibson’s character in Signs, “that whatever’s going to happen, there will be someone there to help them.” The optimistic pragmatist, with whom I often feel a certain intellectual sympathy, might feel that nothing that is fundamental in humanity will change. And there are certainly liberals who, in their variously motivated advocacy on behalf of homosexuals, will throw themselves behind any “advancement” that allows those folks to more closely simulate normal lives.
Still, I can’t shake the sense that all of these modern permutations to society will fall on us all at once in their aggregate magnitude and our society will jerk and sputter in a new, disassociated direction — perhaps under constant attack from true reactionaries from foreign cultures. We who believe that humanity has long had all that it needed, really, no matter the comforts that progress might provide may find ourselves unable to avoid the tremendous questions that the next couple of centuries will pose. Properly seen, it seems to me that such a predicament is more a blessing than a curse.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
17 years ago

So not only can women kill their children without the input of the father, they’ll soon be able to eliminate the need for a father’s input in the first place.
And this is gender equality HOW, exactly???

17 years ago

Well, maybe we aren’t man enough any more bcause we’re too metrosexual… or is that the only kind of man allowed in an Amazonian society? Maybe that’s it… the only men allowed in an Amazonian society are the emasculated metrosexual sperm-donor types. It’s been awhile since those old B movies about the Amazonian society, but I think I’m beginning to see the connection. One of the local DJ’s around here has really been playing up how excited he is to have all his back hair removed permanently with laser treatment. And here’s the punch line… the place he got the treatment is named – IDEAL IMAGE.

John Howard
16 years ago

We don’t have to allow this! There are lots of standard objections that still apply, but unfortunately most of us have been drawn into camps that reflexively oppose those objections. For example, a republican is conflicted by his free market libertarian dogmas and since this isn’t abortion, it must be OK, and a democrat puts aside his aversion to free market big biotech and genetic engineering because it helps gay people have more rights.
But we should get past whatever keeps us from standing up against this, because it is irrevocable, as you say. We should tie it to the marriage debate and point out that conception rights should not be given to same-sex couples. State after state is opposed to same-sex marriage, they are the majority that will stop this if we successfully put conception rights back together with marraige again. (How did they ever get separated???)

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.