giambjj
08-12-2003, 06:47 AM
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030804/030804-14.html
Wise Young
08-19-2003, 04:45 PM
Sigh, this is getting ridiculous. I agree that it stretches the limits of my credulity to believe that a normal baby can result after cooking the sperm to 100˚C, applying an enzyme that expands the DNA of the sperm, and then introducing that sperm into an egg.
I question whether this procedure, even if it worked, would save many eggs. After all, when they give drugs to stimulate ovarian production of eggs, they will collect whatever number of eggs that is produced. They will throw the rest of the unfertilized eggs away. What are they going to do, reimplant those eggs back into the ovary?
We should examine the motivation behind this study. They are trying to reduce the number of fertilized eggs that are thrown away. What is the difference between selecting sperm before they fertilize a few eggs (and throwing away the unfertilized eggs) and fertilizing all the eggs and throwing away those that show the undesirable gene? The same number of eggs will be destroyed in both cases.
The much greater danger is that this procedure poses is a deformed baby with genetic and epigenetic damage resulting from the sperm manipulation. That would be unacceptable. It is crazy that all this effort is being expended and the potential baby is being exposed to all this risk, just to satisfy the wrongheaded notion that it is immoral to throw away a fertilized egg but it is okay to throw away an unfertilized egg.
Wise.
[This message was edited by Wise Young on 08-19-03 at 07:59 PM.]
How many sperm are wasted in an ejaculation that results in fertilization? One less than in an ejaculation that doesn't. In other words, millions.
"Every sperm is sacred."
Feces occur.
Alan