Showing posts with label Genes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genes. Show all posts

April 30, 2017

Do LGBT Relationships Deserve Full Genetic Children?







The possibility of creating synthetic gametes (eggs from male stem cells, sperm from female stem cells) raises some interesting ethical issues. LGBT couples currently depend upon a third party to contribute opposite-sex gametes. This means that their children will never be fully genetically related and that their relationship depends on outside intervention.

But even for LGBT couples, a genetic relationship with a child is the “cultural gold standard” for reproduction, Timothy Murphy points out in the Journal of Medical Ethics. If this is the case, then LBGT couples should be able to have it as well.

After all, if that kind of relatedness is socioculturally and psychologically important enough to override searching questions about the ethics of fertility medicine in general, then it would seem to be important enough to theorise in relation to same-sex couples' inability to secure it for their families.

Settling for less than the gold standard is inequitable, Murphy argues. In the near future, LGBT couples won’t have to. They will no longer be “inherently infertile”. Rather, they will only be “situationally infertile” in relation to each other – something which can be solved with the help of reproductive technology.

Perhaps LGBT couples, he argues, should even be prioritised in research to help infertile couples conceive and have children:

 it's unclear why—as a matter of moral theory—same-sex couples should have to ‘settle for’ anything less than the same shared genetics in their children as is available to opposite-sex couples. It's plausible in some ways that opposite-sex couples are owed research priority towards securing shared genetics in their children simply as a matter of access and equity and also—more searchingly—as a matter of compensatory justice, for past road blocks imposed against having children. As it often does, biology might stand in the way of human hopes, but then again we won't know for sure unless we test it against our moral ambitions.
  

This article is written by Michael Cook and BioEdge 

February 14, 2014

New Study: 40% of Genes Make up the Sexuality of a Gay Baby





In this study it shows something we already knew. There is no one gay gene but a variation being that exuality in the early days of a zygote or embryo’s sexuality is fluid. But the genes according to this new study accounts to 40% of the embryo’s turning out being gay. The remaining 60% (which is the part we are not sure about) comes from events BEFORE one is born. Like for instance wether the parents or the mother was older when she got pregnant. I happen to know of many families like this including mine. Both my parents were older when they had me the 12 of 12. There are also two sisters that are either bisexual or Lesbians. The last son of one of them which she had as an older woman is gay, my nephew. It’s very dangerous for parents to be able to pick the gender or sexuality of their kids. Gay or not but particuclarly gay for obvious reasons. On the sexuality issue it seems it’s going to be even harder if this study is correct because the genes will account to 40% which is the part that science is closer to interfering with. At 40% there is 'till the majority which can not be easily control if at all.

Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.
A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.
But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay.
In the most comprehensive study of its kind, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, has been studying 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically predisposed to being gay.
The study found that gay men shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome - Xq28.
Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.
“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.
“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”
Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’
“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”
The study builds on work by Dr Dean Hamer from the US National Cancer Institute in 1993 who also found an area of the x chromosome that he believed was linked to male sexual orientation.
Last year Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the greater change he will be gay.
They believe that the immune response produced by a pregnant mother increases with each son, increasing the odds of producing more feminine traits in the developing brain of the foetus.
Each older brother raised the odds that a man was homosexual by one third.
Researchers at the University of California believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after birth.
Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has suggested that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child’s temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others.
Interestingly no similar genes have been discovered which influence female homosexuality.
“No-body has found something like this in women,” he added.
Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.
He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”
Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do to point to a biological root.
He said: ‘The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’
Adam Gonzalez, Publisher
Source: study which appeared in telegraph.co.uk

Featured Posts

Trump Administration Rolled Backwards The Clock for LGBT and People Living with HIV

                                   By  Sean Cahill HIV Plus Magazine   Last weekend marked the two-year anniv...