But in addition to the energy surrounding their progress, there are also concerns, like people stealing DNA to make babies...
    • onichama@feddit.deEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      It’s not like people would give more money to Burundi if synthetic babies didn’t exist. But I do see the irony.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      71·
      1 year ago

      Very similar to all the expensive fertility treatments heterosexual couples get access to now. Unwanted children sit waiting for homes while wealthy westerners bend over backward to bring their own into the world.

  • yesman@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    1 year ago

    Everyone is arguing about adoption and IVF while totally ignoring the most important thing. This is really going to piss off the right-wingers!

    • Bristlecone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Yes, my thoughts exactly! I can’t wait to see people have literal aneurysms when they hear about this with their bigot asses! 10 bucks says they are going to try and use their bullshit ass supreme Court to make even more miraculous medical technology illegal

  • spaduf@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    61·
    1 year ago

    Sad that I don’t see anybody excited about this in the comments. This is obviously amazing and I will consider the world better for it.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      I know more gay people who’ve adopted than straight people, so personally I’m inclined to give them a bit of a break here. And I know multiple straight couples who’ve undertaken incredibly expensive fertility treatments so they can spawn their own seed. I wonder if people complain about those equally? The technology there is ungodly expensive and quite a todo as well.

  • onichama@feddit.deEnglish
    121·
    1 year ago

    This is so cool, both from a scientific viewpoint and of course for the couples that couldn’t have a bio child otherwise.

    Of course it’s going to be expensive (at first?) , but prices might go down with technological progression and demand.

  • Laticauda@lemmy.worldEnglish
    289·
    1 year ago

    I’ll be honest, I don’t really see why this was needed atm, I think there are too many kids who need to be adopted before we try to focus on giving more people biological kids.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      212·
      1 year ago

      Reproduction is a highly personal choice. As an adopted person, adoption isn’t a stray system, and some people should not adopt.

      There are biochemical things that happen when you carry a baby to term and then immediately interact with it, for both the parent and the kid.

      Adoption is better than many alternatives, but it’s also not easy for everyone to learn to love a child that hormones aren’t helping them love.

      • AttackBunny@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        1 year ago

        As an adopted person, adoption isn’t a stray system, and some people should not adopt.

        As a person who has parents who should have never had children, those same people shouldn’t have biological children either.

        • deejay4am@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          While you’re not wrong, “panel that gets to decide the criteria of who is allowed access to procreation” is a bit too “Third Reich” for me, thanks

      • Laticauda@lemmy.world
        13·
        1 year ago

        But do you not see the issue with needing hormonal intervention in order to “learn to love” your child? The hormonal fluctuations people experience after childbird can also cause postpartum depression and cause parents to be apathetic or even resentful towards their children. It’s not something that should be relied on or viewed as an indicator that someone will be a good parent or not. You shouldn’t need hormones to love your kid, biological or not.

        If more focus was put towards the foster system then effort could be put towards making sure the right people get to adopt the right kids more reliably. There are lots of bio parents who never should have had kids, so that is far from something exclusive to adoptive parents.

      • Laticauda@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, yeah, for the most part. I’m not going to tell anyone they aren’t allowed to choose how they have a kid, and I’m not saying the people who go through so much effort to have a biological child are bad people or anything, but I wish more focus and funding was put on the foster system for kids who have already been born and need homes. I think adoption should be more normalized and adopted kids should be viewed as equal to biological children, rather than them being the second, less desirable choice for getting a kid. I think if less couples viewed biological children as the end-all-be-all then there wouldn’t be as much pressure on parents to be fertile, resulting in less guilt if they don’t happen to be fertile, and adopted kids wouldn’t be viewed or treated like they’re less important. The obsession with passing on a bloodline can create a very unhealthy mindset in people, and it often comes from the societal view that a biological kid is more your kid than an adopted one, and thus you should try to get a biological kid at any cost first before settling for an adopted one.

        I’m not saying that nobody should ever have a biological kid or use IVF, I know there are lots of reasons to choose those options. I just think there should be equal focus and emphasis on supporting and normalizing adoption rather than putting so much more attention towards biological reproduction, which already gets all the attention, to the point of trying to achieve something that isn’t particularly necessary. That’s just my personal opinion on the topic at least.

        • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I agree. I’m pleased to say I know a number of folks who’ve adopted. Some of them are gay men for whom biological children are much harder to come by.

          As an aside, I think the appeal of biological children is partly “passing down the bloodline” and partly wanting to be there from the start, and know what genetic makeup your kid has to work with, and avoid potentially damaging early life trauma that may have left an adoptee without parents. But I think the adoption system does a pretty good job of informing parents of all that

          There is also appeal in helping correct any early life trauma for someone and heal the world that little bit. And frankly with an adopted child you at least know you if they have major birth defects or diseases already, and you always take a risk with conception that your child might. I think there’s also appeal in skipping the body strain of pregnancy, and even the most difficult infant months, to be totally honest (having lived through them).

          I didn’t adopt but my wife and I do support two overseas kids financially. It’s such a small and easy thing to do but it can make the difference between a kid getting a high school education and going straight to work at age 13.

  • alexius@lemmy.worldEnglish
    111·
    1 year ago

    Hmm this may be a Elon style fundraiser strategy for said Biochemical company or an Elizabeth Holmes kind of fraud. Always take CEOs saying wonderful things about the future with a grain of salt.

  • AsunasPersonalAsst@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    some things to consider tho:

    • ethics (e.g. what other people and the article has said: stability/integrity of the DNA that will be used, also confidentiality)

    • money

    • how will this impact future generations