h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Absolutely not.

Many myths, particular involving birds, bees, and/or storks are invented to prevent young people from understanding the biology involved in human reproduction.

There is nothing 'dirty' about reproduction. It's a purely biological phenomenon, as any doctor will explain to you. However, there is a social stigma involved in it somewhere which prevents it being discussed openly.

At the molecular level, it's merely a matter of amino acid chains (peptides) being mixed in random or interesting ways. Any other 'value' added to that reaction is merely religious dogma or social stigma, and is irrelevant to the actual process.

What happens to the end result (the baby) on the other hand is most definitely a matter for social discussion, but that is another story entirely.

So, the lesson to be taught to children here is that the act of reproduction is not sacred, but that it carries with it certain social consequences and responsibilities, namely that the result of your action carries certain obligations, namely caring for, and assisting in the upbringing of a new human being. This applies regardless of what religion or moral code you subscribe to. (Egad, that sounds very buddhist in nature. What do you think?)

The problem with an argument such as this - and I'm not taking a poles apart view here, is whatever we do can be described in scientific terms like synapses carrying electronic signals and so on (thinking).

It is our interpretation of these things which makes us human, isn't it? Otherwise you end up with: "murder is not really bad because it is just the (scientific description of the atomic structure of a throat) being opened by a (scientific description of sharp knife) and the resulting loss of (scientific description of the make up of blood) causing the organism to stop moving - but lots of new and exciting things then begin to happen to it (scientific explanation of decomposition).

Just because we can describe something scientifically doesn't stop it having a personalised, deeper meaning with all sorts of moral and sociological baggage.

Interesting point, but there is a large difference in the level of harm caused. Showing someone the anatomy of their throat is not going to allow the human race to continue, especially if it becomes fashionable to do so. Reproduction, on the other hand, is a natural phenomenon, and, as far as I'm aware, required, if the human race is to have a future at all.

The line does have to be drawn somewhere, and everyone has their own preferred location for that line. That is part of the continually evolving culture that we bring up children within.

Anyhow I'd stay and discuss longer, but I have a myriad of things to do tomorrow, and need some sleep before I start. Football matches to prepare betting odds displays for, and that sort of thing...

Jim

The thing not to underestimate in this is emotion. For many people this is more "real" than any other part of the show.
If A has sex with B and B finds that she is pregnant saying that it's just a biological function is not taken too kindly - whether B is happy with being pregnant or not.
It may be that some people have difficulty in broaching the subject with their children because they have too much emotion tied into the whole thing. How do you edcuate children about this and have them able to understand that it really isn't just about biology?

You have a point, but I have to ask why B didn't take responsibility for her own predicament, assuming that the event happened as a result of A and B's mutual consent. Precautions of various types could have been taken (subject to religious beleifs, which is an entirely different ball game, and I'm not going there.)

So it's still biology, but it's avoidable biology if people take responsibility for themselves. Growing up is about learning to be responsible for your own actions, and realising that those actions have consequences. How do you teach 'em that? Tricky.. No kids, so I'm not going to answer. I just think that some people's overreaction is far more harmful than the harm it seeks to prevent.

When I was little, my next door neighbour had guinea-pigs, and mis-identified the sex of one of them. The net result was _lots_ of guinea-pigs. Even at age 5, you learn from that. Its a good real-world example that any parent can probably find somewhere nearby. Who knows, you might be breeding the next Lord Winston.(If you're not familiar with him (if you are outside the UK for instance), this BBC reference to Lord Winston may help -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/603496.stm )

Caveman, I don't see where it is stated that B (necessarily) *wanted* to avoid pregnancy! A baby is not like a fatal disease - most people want children at some time in their lives!
The reference was to saying 'Oh. It's just biology' (I don't care about you and/or the baby, is therefore implied.)

Thanks Della. There's a huge divide between what science is capable of and what we understand by humanity.

If we look at the current situation with the proposed cloned human it brings in a whole set of emotions. "Because we can!" is, I don't think sufficient reason for doing anything and does not take into account the feelings of, say the resulting child who in a social sense will have two parents but in the biological sense will only have one.

Just think how you feel when people say "Oh you're just like your mum/dad when you do that." (Sadly, often used as an insult by a partner). How's it going to be for a person who is not just like their mum/dad but is an exact copy of them?

Point of clarity: the cloned child still has two parents. They are the parents of the person the child was cloned from.

Because we can.

Because it would be nice.

Because it would be beneficial.

Because we have to.

We have the technology, just find the right reason.

F

Bilogically speaking the parents are the "grandparents" but socially they are the cell donor and his wife (who carries the infant in her womb) and gives birth.

Definitions complex in ussues like this.
e.g. Definition
Mother - Woman who gave birth to you
versus
Mother - woman who supplied the egg which was combined with a sperm which then led to the development of a separate being who donated a cell which was turned into you.
versus
Woman who looked after you throughout your life and whom you consider to be the most significant female adult in your life and to whom you have a close affinity.

I guess nobody said it was easy.

Even simple adoption can cause complex family arrangements without introducing egg and sperm donation, surrogate mothers and now cloning.

We've learned to live with these unusual relationships so I expect we'll cope with any new ones.

F

Going full circle: The biology is only one tiny part of the answer to a child's question of its origins.

<>
Exactly.
I never had any problems with conceiving, but some family members are currently experiencing some difficulty, so that I've had to think about this whole thing. As far as fertility problems go, I don't think cloning is an answer, inasmuch as it seems to lead to problems with the resulting off-springs. (Dolly, for instance.)