[webheart]

Unfortunately, we "play God" every time we concieve a child and see it through to birth. I think in the case of articificial insemination, that there is an excessive amount of opportunity for one person to pass genes on to future generations, compared to natural procreation.

Usually, a man is limited by his personality, lack of good looks, or some other factor that keeps him from being able to impregnate too many women. Thus, a man who might otherwise be considered a less-than-desirable mate in the wild, and therefore unable to procreate, could become over-represented in the gene pool, as it were. It is possible that marriage as an institution originated in part as a means to keep men from becoming similarly over-represented. I think it may be time to put a limit on how many times a sperm broker can broker any one man's sperm.

[brytlea]

I think in the case of articificial insemination, that there is an excessive amount of opportunity for one person to pass genes on to future generations, compared to natural procreation.

In dogs we call this the popular sire effect. It IS something to consider.

susie

[metmom]

No *we* don't play God every time *we* conceive a child and see it through to birth because the conception part is not a matter of any man's will. And the way *see it through to birth* sounds is like we choose to have the baby against the natural order of things, like keeping a pregnancy going is something that has to be worked at. Sometimes it is but it's the premature ending of a natural course of events, like abortion, that is messing with things; *playing God* if you will; being the one who decides who should live and die and when.

Conception often happens against man's will and it often doesn't happen when someone wills it. And besides, letting *nature take it's course* is absolutely not the same thing as designer babies where someone gets tested and a bunch of eggs get fertilized and the best are picked out. THAT'S playing God.