tell me if this is morally wrong?

Question

ok, so what if your mother wanted to get pregnant but she had to have the sperm injected into her, and in doing so, they split the cell into two parts and give one part to your mother and freezes the over part. your mom gives birth to you and you grow up and your about 20 something years old

now you go back and you get that frozen sperm cell at the doctors and you insert it in yourself and give birth to your twin

so your giving birth to your sister basically, who is your twin

is this morally wrong? or weird? or just what?

Answer 1

A little more than weird.... you have a very interesting type of mind to even propose such a thing.... emmm

Answer 2

Well first of all, you wouldn't be giving birth to your twin. You would be giving birth to your sibling (you would have the same father), which would not be identical to you. Since you are not genetically identical to your mother (you only have half her genes), you child in this scenario could not possibly be your twin. There would be a higher chance of passing on a genetic disease (although it would be small), because the chance of getting a double recessive gene would be higher.

Is this immoral? It would be the genetic equivalent of have sex with your father, without the actually act. There would be no technical incest, but the taboo for incest springs from the observation that close relatives having children together have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities.

Answer 3

extremely a surprising remark you have made there. confident it relatively is generally believed that telling lies is morally incorrect. And confident it relatively is generally believed that each and each word that comes out of any baby-kisser's mouth is a lie. yet in a popular experience, no longer all politicians lie each and all the time. the terrific skill of a little one-kisser is the skill to avert a question without making it evident that a answer had no longer been given. they're infrequently (besides the shown fact that it nevertheless happens) compelled to grant a in the present day answer, and in the event that they are going to lie, that's the place that's going to oftentimes take place; whilst they actually answer the question and it seems they the two lied with the certainty of their dishonesty they're are discovered to have made a prediction that grew to become out to be incorrect, and for that reason are technically mendacity. yet once you think that each and one and all politicians lie, then it 'might' be achievable to be a little one-kisser without telling lies, although that's no longer likely and that they at the instant are not at risk of upward push far interior the ranks of their respective occasion. yet whether a individual lies continuously, and are technically breaking a ethical boundary, in the event that they're relatively repentant approximately their deceiving, does that advise they have not have been given any morals? What in the event that they suspect that telling the reality could be worse then mendacity? Does conserving somebody with the help of mendacity make you a physically powerful individual or a foul individual? yet whether you lied with each word that left your mouth, you will possibly no longer inevitably have not have been given any morals, you in basic terms will possibly no longer word that particular ethical boundary. however the shown fact that we decide human beings to run our united states which would be scumbag liars does not bode nicely for our society and that we are in basic terms encouraging that form of habit (if it happens/exists) in a elitist area of interest of society.

Answer 4

I don't think it's morally wrong, assuming this woman is in a place to raise a child. Twin or not, she'll be raising a baby as her child. At least the cell is not being destroyed. That would be morally wrong

Answer 5

I personally don't think this is ""morally" wrong, though I do find it a bit bizarre. We have the technology to freeze embryos and implant them into different host wombs.. why not?

Of course, you'd be the target of all manner of protestors, but you and your sister child would sure have your fifteen minutes.

Answer 6

►who cares about morality, the thought should be HOW is the product going to be affected. Is it going to be as dumb as the 20 yr old or dumber or looking like the fish in the Homer Simpson's
nuclear plant?
♀

Answer 7

I don't think it's morally wrong. It's not like you slept with someone in your family to get the baby. I do think it's just a little too weird for me to think about.

Answer 8

Well if they split it in half this means you're half a load short. You need to birth that other half if you ever hope to be a complete moron.

Answer 9

well i think its science at its weirdest... maybe even science induced incest but i dont think theres anything morally wrong. it might even make the child stronger being that her sister probably hs almost identical dna make up and such.

Answer 10

that is so cool! in an eerie, weird sort of way. i dont think it is wrong, but that is just me. It's almost as if you gave birth to a clone of yourself... and that is cool.