I noticed that eabo's BMG post from 5 years ago comes up near the top when you google "John Howard, egg and sperm law." That's good, because it was a darn good discussion eabo started:
Is John Howard Right? eaboclipper | Thu, Apr 12, 2007 8:33 PM EST
It looks like Mr. Howard might be right. From the UK
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.
The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm.
I think not much has changed in five years, they haven't actually produced viable gametes in humans or even in any animals [UPDATE: I forget that mice have now been created from stem cell derived sperm). Though of course lots more research has been done, lots of energy used, lots of animals have been experimented on, and millions of dollars have been spent, lots of kids have been damaged by being told it may be possible some day. Oh and lots of same-sex couples have suffered from not having any legal protections for their relationship, or only having state recognition in a few states.
Eabo, I'm grateful for your excellent answer to Laurel:
a) same sex conception should not be legal. It is perilously close to cloning and should not be allowed. It is not an anti gay thing. Because if a gay couple wants to adopt or go to a sperm bank, I have no problem with that.
That's right, and the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise still allows everything that gay couples do today, and only stops cloning and use of engineered genes. I hope you still feel that way and hope you will continue to say so now and then.