If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Woman + woman = baby?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Sorry if this has been done before, but whaddya think about this? :chin:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2444462.ece
The idea of women having kids with no men needed. :yippe: or :crying: ?
(Hope the link works)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2444462.ece
The idea of women having kids with no men needed. :yippe: or :crying: ?
(Hope the link works)
0
Comments
Would that mean though, that it would create only female offspring?
Since presumably, the egg would carry the xx chromosome, as would the sperm, meaning the only possible outcome would be xx, hence female.
Therefore, if we are to overreact, does this spell the end for men?
In reality does it make too much difference? I mean, there's a lot of stuff science can do that is shocking, but this is just another fertility treatment really. No more shocking to me than a blood transfusion!
Head transplants (which are theoretically possible, I read about it in focus several years ago) is a lot more... hmmm. (think of someone who is dying, and then a young person dies suddenly but their body is ok, then a new healthy body is there for the first person)
but then thats the way things are going generally.
It says that in the article in the link, they would only be able to have daughters. It's not gonna spell the end for men because not everyones a lesbian, therefore male/female couples will still be having boys too.
I don't know what i think about it, i have absolutely no problems with people who are homosexual, but i don't really know if its fair on a child to be brought into the world in this situation. I can imagine the sort of reaction other people would have and is it really fair to bring a child in to a situation which society would see as 'abnormal'. I suppose its up there with the argument about gay couples adopting. It's not just about the science of how the child is conceived.
I don't think they would see it as 'hassle JUST so they can be biologically related'. Most people want their children to be biologically theirs, thats why so many people go through IVF and other such procedures.
A woman-woman baby would be sex-selective which is/will be banned outright for non-medical reasons so this is a non-starter ethically.
But if they're creating sperm now, they'll be creating eggs next.
O brave new world that has such people in it!
Surely if it can be done then it is part of nature ?
Well not necessarily.
If in the future, there were a way to look at the genes of an embryo, and if there were defects to correct them (down's if I'm not mistaken is down to genes?), then it would be heralded as a miracle breakthrough.
Of course, where do you draw the line, because people have already said maybe there should be embryo screening - fertilisation outside the womb and then the 'best' ones go in, ensuring theres no chance of genetic disease etc.
:thumb:
I agree, makes me feel sick thinking about it.
on a big enough scale that would have catastrophic effects on the population at large.
So tell me how manipulating female cells into sperm cells is natural. Its not, humans interfering is what is making it possible...therefore not natural.
Are humans not part of nature then?
Debatable these days.
Yes humans are part of nature, but them interfering in what is natural and in this case will be a scientific breakthrough....key word being scientific, not natural.
Natural is what happens on its own without science interfering, if women start producing sperm without the aid of science then id be all for it...but until that happens i'll stand my ground on this one.
Presumably then you're also against any form of "man-made" drugs or medical procedures given to ill people, since their immune system doesn't naturally combat whatever illness they have?
I know it sounds harsh, but I don't support the right for this kind of thing, nor for IVF.
Go on then.
You're not making any sense. If humans are part of nature, then anything we do is also part of nature.
BTW, how can "science" interfere with anything?
Errrr...it hasn't even been done yet. It's a long way from being on the NHS, so calm yerself!
Mother Earth is already showing signs of what she thinks of our presence here. We're not compatible with nature, we don't compliment or respect her, it'll be our downfall ultimately.
*snigger*
You're not making any sense.