Young Carers of The Mix, we need you! Tell us about your experiences of our services and give yourself a chance to win £50 of Amazon vouchers.

Woman + woman = baby?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 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)
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    theres something that just isnt right about that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn't bother me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's alright really, two people want to conceive, if they're responsible parents why not?

    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)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They can do what they like imo. If someone is allowed to adopt, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its interfering too much with nature imo.
    but then thats the way things are going generally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    its interfering too much with nature imo.
    but then thats the way things are going generally.
    :yes: its only natural for a child to be conceived by a male and female, and to me its not ethical...its pushing the boundaries of nature too far.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Seems alot of hassle just so they can both be biologically related. Not too fussed though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    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?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    Seems alot of hassle just so they can both be biologically related. Not too fussed though.


    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hate to think about the genetics involved in this and "what" would be produced. A women could possibly inbreed with herself :yuck: :crazyeyes

    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!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    otter wrote: »
    its interfering too much with nature imo.
    but then thats the way things are going generally.
    Amira wrote: »
    :yes: its only natural for a child to be conceived by a male and female, and to me its not ethical...its pushing the boundaries of nature too far.

    Surely if it can be done then it is part of nature ?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Genetics should stay the hell out of how children are made.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Genetics should stay the hell out of how children are made.

    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.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 14,994 Part of the furniture
    There's seemse somethign very wrong about it too be honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Genetics should stay the hell out of how children are made.

    :lol: :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    There's seemse somethign very wrong about it too be honest.

    I agree, makes me feel sick thinking about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sugar wrote: »
    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.

    on a big enough scale that would have catastrophic effects on the population at large.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    Surely if it can be done then it is part of nature ?
    Definition of natural: Existing in or formed by nature

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    Definition of natural: Existing in or formed by nature

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Are humans not part of nature then?

    Debatable these days.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Are humans not part of nature then?
    oh my God....

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    xsazx wrote: »
    True, certainly isnt natural and I'd argue it isnt ethical either to start playing god, scientists are taking knowlege too far and this has overstepped the line imo
    see i wanted to say that, but if i had...i'd be called a muslim extremist by some of this lot :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    oh my God....

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am all for a turkey baster job... But this creeps me out. It SHOULDN'T be allowed on the NHS and the marketisation of parental rights is wrong too (unless of course it's Ok to buy babies).

    I know it sounds harsh, but I don't support the right for this kind of thing, nor for IVF.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Debatable these days.

    Go on then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Amira wrote: »
    oh my God....

    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.

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I am all for a turkey baster job... But this creeps me out. It SHOULDN'T be allowed on the NHS and the marketisation of parental rights is wrong too (unless of course it's Ok to buy babies).

    Errrr...it hasn't even been done yet. It's a long way from being on the NHS, so calm yerself!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    Go on then.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    xsazx wrote: »
    True, certainly isnt natural and I'd argue it isnt ethical either to start playing god, scientists are taking knowlege too far and this has overstepped the line imo

    *snigger*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    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.

    You're not making any sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.