Motherless babies possible

[Angry Floof]

Motherless babies possible as scientists create live offspring without need for female egg

Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.

The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.

It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.

Sperm cells form in the same way, so that when a sperm and egg meet they form a full genetic quota, with half our DNA coming from our mother and half from our father.

But now scientists have shown embryos could be created from cells which carry all their chromosomes which means that, in theory, any cell in the human body could be fertilised by a sperm.

This looks like a major challenge to conventional knowledge about how humans are made. Also possibly offering an option for gay men who want children.

 

[untermensche]

Although the researchers began with an egg cell for the experiment, they do not believe it is required to spark the same development. In theory, the technique should work with any cell in the body as long as half the chromosomes are removed first to allow them to fuse with the sperm’s chromosomes.

They have a hypothesis, not evidence.

And motherless?

Where will this embryo grow?

 

[Angry Floof]

Although the researchers began with an egg cell for the experiment, they do not believe it is required to spark the same development. In theory, the technique should work with any cell in the body as long as half the chromosomes are removed first to allow them to fuse with the sperm’s chromosomes.

They have a hypothesis, not evidence.

And motherless?

Where will this embryo grow?

Did someone say otherwise?

 

[untermensche]

They have a hypothesis, not evidence.

And motherless?

Where will this embryo grow?

Did someone say otherwise?

Are you against clarifications in general?

 

[Angry Floof]

Did someone say otherwise?

Are you against clarifications in general?

I didn't realize something was unclear.

 

[untermensche]

Are you against clarifications in general?

I didn't realize something was unclear.

How do two gay men have a child without a women?

 

[Angry Floof]

I didn't realize something was unclear.

How do two gay men have a child without a women?

Again, who said that? They would need a woman to carry the baby to term, but would not need her egg. Two men could produce a baby with only their DNA and no one else's.

 

[untermensche]

How do two gay men have a child without a women?

Again, who said that? They would need a woman to carry the baby to term, but would not need her egg. Two men could produce a baby with only their DNA and no one else's.

They have not done this in anything but an egg cell.

They have not taken mothers out of the equation.

 

[Angry Floof]

Again, who said that? They would need a woman to carry the baby to term, but would not need her egg. Two men could produce a baby with only their DNA and no one else's.

They have not done this in anything but an egg cell.

They have not taken mothers out of the equation.

Why not just quote the whole article here? You're not saying anything it doesn't already say.

For fuck's sake, do you scour the board looking for anything to argue with just for the sake of arguing?

 

[untermensche]

They have not done this in anything but an egg cell.

They have not taken mothers out of the equation.

Why not just quote the whole article here? You're not saying anything it doesn't already say.

For fuck's sake, do you scour the board looking for anything to argue with just for the sake of arguing?

You are the one that insists upon an argument.

I state simple facts and to you they somehow are an argument.

Human psychology is a very twisted tale.

 

[Angry Floof]

Why not just quote the whole article here? You're not saying anything it doesn't already say.

For fuck's sake, do you scour the board looking for anything to argue with just for the sake of arguing?

You are the one that insists upon an argument.

I state simple facts and to you they somehow are an argument.

Human psychology is a very twisted tale.

You've said nothing but to state the obvious. If you are not excited or moved in some way at the possibilities of this technology or inspired to new questions, or at the very least have an actual comment, then you are free to move on.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Huh. That means no mother-in-laws. This is important research.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hallmark management is probably in a panic. This research could cripple their mother's day card division.

 

[untermensche]

You are the one that insists upon an argument.

I state simple facts and to you they somehow are an argument.

Human psychology is a very twisted tale.

You've said nothing but to state the obvious. If you are not excited or moved in some way at the possibilities of this technology or inspired to new questions, or at the very least have an actual comment, then you are free to move on.

I am not that excited by this. There are already too many people in the world.

If gay men want a child they can adopt one without parents.

And I don't need your permission to come and go.

 

[Angry Floof]

You've said nothing but to state the obvious. If you are not excited or moved in some way at the possibilities of this technology or inspired to new questions, or at the very least have an actual comment, then you are free to move on.

I am not that excited by this. There are already too many people in the world.

If gay men want a child they can adopt one without parents.

And I don't need your permission to come and go.

What did you think was unclear regarding your first post here?

I didn't tell you to come or go, just said that you are free to do that rather than stating nothing but the obvious and then claiming something's not clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Hallmark management is probably in a panic. This research could cripple their mother's day card division.

Well, I suppose they could still send cards to the surrogate.

 

[untermensche]

I am not that excited by this. There are already too many people in the world.

If gay men want a child they can adopt one without parents.

And I don't need your permission to come and go.

What did you think was unclear regarding your first post here?

I didn't tell you to come or go, just said that you are free to do that rather than stating nothing but the obvious and then claiming something's not clear.

So me answering your questions is NOW a problem for you?

Again, human psychology, go figure.

 

[Angry Floof]

What did you think was unclear regarding your first post here?

I didn't tell you to come or go, just said that you are free to do that rather than stating nothing but the obvious and then claiming something's not clear.

So me answering your questions is NOW a problem for you?

Again, human psychology, go figure.

Let's start again. What was unclear to you?

 

[untermensche]

So me answering your questions is NOW a problem for you?

Again, human psychology, go figure.

Let's start again. What was unclear to you?

Nothing that you could clarify.

But stating that it is only a hypothesis at this point that this could be used in cells besides egg cells is a fact.

Not an argument.

 

[Angry Floof]

Let's start again. What was unclear to you?

Nothing that you could clarify.

But stating that it is only a hypothesis at this point that this could be used in cells besides egg cells is a fact.

Not an argument.

What was unclear about that in the article?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What was unclear about that in the article?

I imagine the contention is about the use of the word 'mother.'

If man A and woman B contribute sperm/egg in vitro and put the quickened egg into person C's womb, who is The Baby's Mother? B or C? Is C a mommy or just a hostess for the parasite for a few fiscal quarters?