Motherless babies possible

[Angry Floof]

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?

When I see a headline like that, I just read the article. And in doing so, I see clearly that by "mother" they mean a woman's DNA.

I find this quite interesting to say the least.

But on the topic of whether a womb is needed, there is this, which is also interesting as well as a bit frightening. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

 

[bigfield]

But on the topic of whether a womb is needed, there is this, which is also interesting as well as a bit frightening. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

It's titled Men redundant? Now we don't need women either, but men are still the only source for sperm. The Matriarchy will still need to maintain man farms in order to produce sperm for the incubators.

The medical implications of incubators takes on a new dimension with the possibility for 'motherless' babies: not only could gay men have children conceived from both fathers' DNA, they would also not need to recruit a surrogate mother.

I wonder how researchers will figure out how to replace the need for a man's sperm? Perhaps someone will figure out how to grow a testicle using stem cells from a woman, thereby allowing a zygote to be created from two mothers' gametes.

 

[Angry Floof]

But on the topic of whether a womb is needed, there is this, which is also interesting as well as a bit frightening. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/10/medicalscience.research

It's titled Men redundant? Now we don't need women either, but men are still the only source for sperm. The Matriarchy will still need to maintain man farms in order to produce sperm for the incubators.

The medical implications of incubators takes on a new dimension with the possibility for 'motherless' babies: not only could gay men have children conceived from both fathers' DNA, they would also not need to recruit a surrogate mother.

I wonder how researchers will figure out how to replace the need for a man's sperm? Perhaps someone will figure out how to grow a testicle using stem cells from a woman, thereby allowing a zygote to be created from two mothers' gametes.

Science will figure it out. Pretty soon, you won't need humans to make humans!

 

[J842P]

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.

Well, in fact they weren't eggs but "parthenogenetic haploid (ph) embryos generated by exposing mII oocytes to strontium chloride."

 

[Trausti]

Seems unlikely. Mitochondria comes from the mother. Without that, no viable life. Using the mitochondria in the fathers' sperm wouldn't help, as that mitochondria is as old as the father. If you got a baby out of this, the baby probably wouldn't do too well.

 

[J842P]

Seems unlikely. Mitochondria comes from the mother. Without that, no viable life. Using the mitochondria in the fathers' sperm wouldn't help, as that mitochondria is as old as the father. If you got a baby out of this, the baby probably wouldn't do too well.

Um, what? This is not true. Mitochondria reproduce inside your cells. The mitochondria in sperm are not as old as the father. In fact, I would guess they are younger in sperm than in eggs. In any event, the mitochondria would be sourced from the transformed cell.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Seems unlikely. Mitochondria comes from the mother. Without that, no viable life. Using the mitochondria in the fathers' sperm wouldn't help, as that mitochondria is as old as the father. If you got a baby out of this, the baby probably wouldn't do too well.

What makes you think all these things or that it'd be a problem.

 

[Deepak]

Science will figure it out. Pretty soon, you won't need humans to make humans!

And that's how the Sexbot revolution began...

 

[Trausti]

Seems unlikely. Mitochondria comes from the mother. Without that, no viable life. Using the mitochondria in the fathers' sperm wouldn't help, as that mitochondria is as old as the father. If you got a baby out of this, the baby probably wouldn't do too well.

Um, what? This is not true. Mitochondria reproduce inside your cells. The mitochondria in sperm are not as old as the father. In fact, I would guess they are younger in sperm than in eggs. In any event, the mitochondria would be sourced from the transformed cell.

The Mitochondria in sperm are as old as the father; or at least, having endured the same oxidative stress as the father. As time goes on, the amount of "good" Mitochondria is overtaken by the amount of "bad," or unproductive/damaged Mitochondria. It's one of the reasons we get weaker as we age. In contrast, the Mitochondria in the egg have had no oxidative stress because they are created and "frozen" at the time of embryonic development. A newborn female already has all of the eggs she will ever have.