Creating Babies Without Men

[Ancient Humans]

The OP is right in saying that this could cause huge genetic issues and deformities. Everyone has a mix of male and female genes, and while the first child would have a mix of both (Though likely more female genes than male genes), if they went on to have a child in the same way, and so on, you'd eventually end up with a child with no male DNA, which would have massive repercussions on their health and our society. I can easily imagine groups rising up who consider these hypothetical "true women" superior to "mixed women." On the other hand, you could also get groups who consider this process "un-natural" and the children that result from it "abominations."

Umm, DNA is DNA. Do you have evidence that the X from a woman is significantly different from the X of a man? What is male DNA? What is female DNA?

A man is made different from a woman because of the Y-Chromosome and testosterone. There are women who have XY-Chromosomes but have Androgen insensitivity syndrome, this means that they are gentically male but physically female.

Also, incase it was ignored because of a new page.

If science can create sperm without men then what is the need for Y chromosomes? This type of thing could make an all female reproducing species.

If science can create synthetic breast milk, why do women need tits? I'm also not into creating the Asari, thank you.

Moving on, just because we could in theory make a sperm-producing female does not mean that we're going to kill off all men because they're no longer needed (apparently). As I first said, we have synthetic breast milk but said milk is not exactly as effective as the natural option and who is to say that a sperm-producing woman is as fertile as a man? It could be possible they are less fertile or more but this still does not mean we're going to get rid of men because there are Gay couples. Why not make a ovum-producing man? What makes men inferior to women? What makes men so undesirable that they should be eliminated and replaced completely by women? I think that sperm-producing women and ovum-producing men should be for LGBT couples (who are a minority in comparison to the rest of the world) instead of forced upon the rest of the world. In other words, make it an option, not a fate.

[Neutraligon]

If science can create sperm without men then what is the need for Y chromosomes? This type of thing could make an all female reproducing species.

If science can create synthetic breast milk, why do women need tits? I'm also not into creating the Asari, thank you.

Moving on, just because we could in theory make a sperm-producing female does not mean that we're going to kill off all men because they're no longer needed (apparently). As I first said, we have synthetic breast milk but said milk is not exactly as effective as the natural option and who is to say that a sperm-producing woman is as fertile as a man? It could be possible they are less fertile or more but this still does not mean we're going to get rid of men because there are Gay couples. Why not make a ovum-producing man? What makes men inferior to women? What makes men so undesirable that they should be eliminated and replaced completely by women? I think that sperm-producing women and ovum-producing men should be for LGBT couples (who are a minority in comparison to the rest of the world) instead of forced upon the rest of the world. In other words, make it an option, not a fate.

Well, assuming artificial breast milk is completely equivalent to natural breast milk then there is no reason for woman to have "tits." It would simply be an aspect of biology that is not needed.

Where did I mention killing all men? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Woman would always produce eggs. Science would be used to artificially create a sperm that can take the DNA from one females eggs and insert it into that sperm. At no point would a woman make sperm, rather sperm would be artificially made kinda like how medicine is made.

At no point did I say that men are inferior to woman or the other way around, only that in reproduction this sort of thing would mean men would not be necessary. That says nothing about men being inferior or superior. You seem to be strawmanning my position.

A man is made different from a woman because of the Y-Chromosome and testosterone. There are women who have XY-Chromosomes but have Androgen insensitivity syndrome, this means that they are gentically male but physically female.

Correct men are made with a y Chromosome and testosterone. However the method I mentioned above would not require any Y chromosomes. As only X chromosomes are needed you would need to show that an X from a male is different from an X from a female.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

1. The Daily Mail is not a credible source.

2. From what you posted, sounds like a lot of luddite anti-science stuff. Their are certainly dangers with cloning/genetic engineering, but this sounds like fear mongering.

3. The idea that the only major role men can play is to impregnate women and that those evil women are going to take over if men can't make them pregnant manages to be both anti-male and anti-female at the same time. An impressive achievement, even for a filthy Right wing rag.

[Ancient Humans]

If science can create synthetic breast milk, why do women need tits? I'm also not into creating the Asari, thank you.

Moving on, just because we could in theory make a sperm-producing female does not mean that we're going to kill off all men because they're no longer needed (apparently). As I first said, we have synthetic breast milk but said milk is not exactly as effective as the natural option and who is to say that a sperm-producing woman is as fertile as a man? It could be possible they are less fertile or more but this still does not mean we're going to get rid of men because there are Gay couples. Why not make a ovum-producing man? What makes men inferior to women? What makes men so undesirable that they should be eliminated and replaced completely by women? I think that sperm-producing women and ovum-producing men should be for LGBT couples (who are a minority in comparison to the rest of the world) instead of forced upon the rest of the world. In other words, make it an option, not a fate.

Well, assuming artificial breast milk is completely equivalent to natural breast milk then there is no reason for woman to have "tits." It would simply be an aspect of biology that is not needed.

Where did I mention killing all men? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Woman would always produce eggs. Science would be used to artificially create a sperm that can take the DNA from one females eggs and insert it into that sperm. At no point would a woman make sperm, rather sperm would be artificially made kinda like how medicine is made.

At no point did I say that men are inferior to woman or the other way around, only that in reproduction this sort of thing would mean men would not be necessary. That says nothing about men being inferior or superior. You seem to be strawmanning my position.

Well, I am assuming you are not interested in the male gender surviving because you are saying you wish for a mono-gendered species that does not require men. Saying you wish for a species of women who can procreate without men is saying without saying that you want/desire/believe men should die out as they are not a requirement any longer.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

So what you're saying is that we need to create a third gender - women who produce sperm? Pretty sure Japan will get behind that.[/quote ]
They're not the only ones

"get behind"
Very funny

[Neutraligon]

Well, assuming artificial breast milk is completely equivalent to natural breast milk then there is no reason for woman to have "tits." It would simply be an aspect of biology that is not needed.

Where did I mention killing all men? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Woman would always produce eggs. Science would be used to artificially create a sperm that can take the DNA from one females eggs and insert it into that sperm. At no point would a woman make sperm, rather sperm would be artificially made kinda like how medicine is made.

At no point did I say that men are inferior to woman or the other way around, only that in reproduction this sort of thing would mean men would not be necessary. That says nothing about men being inferior or superior. You seem to be strawmanning my position.

Well, I am assuming you are not interested in the male gender surviving because you are saying you wish for a mono-gendered species that does not require men. Saying you wish for a species of women who can procreate without men is saying without saying that you want/desire/believe men should die out as they are not a requirement any longer.

I never said I desired such a thing. I said it was possible to make a female reproducing species. Similarly, should we create male eggs and an artificial womb it would be possible to make a male reproducing population. I make no claim as to the desirability of such a thing, only that it would be possible to do, and no cloning would be necessary. As this thread was specifically about making babies without men, I focused on that.

[Zocra]

EDIT:

Knowing that LGBT is a minority, it's more likely that this scenario could never happen, unless the babies share the same sexual orientation as their mothers. We're just one step closer to cloning! Remember Dolly the Sheep?

Can I have links to 3 scholarly articles on whether sexual orientation is a science? Because I haven't found one.

[Neutraligon]

Can I have links to 3 scholarly articles on whether sexual orientation is a science? Because I haven't found one.

Not sure what you mean by sexual orientation is a science. Nor do I know what that has to do with this thread. If you mean if it is based on genetics...well it seems to be at least partially so since identical twins have a higher chance of sharing the same sexuality than non identical twins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_a ... in_studies

[Ancient Humans]

Well, I am assuming you are not interested in the male gender surviving because you are saying you wish for a mono-gendered species that does not require men. Saying you wish for a species of women who can procreate without men is saying without saying that you want/desire/believe men should die out as they are not a requirement any longer.

I never said a desired such a thing. I said it was possible to make a female only species. Similarly should we create male eggs and an artificial womb it would be possible to make a male reproducing population. I make no claim as to the desirability of such a thing, only that it would be possible to do, and no cloning would be necessary.

It is still saying you have a desire for a mono-gender species or two mono-gender species. Also, saying that 'science' will make it possible is rather vague. I know that part isn't completely related but what you're talking about is Genetic Modification which is a science but it is not science as a whole. It's like saying that by using physics I can create a superior race of tree's.

[Ancient Humans]

EDIT:

Knowing that LGBT is a minority, it's more likely that this scenario could never happen, unless the babies share the same sexual orientation as their mothers. We're just one step closer to cloning! Remember Dolly the Sheep?

Can I have links to 3 scholarly articles on whether sexual orientation is a science? Because I haven't found one.

Sexual orientation isn't a science, it is more a result of natural processes becoming defective. I will note, that is not meant to be offensive. It is more an observable fact when you look at some facts (by facts I mean unbiased observations, not opinions).

[Neutraligon]

I never said a desired such a thing. I said it was possible to make a female only species. Similarly should we create male eggs and an artificial womb it would be possible to make a male reproducing population. I make no claim as to the desirability of such a thing, only that it would be possible to do, and no cloning would be necessary.

It is still saying you have a desire for a mono-gender species or two mono-gender species. Also, saying that 'science' will make it possible is rather vague. I know that part isn't completely related but what you're talking about is Genetic Modification which is a science but it is not science as a whole. It's like saying that by using physics I can create a superior race of tree's.

It says no such thing, it only says that it is possible. I do not desire such a thing as I like both men and woman. You are indeed strawmanning my position. Saying it is possible and saying one wants something are not the same thing. I would appreciate if you stop claiming I said something when I never did.

Scientists are currently working on making female sperm and male (and female) eggs, but as I am not a doctor or a biologist I really am not the person to ask about that sort of thing. They are doing this in hopes of two things, allowing homosexual woman are able to have offspring with their significant other, and hoping to allow infertile woman a chance to have offspring of their own.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's fine. While if every woman did it, it would be a troubling trend in terms of genetic diversity being stagnated, the fact is, it's likely to remain a minority practice that should be available to people.

[Ancient Humans]

It is still saying you have a desire for a mono-gender species or two mono-gender species. Also, saying that 'science' will make it possible is rather vague. I know that part isn't completely related but what you're talking about is Genetic Modification which is a science but it is not science as a whole. It's like saying that by using physics I can create a superior race of tree's.

It says no such thing, it only says that it is possible. I do not desire such a thing as I like both men and woman. You are indeed strawmanning my position. Saying it is possible and saying one wants something are not the same thing. I would appreciate if you stop claiming I said something when I never did.

Scientists are currently working on making female sperm, but as I am not a doctor or a biologist I really am not the person to ask about that sort of thing. They are doing this in hopes of two things, allowing homosexual woman are able to have offspring with their significant other, and hoping to allow infertile woman a chance to have offspring of their own.

I respect that and acknowledge it but you did mention creating a mono-gender species in place of humanity as it is, atleast to me it came across as that...I am saying mono-gender to much.

Mono-gender.

[Tierra Prime]

The OP is right in saying that this could cause huge genetic issues and deformities. Everyone has a mix of male and female genes, and while the first child would have a mix of both (Though likely more female genes than male genes), if they went on to have a child in the same way, and so on, you'd eventually end up with a child with no male DNA, which would have massive repercussions on their health and our society. I can easily imagine groups rising up who consider these hypothetical "true women" superior to "mixed women." On the other hand, you could also get groups who consider this process "un-natural" and the children that result from it "abominations."

Umm, DNA is DNA. Do you have evidence that the X from a woman is significantly different from the X of a man? What is male DNA? What is female DNA?

I was referring to male and female specific genes, such as the SRY gene. If you continually produce females through the method described in the OP, the male genes could be filtered out entirely, which could cause issues. A lack of male genes could cause issues, especially if they are used in females for functions we don't know about. Continually "cloning" children could also lead to genetic problems, including sterility.

[Neutraligon]

It's fine. While if every woman did it, it would be a troubling trend in terms of genetic diversity being stagnated, the fact is, it's likely to remain a minority practice that should be available to people.

Well that and the research that allows people to make female sperm and male eggs would also likely allow male sperm and female eggs to also be artificially be created, thus allowing infertile people to have offspring.

[Indo-Malaysia]

This would be a terrible thing to do. Remember what happened to all the Genetically Identical Cuban Banana's? If the majority of population was cloned, and the genetic pool was really small, diseases would spread like wildfire. Cloning should be illegal unless it is for scientific purposes.

[Ancient Humans]

It's fine. While if every woman did it, it would be a troubling trend in terms of genetic diversity being stagnated, the fact is, it's likely to remain a minority practice that should be available to people.

Well that and the research that allows people to make female sperm and male eggs would also likely allow male sperm and female eggs to also be artificially be created, thus allowing infertile people to have offspring.

That is essentially saying that if someone can't reproduce then you should replace their sex organs or put new ones ontop of them. Personally, if I was infertile (I possibly am, I dunno, I never had sex to find out) then I would adopt. There is little sense in bringing a life into the world if there is still one suffering.

[Neutraligon]

Umm, DNA is DNA. Do you have evidence that the X from a woman is significantly different from the X of a man? What is male DNA? What is female DNA?

I was referring to male and female specific genes, such as the SRY gene. If you continually produce females through the method described in the OP, the male genes could be filtered out entirely, which could cause issues. A lack of male genes could cause issues, especially if they are used in females for functions we don't know about. Continually "cloning" children could also lead to genetic problems, including sterility.

So again can you show that a male X chromosome is significantly different from a female X chromosome. In the above scenario it is indeed possible that no more men would be produced (and as far as I am concerned that is not desirable), but I am not sure that would cause a problem. As you responded to me, where I said that cloning was not necessary to allow for female only reproduction I assumed we were no longer talking about cloning...

[Neutraligon]

Well that and the research that allows people to make female sperm and male eggs would also likely allow male sperm and female eggs to also be artificially be created, thus allowing infertile people to have offspring.

That is essentially saying that if someone can't reproduce then you should replace their sex organs or put new ones ontop of them. Personally, if I was infertile (I possibly am, I dunno, I never had sex to find out) then I would adopt. There is little sense in bringing a life into the world if there is still one suffering.

...No it really isn't. It is saying that you take say a skin cell from that person, change it into a sperm or egg (depending on what they want) and then use that sperm/egg for them to make an offspring with another person. While people can still adopt, some really want their own offspring, and this allows them to do so.

[Alvecia]

Are we talking about this research?

The researcher, Dr. Jerry L. Hall, uses chemicals to coax an egg to grow into an embryo of sorts without being fertilized by a male's sperm. Such embryos, even if implanted into a womb, would not grow to become viable babies, Dr. Hall and other experts said. But the embryos can be grown in a laboratory for a few days, long enough to become a source of stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells can turn into virtually all types of the body's cells, potentially providing replacement cells that can be transplanted into patients to cure diseases. But opponents say such research is immoral because deriving stem cells involves destroying embryos, which they see as nascent human life.

Dr. Hall argues that if an ''embryo'' were not formed by conception and would not be able to turn into a child, that might make stem cell work more acceptable.

''We feel that this really could circumvent a lot of ethical concerns,'' said Dr. Hall, an embryologist at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Testing, a fertility clinic here. He presented his work at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in Orlando, Fla., late last month.

Edit:

But Richard M. Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the technique was unlikely to end the opposition the Roman Catholic Church has to embryonic stem cell work.

The real question, he said, is whether these are really embryos. If they are, ''the fact that these beings would not survive to birth does not answer the question,'' he said. ''Our teaching about the embryo does not rely on it having been created by fertilization.''

Numerous scientific questions remain as well about the work, which has not been published in a scientific journal. Dr. Hall, who did the research with Dr. Yan-Ling Feng of the Center for Reproductive Research and Testing in Rockville, Md., said they had not determined whether the stem cells could turn into other types of cells, or even whether the nerve cells were normal.

Edit 2:

Still, Dr. West said it might be possible one day to produce human babies through parthenogenesis. Male parthenotes could be created, too, he said, by replacing the DNA in an egg with the DNA from two of a male's sperm cells.

But male and female parthenotes have shown differences, said Dr. Jose Cibelli, vice president for research at Advanced Cell Technology. Stem cells derived from male par thenotes tend to turn into muscle cells, while stem cells from female parthenotes turned more often into brain and nerve cells, he said.

Dr. West said that if this process could be used to produce live offspring it would open up vast new reproductive possibilities. A woman could give birth by herself. Or two men may be able to each contribute one sperm to have a baby together.

[The Serbian Empire]

Now trans women who are lesbians have a lowered market value in the dating market as lesbians can have babies without men.

[Ancient Humans]

That is essentially saying that if someone can't reproduce then you should replace their sex organs or put new ones ontop of them. Personally, if I was infertile (I possibly am, I dunno, I never had sex to find out) then I would adopt. There is little sense in bringing a life into the world if there is still one suffering.

...No it really isn't. It is saying that you take say a skin cell from that person, change it into a sperm or egg (depending on what they want) and then use that sperm/egg for them to make an offspring. While people can still adopt, some really want their own offspring, and this allows them to do so.

You cannot just take a skin cell and magic it into a sperm cell. You would need to take Stem Cells and grow them into sperm cells or egg cells. It would be like trying to take a tiger and turn it into a bear, you can't as it is already specialized into what it is meant to be...well, that's maybe not the best analogy but you should understand what I mean.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's fine. While if every woman did it, it would be a troubling trend in terms of genetic diversity being stagnated, the fact is, it's likely to remain a minority practice that should be available to people.

Well that and the research that allows people to make female sperm and male eggs would also likely allow male sperm and female eggs to also be artificially be created, thus allowing infertile people to have offspring.

Yeh, good news all round.

[Kelinfort]

What is everyone worried about?

[Neutraligon]

...No it really isn't. It is saying that you take say a skin cell from that person, change it into a sperm or egg (depending on what they want) and then use that sperm/egg for them to make an offspring. While people can still adopt, some really want their own offspring, and this allows them to do so.

You cannot just take a skin cell and magic it into a sperm cell. You would need to take Stem Cells and grow them into sperm cells or egg cells. It would be like trying to take a tiger and turn it into a bear, you can't as it is already specialized into what it is meant to be...well, that's maybe not the best analogy but you should understand what I mean.

It was an example, and actually http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 80153.html

Somatic cells can include skin cells. Actually it is a really terrible analogy and is completely not a similar circumstance.