Creating Babies Without Men

[The Serbian Empire]

Remember, wombs... One can't carry the baby without an individual with a uterus.

We can just carve out a cavity for it inside the pelvic cavity. And shoot you up with loads of estrogens.

It's a lot easier said than done. Remember, one is working with natal male bone structure and thus the pelvis is ill-suited for a uterus.

[Ifreann]

We can just carve out a cavity for it inside the pelvic cavity. And shoot you up with loads of estrogens.

Thats not how estrogen works.

If it worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger it'll work for transwomen. Now practice saying "It's not a tumour" in an Austrian accent.

[The Serbian Empire]

Thats not how estrogen works.

If it worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger it'll work for transwomen. Now practice saying "It's not a tumour" in an Austrian accent.

"I'll be back, with some anatomy textbooks!" in an Austrian accent

[East Catalina]

We can just carve out a cavity for it inside the pelvic cavity. And shoot you up with loads of estrogens.

Thats not how estrogen works.

I'm sorry, I didn't know it didn't work like that.

We can just carve out a cavity for it inside the pelvic cavity. And shoot you up with loads of estrogens.

It's a lot easier said than done. Remember, one is working with natal male bone structure and thus the pelvis is ill-suited for a uterus.

I see. That will have to be taken into account, but I hope it's not impossible to work with this.

Thats not how estrogen works.

If it worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger it'll work for transwomen. Now practice saying "It's not a tumour" in an Austrian accent.

I've made a colossal error.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Frankly we dont need humans to make babies.

After all we have test tube baby factories for a reason.

Sarcasm.

[The Emerald Legion]

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?

This is not new. Cloning has been a thing for ages.

[Computerised Equality]

So, while they might have managed it since, the OP's source is kinda bad. It's almost 15 years out of date, and the research referred to isn't actually about creating babies.

This is another article on the same bit of research, and it's actually about creating sources for stem cells. What's important is this particular paragraph:

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.

So, unless there's another article referenced I've missed since, males can all stop panicking.

[Tierra Prime]

I'm talking about the Y chromosome. If the genes on it are filtered out, it could cause issues, because those same genes could also be used for other reasons in females. This is assuming I'm understanding how this all works, which is highly unlikely if I'm honest.

Why would there be a Y chromosome? Women do not have a Y chromosome. They only have two X chromosomes. Thus men having a Y chromosome would not affect women? Right now the egg of a woman always provides a X chromosome. The sperm of the male determines the sex (normally) by providing either an X or a Y. Normally if an X is provided the offspring is female, and if a Y is provided the offspring is male. The scenario I gave would only ever produce females as women have no Y chromosome, but that would be the same as if a male only ever had females offspring because his sperm all had the X chromosome.

I know women don't have the Y chromosome, what I meant is that if you use the OP's method over and over, the genes that are needed to produce males may be filtered out, which could have unforeseen issues on the female's health. We don't know if those genes are used for anything else in females, or if they are turned into another gene that's on one of the X chromosomes. If they aren't present, either in their male form or as a precursor for the development of another gene, the female's health could suffer.

[Ifreann]

Why would there be a Y chromosome? Women do not have a Y chromosome. They only have two X chromosomes. Thus men having a Y chromosome would not affect women? Right now the egg of a woman always provides a X chromosome. The sperm of the male determines the sex (normally) by providing either an X or a Y. Normally if an X is provided the offspring is female, and if a Y is provided the offspring is male. The scenario I gave would only ever produce females as women have no Y chromosome, but that would be the same as if a male only ever had females offspring because his sperm all had the X chromosome.

I know women don't have the Y chromosome, what I meant is that if you use the OP's method over and over, the genes that are needed to produce males may be filtered out, which could have unforeseen issues on the female's health. We don't know if those genes are used for anything else in females, or if they are turned into another gene that's on one of the X chromosomes. If they aren't present, either in their male form or as a precursor for the development of another gene, the female's health could suffer.

To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, there is no such thing as either male or female genes. Genes are genes.

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Children without a mother and a father would be a tragedy.

[Ifreann]

Children without a mother and a father would be a tragedy.

No they wouldn't.

[Nagrascant]

I think once artificial wombs become a thing this will lead to quite a bit of societal change. Not only will women no longer need men, men will then be able to reproduce without requiring female aid.

It will be interesting to say the least. I the long term this could in fact lead to the formation of two parallel species influenced by the respective sex's most prevalent fashion trends.

I just hope it won't lead to widespread bioterrorism or attempts at exterminating one another.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... ss-births/

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Children without a mother and a father would be a tragedy.

No they wouldn't.

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

[Chessmistress]

Interesting article, it's new?
Researchs are progressing more and more...

This article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaguya_%28mouse%29
Explains why the envisioned technology is not cloning.
Kaguya was born in April 2004, so such technolgy it's very likely to be fully developed and beginning to spread in a matter of 30 years, let's say about 2035. Less than 20 years from now.

I do not understand why people should be worried of such technlogical advancements that are just only likely to give more reproductive freedom to women on the long run.

[Tekeristan]

I think once artificial wombs become a thing this will lead to quite a bit of societal change. Not only will women no longer need men, men will then be able to reproduce without requiring female aid.

It will be interesting to say the least. I the long term this could in fact lead to the formation of two parallel species influenced by the respective sex's most prevalent fashion trends.

I just hope it won't lead to widespread bioterrorism or attempts at exterminating one another.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... ss-births/

Why would it?

Seriously, female/male genders are both human and a lot of us have sexual and emotional attraction to each other. Why does everyone keep diving to "oh gawds we aren't needed anymore!" or something like that? If anything, it will just mean that some people will be born differently. The good ole' way isn't likely to fade out at all because sex is fun.

We aren't going to fall into some instant civil war to the death of men and women, such an idea is just outright preposterous.

[Ifreann]

No they wouldn't.

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

Sez who?

[Zoice]

What is everyone worried about?

Presumably that it'll reduce genetic diversity, which has implications for species survivability.

The entire reason nature selected for two genders is that it increases disease resistance over a number of generations and such, which having a single gene source would undermine.

I'd say it's not really sufficient justification to bar the practice, and at most consumers should be forewarned that their offspring may have a slight disadvantage in immune system terms.

The clone won't have a reduced immune system. The clone will have the same immune system, which isn't a problem for the clone, it's a problem for society if and only everyone is the same and everyone could be taken out of a specific virus.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

Sez who?

Sez Jeebus

No they wouldn't.

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

Opinion =/= fact. There is no fair, scientific study that shows any of that. Unless you want to enlighten me, and link to a source, I am just going to take that as your unsupported opinion and ignore it.

[Mefpan]

I don't see a problem here. Screw what was considered "natural" ten minutes ago. Science marches on, crushing antiquated ideas under the jackboot of progress.

[Ifreann]

Sez who?

Sez Jeebus

The guy with two fathers, neither of whom ever had sex with his mother?

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Sez Jeebus

The guy with two fathers, neither of whom ever had sex with his mother?

Now wait a minute. Mary was impregnated by God. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus had sex with his mother so that she could concieve him.

[Zoice]

No they wouldn't.

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

The data is against you. Two lesbians are actually the best parents. Maybe part of the reasons gay couples tend to be better than straight couples is that they just don't get accidentally pregnant when they aren't ready, but still, you have no evidence for your assertion.

[Ifreann]

The guy with two fathers, neither of whom ever had sex with his mother?

Now wait a minute. Mary was impregnated by God. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus had sex with his mother so that she could concieve him.

Cloning AND incest!

[The Realm of Lordaeron]

Sez who?

Sez Jeebus

children raised by a mother and father simply turn out better.

Opinion =/= fact. There is no fair, scientific study that shows any of that. Unless you want to enlighten me, and link to a source, I am just going to take that as your unsupported opinion and ignore it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

[Ethel mermania]

Children without a mother and a father would be a tragedy.

No they wouldn't.

I dunno, I find orphans tragic