Creating Babies Without Men

[Cruithneach]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

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.

[The Alexanderians]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

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

[The Blaatschapen]

You have twice as much people to love

So what you're saying is, in order to procreate you will clone yourself or your partner and then realize that it is a copy and then you and your clone/child will have intercourse with your partner or vice versa? Incestual loop hole.

What?!?

No.

I said love, not sex.

[Ashmoria]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

its kinda re-inventing the wheel, eh? only insanely more complicated and expensive than just using the system we have now.

[Ancient Humans]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

Well, to create female sperm it would require either giving the woman testicles or a man a womb but each genders bodies are not capable (as far as I'm aware) of hosting both genders sexual organs without them working properly or practically. The testicles are also required to be outside of the body because they need a temperature several degrees lower than our own body temperature and if we were able to put testicles inside our bodies, you would first need the space and additional organs to keep them cool otherwise you've got denatured sperm making you sterile.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Excellent. One step closer to destroying Texas.

[Ifreann]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

its kinda re-inventing the wheel, eh? only insanely more complicated and expensive than just using the system we have now.

But this wheel will be pink!

[Ancient Humans]

So what you're saying is, in order to procreate you will clone yourself or your partner and then realize that it is a copy and then you and your clone/child will have intercourse with your partner or vice versa? Incestual loop hole.

What?!?

No.

I said love, not sex.

Considering some other people in the thread were talking about sex and sexual benefits, I was lead to believe you were similarly minded. My apologies, I'm unfortunately quick to judge and file people under a certain group.

[Cruithneach]

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

I think that tells me everything I need to know about you.

[Neutraligon]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

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.

No, we use science to artificially make a sperm and inject female DNA into that, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

[Ancient Humans]

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.

No, we use science to take an egg (or other material), transform it into a sperm, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y or, instead, make more and mix X and Y's together.

[Cruithneach]

No, we use science to take an egg (or other material), transform it into a sperm, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y.

Is that necessary? Sperm can carry all X chromosomes.

[Ancient Humans]

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y.

Is that necessary? Sperm can carry all X chromosomes.

Please see my edited post.

[Novus America]

Why does creating babies without men equate to cloning? If we can make female sperm it would not be cloning as we are still combining two different genetic codes (the egg from one woman and the sperm from the other). For men to similarly reproduce is a little harder as not only is male eggs needed, a artificial womb is also necessary.

That too. Still cloning is no big deal. We already have natural clones, identical twins.

[Neutraligon]

No, we use science to take an egg (or other material), transform it into a sperm, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y or, instead, make more and mix X and Y's together.

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. Hell, if we could make male eggs and artificial wombs we could make an all male reproducing species.

[Aelex]

Can't wait for the artificial wombs to be created too. Then we will have both equality AND a cheap way to create a cast of super-soldiers!

[Lingria]

Can't wait for the artificial wombs to be created too. Then we will have both equality AND a cheap way to create a cast of super-soldiers!

Damn Frenchie. Go home. Yor drunks. XD

[Cruithneach]

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y or, instead, make more and mix X and Y's together.

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.

Well, to create men. The majority of women are sexually attracted to men, after all

[Tierra Prime]

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.

No, we use science to artificially make a sperm and inject female DNA into that, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

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."

[Lingria]

No, we use science to artificially make a sperm and inject female DNA into that, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

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."

*cough* Christians

[Neutraligon]

No, we use science to artificially make a sperm and inject female DNA into that, and then artificially inseminate the egg of another woman. Only women would result from this but it would not be cloning.

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?

[Camelza]

Fine by me. As long as the aforementioned babies will be as healthy as babies made through the conventional method.

[Socialist Mercanda]

It's cool that we can have LGBT people have their own biological children

LGBT people could always have their own biological children :/

[Ancient Humans]

That will require changing the X-Chromosome into a Y or, instead, make more and mix X and Y's together.

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.

Well, to create men. The majority of women are sexually attracted to men, after all

Like I said this would make a female only reproducing species. As the OP was specifically about creating babies without men, I did not include sexual desires as a consideration, as it is entirely irrelevant to if it would be possible to make babies without a man.