Same-Sex Conception: Scientists Seek Ethical Approval in U.K.
In case any of you do not read Drudge, from the April 13
U.K. Independent:
"Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today.
Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue.
The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm. . ."
posted by maggie at
9:12 PM | link
Ahh yes... more "gender equality" coming down the pipe...
Some of us are still wondering when men can create children without involving women... (and when we can kill them at our convenience even IF women are involved, and even IF they object)
Further proof that when it comes to mothers and fathers, separate is simply NOT equal.
Somehow, this doesn't seem to bother the feminists or homosexuals, who still (falsely) claim to be all about "equality".
As a member of Western civilization, it is news items like this that make me think that maybe it is time the West has got to go. In the 70s, when Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was airing, I remember one episode where he mused at how much more scientifically advanced (and into space) we would have been if barbaric conquerers had not all but destroyed Greek civilization. I'm reminded of this because in many ways the Greeks were at a similar point in their civilization that we are in ours--depraved and amoral.
An astute observation anon@11:39, especially considering that there are more than a few "barbaric conquerors" who wish us a similar end, because of our depravity and ammorality.
Of course, our enlightened leftists would rather not discuss the enemy at the gate... ignorance (not to mention depraved immorality) being bliss and all that...
It's all Bush's fault, right?
John Howard has been completely vindicated.
The man stands tall, and both prophet and sage.
(Seriously!)
Well, where is John Howard when you need him? Sound the Kayuga alarm. It is time to enact legislation preventing such Mengeleian practices. Here we have further efforts at sex segregation. They will only be able to produce females as they cannot obtain a Y chromosome without a man. The number of failed attempts and biologically defective people will be staggering just as with cloning.
"I don't think there is an ethical barrier, so long as it's safe." (Prof. Nayernia of Kayuga fame.) Safe for whom? Safe for the professor of course. Echoes of Josef Mengele.
Congress wake up! It's on the brink of happening.
Of course, this has nothing to do with accepting homosexual "marriage." It may become possible for a woman to procreate with just herself, without a partner, or with a surrogate chimpanzee. Society is not obligated to grant that person or trans-species pair marriage rights and privileges. Marriage still requires what it has always required, the union of a man and a woman with the potential for responsible procreation.
Jose said:
They will only be able to produce females as they cannot obtain a Y chromosome without a man.
The article states:
Women might soon be able to produce sperm ... ... The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men.
Is a sperm without a Y chromo really even a "sperm" at all? Or something radically different...
Maybe we can soon forget the amorality of T-shirts that read "My Daddy's Dame is Donor", while we embrace the ones that say "My Daddy is my Mommy"
Maybe now (just maybe), Maggie (among others) will acknowedge the questions John Howard has put to her so many times over the past few years. Here's hoping she's already planning a column to bring this impending travesty into the mainstream media.
Ach! Where is John Howard when you need him?! This is, like, his worst nightmare...
Marty, half of your sperm carry a Y and half carry an X. The ones with an X will create a female (all eggs are X's because women are XX), the ones wiht a Y will create a male.
This is how they are able to do sex selection - the sperms with X's a slightly heavier and so they can sort them.
But the X and Y aren't the only differences between male and female genomes. The entire genome is imprinted differently, as soon as it begins forming an embryo. If it is going to be a male or a female, the process of methylation or imprinting turns "on" or "off" different genes across all the chromosomes, not just the "sex" chromosomes. It is the imprinting that is complementary, and the reason that both sexes are required.
Creating a sperm from a woman's stem cells would require changing the methylation, or imprinting, so that it could be joined with another woman's imprinting. Otherwise we will get two copies of a gene turned on, or none turned on, when an embryo needs exactly one copy turned on.
This is where the random experimentation comes in, because we don't really know which genes are on and off and what all the differences are between male and female imprinting. It is why it takes 450 tries to get one mouse to come out right.
And everyone remember: We don't have to allow people to do this! Loving v Virginia explicitly states that there are supportable basis to prevent certain relations from procreating together. The huge risk of birth defects is a supportable basis, as is the cost and the unnecessary nature of it, and the effect it would have on equality vis a vis genetic engineering and natural conception.
People should know right now that if they are ever going to conceive a child, it will be with someone of the other sex, who will be their child's other parent.
We should make a law right now that prohibits non male-female conception, there is no reason not to call for such a law and insist that Congress enact it right away. It should not be an issue in the 2008 elections, it should be resolved right now.
Mary, John has also commented at Opine, under a post by Jose.
It's ironic that, due to the prevalence of "scientific thinking," many modern people cannot bring themselves to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin while science is now telling us that it may be able to enable humans to reproduce asexually.
Sperm consists of either a Y or an X chromosome. Although sperm is being produced from the bone marrow of women or of men, women will not have the ability to generate sperm of Y chromosomes that are only found men. Sperm generated from a woman could only have an X chromosome that when fused with a gamete from a woman conceives the XX (female) zygote. Hence, only females can be conceived from this female same-sex reproduction. Now I suppose that the woman from whose bone marrow the sperm is taken could even impregnate herself! She wouldn’t need another woman.
This is getting very close to the asexual reproduction that is found among certain lizards. Geckos and certain other lizards reproduce both asexually (parthenogenesis) and sexually. (They do prefer sexua reproduction. It must be more fun.) Their asexual reproduction produces only females which are in reality clones.
Sounds like the ultimate feminism. Who needs males for the propagation of the species? But self-impregnation? Would it cause inbreeding problems? I haven’t heard of any such problems with the lizards.
Should self-impregnated women be given marital rights and benefits? They probably love themselves dearly. If there are plural marriages and homosexual “marriages” who is to say we should stop stretching the definition of marriage and discriminate against self-impregnated women from “marrying” themselves? I would insist that it should not be called marriage. Perhaps civil union. Civil partnership is not applicable but a “sole proprietorship” relationship is a possibility just as “homosexual relationship” best describes that activity.
Of course it is all absurd. We must enact legislation to prohibit such Mengeleian genetic engineering.
Anonymous at 4:29 PM draws an interesting analogy with Jesus’ virgin birth. The trouble here is that Jesus is a male and all known parthenogenesis or possible self-impregnation produces only females. Hmm. Where did his male Y chromosome come from? No doubt from his Father.
Recently it has been discovered that the Komodo dragon reproduces males and “inviable” (do not develop) offspring by parthenogenesis but no females. They seem to have a different set of chromosomes: Female WZ, Male ZZ, and WW inviable. Only ZZ and WW are hatched. They normally reproduce sexually. It’s quite fascinating. There do not seem to be any homosexual Komodo dragons but they do have incestuous relationships. The male offspring produced by parthenogenesis may mate with their mother and have both male and female offspring. This form of reproduction reduces genetic diversity and apparently was only observed for the first time last Dec. 20th, almost in time for Christmas. It appears only two cases are known. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon
Post a Comment
<< Home