Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Women may make their own sperm

Women may make their own sperm

This we need?

How is it on a planet wholly overpopulated there are still people spending time worrying about some poor woman's inability to make things worse?

Everyone thinks, "Oh, just one or two won't hurt". Besides our culture pushes the idea that the ultimate fulfilment for a woman is to have a child. Mind you, I suppose many people make money out of the idea.

So true Dan and Terry.

This will very big business.

How will men feel when we truly are redundant?

I can feel my manhood shriveling as I type.

Blacknad.

We are already truly redundant except for killing the occasional spider. Any male that doesn't realize that is going to have a remarkably unhappy time.

1000 women need only one man ... and he isn't either of us. <g>

I kill spiders too!! So prepare for total redundance DA!

Am I being unduly emotional when I say this makes me feel sick---or at least very very uneasy? How do you explain to the child that it is the product of a female egg and a bit of female bone marrow from the forearm, I think it was?

Do you think the children resulting from in vitro fertilization are somehow damaged by the fact that they weren't the result of an accident in the back seat of a car by two slightly inebriated 20 year olds?

Children accept what is normal.

I've little doubt the child of Anna Nicole Smith will some day, upon learning of its origins, be a strong advocate for a less "natural" parentage (a mother dead from a drug overdose, a father on the birth certificate who wasn't, etc.)

DA wrote: Children accept what is normal

What part of cloning a sperm from bone marrow tissue is normal?

Of course children survive appalling adult behaviour in spite of their parents. I just feel very sorry for this potential little girl with only one parent, her mother, involved in her 'begatting'.

Normal is whatever children are told by their parents is normal.

Normal in Seattle is not normal in Lesotho.
Normal in Yellow Knife is not normal in Fiji.
Normal in 1740 was not normal in 1940.
And what is normal in 2007 won't be normal in 2107.

Normal is that which is accepted by most people.

There was a time, not very long ago, when slavery was considered normal.

I dont understand what all the fuss is about?

If women want a healthy baby they wont be making their own Sperm in a hurry.
I thought the sex chromosome in a male was XY
Women dont have a Y

Saved by the bell

Mike Kremer

Don't understand why but the lack of Y was not going to be a problem according to the article I read, but the resulting child would have to be female.

When it comes to getting babies normal IS the same in Lesotho, Sierra Leone, Denmark and ANYWHERE, and because we are mammalian animals it is the same for dogs, cats, elephants,mice, all of the mammals. You see DA -the boy animal and the girl animal have this very special way of making little animals, normally, and it does not involve the use of bone marrow from the arm.

Yes, since only the male gonads produce gametes containing the Y chromosome, one might reasonably assume that if stem cells of females can be developed into male gametes, then the result could only be XX, females only - unless there's a way around that.

Ellis wrote:
"You see DA -the boy animal and the girl animal have this very special way of making little animals, normally"

Wonderful. Go tell that to the thousands of children born of in-vitro fertilization. Tell them they are not normal.

And while you are at it tell that to the kids born of surrogate mothers. Tell them they are not normal either.

I suspect it won't be a pleasant experience.

Medicine in 2007 is not what it was in 1007. And sure won't be the same in 3007 either. It will change. The question is not if ... but when.

Ellis, I think you're concerned about the process rather than the product. I have no such concerns. Children born by such unconventional means are likely to be the result of a sincere and determined effort to bring about their existence. The same very often cannot be said for children born by conventional means, in which Sigmund Freud's 'pleasure principle' plays a dominant role, and the offspring are all too often a mere byproduct.

As for the product, although the process is modified, the outcome is unquestionably 'normal'. Stgmatization is not only uncalled for, it's also cruel.

DA-Children born as a result of IVF have the same beginning as all children, They are the result of the joining of a sperm and an egg.

Red- Damn right I'm concerned about the process, it's what makes procreation worthwhile.

This proposal, and that of cloning seems unecessary. I know people who want children have the opportunity now to have them, even in the face of infertility, but the process is not without its problems. We are too many on the planet already, and to me it seems an indulgence to thwart nature as we do. I have a reason for my attitude. As a result of my teaching career in Special Ed I have seem many lovely children with uncertain futures due to problems which sometimes have an origin in medical areas of treament or procedures. I cannot take the consolation that many of their parents do and state it is the will of god, I just feel we need to be sure not to add to their number by our pride in our achievements.

Ellis: "Red- Damn right I'm concerned about the process, it's what makes procreation worthwhile."

- I wouldn't worry too much; the fair sex don't seem ready to abandon men if they can help it. Seriously, though, you underline what I'm saying - the pleasure of the moment often becomes the only point. As I said, children are too often a mere byproduct. Those who feel the need to resort to artificial procedures do at least show a desire to have a child.

Ellis: "We are too many on the planet already, and to me it seems an indulgence to thwart nature as we do."

- This is not going to make a difference to world population, provided the procedure is made available only to those who cannot bear children 'normally'. A woman having children by artificial means will not have any other children. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity?

- Ellis, perhaps everything from a bandaid, to blood-doning, to a heart transplant could be seen as "thwarting nature"; but how do you differentiate 'natural' from 'unnatural'? Can the activities of human beings be separated from their nature, or are they part of it? Can we say that a finch using a twig to seek out insects is doing what comes naturally, while a human using an endoscope to find a tumour is interfering with nature?

Ellis wrote:
"Children born as a result of IVF have the same beginning as all children, They are the result of the joining of a sperm and an egg."

And a child would know this how?
By being told by whom?
At what age?
And the child, in a world where this was normal would care why?

The only indication that this child would have that it wasn't normal would be someone such as you trying to make the child uncomfortable.

No different than people making children with dark skin or whose parent is divorced, or who was adopted feel less worthy. You might want to consider your attitude as being nothing more than pre-prejudice.

We already know that the ladies make better pilots, mountain climbers, astronauts and, in general, hold up better under conditions of physical and/or emotional duress. Hmmm, what's left?

A beast of burden or object of sexual entertainment,,, I feel so dirty;)

Anyone wishing to understand, a bit better, what reality looks like might want to spend some time considering the value of a male black widow spider or praying mantis in the reproductive process.

If males want to have value in the future ... they are going need to figure out what it is.

1. Bread winner? Gone.
2. Ditch digger? Gone.
3. Mighty hunter? Gone.
4. Fearless Warrior? Likely not required if other men aren't a threat.

An overabundance of testosterone had value 500,000 and 50,000 years ago. That value is rapidly diminishing and perhaps is just an anachronism.

I am actually female Red.

The thing that I notice in responses to this topic is that there is a huge difference between male and female attitude to this. In the 60s for the first time ever women were able to reliably control their fertility, this was a huge change in male/female relationships that remains unremarked on even now. Sex for women is now risk free (I'm talking about pregnancy here!) Or is it? With every sexual act a woman knows that while her fertility lasts (until 50 ish), even if she uses contraception, there is always a remote chance of pregnancy. Women have always had to face up to ethical and moral situations that men often know nothing about!! You see it is possible for men to be the parent of a child and know nothing about its existence-- that is absolutely not possible for a woman. This naturally colours the way women feel about this sort of research.

DA-- You are so right. There is no need now for men apparently- not while women have arms! But cheer up. All women have a place in their lives for a loving supportive partner--and the majority of us, for one reason or another prefer to have that person father our children, and help us raise a family together. I think that will always be so. But you blokes are going to have to work a little at it, because we no longer have to make it easy for you!

Ellis wrote:
"we no longer have to make it easy for you!"

The sooner you ladies do the sooner we will eliminate many, if not most, of the planet's ills.

When we say "man made problems" oh do we mean it ... literally.

Female biology is still 50,000 years back reacting to big strong brutes the way male biology is still trying to deal with problem that have not existed for 10,000+ years.

The males won't wake up until the females motivate them to do so. Teenage girls need to be educated by their mothers to stop reacting positively to aggressive stupidity.

We can hope.

My respect for your point of view has been duly upgraded.

Even that may change. Is our species in the process of recreating itself? - Mutual independence via asexual reproduction? The end of sex wars, and a befitting evolution of a selfish nature?

i think that Blacknad has a point...what will happen to us men when and not if women start making their own sperm?
what will happen to us? i sense a dictatorship with men as slaves and nothing higher than dirt...
but the ball is rolling and u cant stop science (thank god 4 that)
but in this case i would like it to slow down...

"what will happen to us men when and not if women start making their own sperm?"

I think at this point the question is a bit premature. In the meantime I suggest you men take some sensitivity training and learn to put the toilet seat down. If you can't make yourselves indispensable at least quit being obnoxious.

One of my brothers suggested that the way to end wars is to exterminate every man from age 15 to 55. Not a savory choice, but it might work. BTW, that includes him.

this is true but i dont think its goin to happen in a flash but i do think its possible that it could happen in the next decade...or two (i personally hope 2)

but u r right...

Truly-Grim wrote:

"i sense a dictatorship with men as slaves and nothing higher than dirt..."

How would they get men without having sperm containing a Y-chromosome? Their slaves will have to be other women. I'm sure they'll manage that easily enough.

Rede- You will now look at my posts differently, which is why I usually do not reveal that I am female due to the "gosh that's OK for a woman factor" or even worse the "well that explains it" factor! It was ever thus. Think of Currer Bell, Georges Sand, George Elliott and more recently James Tiptree, P.D. James and J.K.Rowlings-women all of them and there have been many more. And personally I do not think that having women in charge will ensure world peace----there is always the Maggie Thatcher anology, she was as ruthless as any male.

Rose has a point when she urges you blokes to relax and be nice. Most of us like you and we would be lonely without you, (not as bereft as you would be without us, but a bit unhappy!) I would urge anyone a with girl child in their care to never, never, never to call her 'princess' and then, hopefully, she will not spend the rest of her life waiting for rescue and the handsome prince to turn up. Instead she will feel able to rescue herself and marry the prince if she wants, or she could win a Nobel Prize or join Doctors without Borders or breed labradors...whatever! Her choice -not her destiny!

I really dislike the direction of this research. I think that male and female complement each other, and I fail to see any advantage in substituting this bizarre arrangement.

I find the insecurity my fellow males have around this subject puzzling and perhaps explanatory as to why their behaviour is so often anachronistic.

Sexual reproduction, as a mechanism, seems to be a decent strategy for mixing genes and inducing variation ensuring survivability.

If that goal can be achieved more efficiently in the lab, and this is something not far into the future, then the natural method becomes a typewriter ribbon in a world of computers.

Ellis: "I think that male and female complement each other".

- Well, yes...what's new? . Although you do have a point - there seem to be some who aren't so sure.

Ellis: "You will now look at my posts differently, which is why I usually do not reveal that I am female"

- It's the nature of the complementarity (that you mentioned) that, with regard to certain aspects of life, sometimes makes it important to identify the masculine and feminine perspectives - to me, that's a fact almost too obvious to be worth stating. The male and female perspectives are often different. That doesn't mean that one is 'wrong' and the other 'right'. They are two sides of the same coin, and both have value.

Ellis: '"gosh that's OK for a woman factor" or even worse the "well that explains it" factor!"'

- Let's both hope that you find no evidence of such sarcasm and condescension from me.

Ellis: "I really dislike the direction of this research"

- Sooner or later, somewhere or other, the research would be done; we may like it or not, but there's no prospect of preventing it. As with so many lines of research, this one has potential for good and bad.

Unfortunately there is some research that should perhaps not be done. (Now that is a heracy to a scientist.) I know that advancing knowledge is all-important, but I am thinking of the unethical research of the likes of Mengele, and the moral dilemma posed by the seemingly useful results. Do you use the results obtained in such a disgusting way saying that the end justifies the means, or do you scrap them and start again?

Of course the research in question here is not so offensive, but it still poses tricky questions for the future that are not being fully explored.

Rede-So far I have steered clear of either condescension or sarcasm here. I like looking at the topics and often I have done further reading to help me understand what the heck you are all on about, which has to be good!

Ellis wrote:
"Unfortunately there is some research that should perhaps not be done. (Now that is a heracy to a scientist."

Actually it is a bit more difficult than that. There are certainly ethical issues related to some projects. But I don't think any knowledge should be off-limits.

The decisions as to what to do with the knowledge. For example knowing that hydrogen can be fused into helium, might be used to understand the sun or to build bombs. The implementation of the technology to destructive ends is not a matter of science but rather one where society needs to take control. Tens of thousands of gas centrifuges, for example, don't build themselves.

I don't find this research to involve any ethical issues. Though I will readily acknowledge that there may be ethical issues, in the future, with respect to implementation.

However if the end result of this research is that sperms are not required to create happy healthy babies in the arms of loving mothers who want them. The only ethical issue I can see is whether we can use duct tape on the mouths of the dinosaurs.

Yes, DA, I subscribe to those views.

Here's a new word for the forum lexicon - "Morganism". This is a Grade A example:

"The only ethical issue I can see is whether we can use duct tape on the mouths of the dinosaurs."

Has anyone mentioned that this is a load of bollox.

What is bollux Ed? DA ,or the sperm, or the dinosaur (which I must confess I don't understand!), or the lot?

Ellis, I did notice that you addressed your question to DA, but:

Definition of dinosaur:
"2. outmoded person or thing: somebody or something that is hopelessly out of date or incapable of adapting to change"
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

DA made a point in a good humoured way. The point being that, in view of the potential for good that could result from this research, it might be beneficial to society if those 'dinosaurs' were, let's say, somewhat less vocal in their opposition!

The only bollox so far is that such a statement would be made and no link and not a shred of supporting information provided.

Scientific opinion is not swayed by posturing.

I know you can do far better Eduardo. How about stating the basis for your opinion with a reference?

I have five intelligent, independent, beautiful sisters. I am well aware of the pointless and arbitrary 'chest-pounding' that goes on among myself and my six brothers. However, if anyone is sincerely convinced that female domination would result in even a remotely more peacful existence, I am afraid that they are in a desperate need of a history lesson; been ther, tried that; same result ladies. Sorry. The heart of the problem is not with the sex that propagates it, it lies within the dark domain of ignorance...plain and simple.

Actually when the planet experienced Female dominance the patterns of society were a bit different. Typically the female dominant side of the brain is intuitive and sensitive, willing to work with the environment. When the female side is balanced with logic it doesn't run amok. The male side is somewhat different in that it uses logic to try and control or rule nature rather than to tune into it and as a result tries to dominate or manipulate it. When the logical urge is balanced with the intuitive side, the female half of the brain becomes the male sides muse.

There have been many times intuition reaches out to make sense of reality but at the present moment the ideology of male pride, greed, and motivation to control often squashes intuition and remains destructive. This influence has spread even to the female side of the human species. It would take some time to transmute the damage and influence even if women were to suddenly have the reigns to the wagon and were to steer humanity toward a goal that would eventually evolve into something different.

The role playing isn't the issue nor the solution. A balance has to occur in the human psyche before humanity can ascend its current state of ignorance to create not only enlightenment within the individual but in humanity itself.