Making babies without eggs may be possible, say scientists

BBC Article

The "may be possible" means in humans not in mice or other organisms in which they have already done this.

Of course that means females or women of any species would no longer be chained as beast of burden to propagate any species... great news for the Panda and other species on endangered to becoming extinct lists. Of course extracting am abundance of sperm could mean an laboratory "Adam" for many eggs of course the genetic faults in doing such would occur very rapidly due to no diversity in traits from adaptation or evolution to adversity found in the environment.

So such a thing is not cut and dry... even eugenicists of the past preaching purity of races was a wrong thing to do as it breeds in more and more defect such as seen in the breeding of dogs that has led to nearly all of the pure breeds having genetic malfunctions and anomalies such as parvo etc. of course some of these kennel associations have allowed a cross breeding in species in an attempt to avoid such practices that are literally breeding them into extinction having been taken out of their habitat that has allowed them to further evolve in relation to the environment to strengthen their genetic lines...

In such a manner adversity can be a good thing as change pushes evolution forward in the adaptation that occurs... in sch a way even cancer is not a bad thing as eventually humanity would adapt and change... but the larger and more complex the organism the more adversity too it the more suffering and loss to the population itself that cannot keep up with the environmental changes to adapt too.

So in essence the very germs diseases and organisms that adapt and infect also aid in pushing us further in evolving and adapting as they do in order to maintain us as a host body...

Which means a civilization in space away from such things over a long period of time would become highly infected in any environment in which they occur... so our own cleanliness can actually become a detriment and actually kill us if we desire to move to such a sterile environment...

So is it any wonder the unwashed masses seem as a detriment to those thinking themselves clean or not a part of it? They fall ill not having been around such things no different than scarlet fever infected blankets of the indigenous native populations in the US.

Of course travel and trade lead to such invasive species or germs seen in the flu or even mosquitoes but yet these things also push human evolution itself... making the whole issue of vaccines, medicine and pandemics a sort of catch-22 in the evolution of the species in adapting to them... more that they apply the brakes so it is to allow us to adapt without incurring a lot of loss in the process of adaptation...

That begs the question... when have we evolved out of them in order to cease the vaccination etc? Well... stifling the blending of all people in segregation only serves to keep some of these age old things around... those not for vaccines have shown that indeed some of the vaccines are still needed when an out break has occurred for that disease.

Such a very neat field and it's implications obviously global covering all populations of life itself as a whole when looked at closely.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Isn't the best part of making a baby the trying?

I know I like trying, even though we can't have anymore. Take that away and that leaves.....talking *shudders*

a reply to: TerryDon79

By the same argument... isn't growing, raising, and then cooking all the materials required to eat make better food?

There are more to women and life than the pleasure one takes in the act of making more life... if it wasn't pleasurable then we wouldn't do it... so your personal attachment to the pleasure of it is just that personal no matter how many may agree with the statement. Since it is a personal thing it also becomes moot to the discussion presented... although if you are volunteering to impregnate all of the female species yourself? Duly noted.

Edit to add I did not star your post the same as you neither stared nor flagged the OP

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

'twas a joke. Haha and all that.

Also, the reason I haven't starred and/or flagged it is because I haven't finished reading through the study. Kind of got sidetracked with beer and it being almost 3am.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

Edit to add I did not star your post the same as you neither stared nor flagged the OP

What an incredibly odd thing to add.

Also, "beast of burden" is a cringe-worthy way to summarize the female reproduction process.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Now I've finished reading it.

Firstly, you still need an egg. It's just the fertilisation doesn't use "egg cells". The egg is still needed.

Secondly, the fertilised cells still need a host (beast of burden as you so eloquently put it) to grow/develop inside of.

It's more to do with the sperm being reprogrammed to fertilise cells that aren't egg cells.

It is interesting though.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Well, I don't see subjecting women to being sexual beasts of burden as a joke.

Just looking at the roles society and the various ideologies has place women in those various roles due to wanting to propagate such ideologies using them as cattle to bear children to it world wide is nothing to laugh at...

To me it speaks of the possibility of more women choosing to bear or not... not being constantly pushed or forced or coerced, raped or otherwise controlled into doing that.

Men cannot create life without women or outside of the lab... hence the whole womb envy of so many world religions claiming god is a man... using the excuse that women are evil and in no way equal.

It is a sad absurdity... when by all intensive means? They are superior because they can do all the same things any man can do and bring forth life... but but sperm. Um no, two female eggs can fertilize each other and it will birth a female every single time two sperm cannot do the same thing... sperm have roles when seeking an egg, some actually kill each other some run block and some sprint so there goes the whole subconscious desire to watch sports and violence that few are aware of.

It's like watching sperm play ball in order to score... every male alive made a touchdown or they wouldn't be here... ever stop to thank all the ones that died or killed so you could make it to that egg? Doubtful anyone was routing for the other team that may or may not have been present.

Yes I'm being slightly cynical and for good reason.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well see my last post.

I didn't find it funny and the star drive by would have suggested I did.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

What is it with you and saying "beasts of burden"?!

Also, sexualisation isn't limited to just females. Men are subjected to it too.

And, at the moment, a woman still needs a male sperm to have a baby. I know the study you're speaking of and, so far, it's just an actuality in animals, not humans.

so, when they figure out how to make babies without sperm we can get rid of women and men and just have a bunch of sexless clones populate the earth.
sounds kind of like that conspiracy theory that aliens are humans from the future who have lost the ability to reproduce.
oh well, who cares, by that time we will all be dead and it will be their problem.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Women do not need sperm to have a baby thanks for finally reading the OP if you read the last thing posted you wouldn't have posted that either... they also don't need the domination used to insure propagation by various groups to continue spreading whatever ideology it is due to advances in not only equality but also now technology as mentioned in the OP.


www.sciencemag.org...

It means freedom can be insured and these stupid ideologies that do NOTHING but cause war and chaos and control instead of advancement can be what are left to die.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

This post and article I'm replying to is irrelevant. It's about mice, not humans.

Also, you're trying to insinuate that wars are created because of women getting pregnant?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Your posts thus far have been irrelevant to the OP please take time to read what has been provided to each of your comments... so they are relevant to the discussion or else I'll simply have to ignore your commentary from now on as adding anything to it.

Cheers.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Your op was addressed by my second reply.

You then post about mice and try and equate it to female humans and insinuate that pregnant women are the cause of wars.

I addressed all that you posted, even pointing out the irrelevance of a study done with mice.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Your comprehension is lacking likely because you have gone onto defense of your personal belief about the topic thus far.

Yay sex feels great this technology is stupid

Haha women still need sperm

Obviously personal opinions that many people share so no need to go on defense of anyone except as I have to the women held hostage by those very things distilled out and taken as personal belief, despite having as previously mentioned quite a few sharing those sexist sentiments regardless of the gender doing it.

When you presented inequality I presented the opposite to balance it. As that is not what this discussion is about then saying women do the same thing as an excuse for the continuance of the behavior is a rationalization for its continuance and not for one of equality.

I pointed out that it is the belief in those ideologies that are what cause this inequality... which of course is a personal opinion that has group support.

Whether one has group support in whatever opinion or ideology is irrelevant in such a thing called personal responsibility.

Deflection and making excuses for the behavior is not taking personal responsibility but experiencing self defense for holding such beliefs or ideologies as ones own.

If it was worth holding onto then it would not need such a thing as defense... they could stand on their own.

But making fun and laughing about it when looking at the entire world when women all over are not seen as equals in society is what is called kicking someone while they are down, which is why I went to their defense in order to balance it out and not turn into some juvenile discussion that accomplishes nothing but insuring the status quo of women stay unequal in that kicking with a wink wink they deserve it right buddy?

I will not condone such a thing and I would hope no one else would either. Place the shoe on the other foot where men were unequal better believe i would stand up to prevent the kicking then too if the shoe was on the other foot.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

It's not my fault you don't possess a sense of humour to understand my first reply. And show me ANYWHERE I said the technology was stupid?

As for the rest of it.....nice rant, but what have I got to do with your post about women don't need sperm, when it's actually got to do with mice?!

a reply to: TerryDon79

No I don't find sexism done by either gender funny never have and never will.

If all the nonsense is removed and framework lain out which is what I have done that's all you have done in your "discussion" of this thread... even admitting not to have read any of it and then later saying you had, if you read the first sentence your later saying only mice becomes moot.

So the only thing you have added to this discussion is trolling.

I will feed you not longer; take care.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: TerryDon79

Well, I don't see subjecting women to being sexual beasts of burden as a joke.

Just looking at the roles society and the various ideologies has place women in those various roles due to wanting to propagate such ideologies using them as cattle to bear children to it world wide is nothing to laugh at...

Women have a uterus. That's biology, not bigotry. If men had a uterus and all the other reproductive equipment too, they'd be able bear children.

But they don't.

So they can't.

Say HI! to reality.

Yes I'm being slightly cynical

Slightly?

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Dude! The second link you used to "prove" women don't need sperm to have a baby is ALL about mice lol. There's not even a mention of it being tried on humans.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The possibility is obviously there... and that's what all of this is eluding too so stop being a dingaling for the obvious.

Here's your captains hat: