Making babies - no sperm required

[dylan_73]

The BBC tell here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1431000/1431489.stm) how a new technique has been developed whereby an egg can be fertilised by any cell from the body; no sperm required.

This was developed as a new fertility treatment which could benefit infertile men, but I take it this is exciting news for lesbian couples, who could now have a baby girl of their very own.

What do you see as the ethical implications of this (if any)? It could come to the point (if we later found a way to treat genetic disorders easily) where a person could have a baby with themselves...

[Mangetout]

Same issues (if any) as cloning I would imagine.

[kabbes]

The inevitable result, since the offspring of two females would be female, is the eventual extinction of the male half of the species. Obviously.

pan

[dylan_73]

Mangetout: I suppose so, technically, but it feels different to me. I think a couple would prefer a child that was biologically both of theirs, rather than a clone of one of them.

And what about kabbes point. Are males now biologically redundant? ;)

Do you consider there to be any moral issues in this at all? No human child has ever had two female parents...

[AHunter3]

http://members.aol.com/ahunter4/SCUM_Manifesto.html


(eat your heart out, Andy Warhol)

[casdave]

Be interesting to see how the divorce courts get alimony from the walking wallets, usually referred to as ex-husbands

[Lemur866]

If you fertillized one of your own eggs it would be different than cloning. This process is called "selfing" and occurs in many species that produce both male and female gametes, the most obvious examples being plants. Most plants produce both types of gametes. Some have flower structures that inhibit selfing, others have flowers that promote it. For instance, some peas have flowers that only open after the ovary has been fertillized, so the only source of pollen is from the flower itself.

The process wouldn't create a clone, since the offspring would have a reshuffled genome. Most individuals have plenty of heterozygous alleles, so the offspring would inherit in a classic punnet square fashion....half would be heterozygous like the parent, one quarter homozygous dominant and one quarter homozygous recessive. So the offspring wouldn't be exactly identical to the parents, but still much closer than a typical child, sibling, or parent.


However, I imagine that this wouldn't be a good idea for most mammals. Plants that do this typically produce thousands of seeds. If one seed gets two doses of a lethal recessive, it simply fails to develop, no big deal. But humans have a different reproductive strategy. Having even one child with severe deleterious recessives would be a disaster. So, human selfing is almost certainly a bad idea. Human cloning however, would simply produce a copy of the parent, and so it wouldn't expose the deleterious recessives.

[elfkin477]

Originally posted by kabbes
The inevitable result, since the offspring of two females would be female, is the eventual extinction of the male half of the species. Obviously.

pan

I don't think it's obvious. That it might be possible doesn't mean it will be favored over normal procreation, or even common.

[ssj_man2k]

I think it will be great for lesbians. I don't think there will be as many problems as with cloning. I doubt the male species will be wiped out, all females aren't lesbians. :P

[kabbes]

Originally posted by elfkin477
Originally posted by kabbes
The inevitable result, since the offspring of two females would be female, is the eventual extinction of the male half of the species. Obviously.

pan

I don't think it's obvious. That it might be possible doesn't mean it will be favored over normal procreation, or even common. Ah yes - the sounds of the lesser spotted whoosh.

pan

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by dylan_73
Mangetout: I suppose so, technically, but it feels different to me. I think a couple would prefer a child that was biologically both of theirs, rather than a clone of one of them.

Good point.

I'm sure I heard about this technique years and years ago.

Anyway Kabbes, a world consisting of women only will eventually be overrun by house spiders and unopened pickle jars, won't it?
<runs for cover>

[kabbes]

Yes, and shelves that are wonky.

pan

[tevya]

Note to self: buy stock in Good Vibrations.

[andygirl]

I personally find the news very exciting. As a lesbian, I would love to have a child of mine be the direct biological child of myself and my partner. (Or at least have it be an option up there with adoption.)

I don't imagine it will be an excessively popular option, but I'd be grateful to have it.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by AHunter3
http://members.aol.com/ahunter4/SCUM_Manifesto.html


(eat your heart out, Andy Warhol)
What is that supposed to mean?

[Lemur866]

See "I Shot Andy Warhol". The woman who shot him was the founder of SCUM...the Society for Cutting Up Men, a rabid male-hater. I imagine she'd be pleased by the news that men were not required for reproduction.

[PosterChild]

Just thought I'd point out a major difference between this fertilization and cloning:
The daughter produced by this fertilization will have her own combination of chromosomes and not be a copy of either parent.

If I understand the story correctly, they induce meiosis in somatic cells, so genetically, it would be as if the donor were donating sperm, even if the cell came from a donors breast.

So, except for the lack of sex involved, I don't see the problem. (Of course, this presumes all the practical problems are worked out, since they haven't even been able to produce a live birth with the process.)

Yours truly,
PC

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Lemur866
See "I Shot Andy Warhol". The woman who shot him was the founder of SCUM...the Society for Cutting Up Men, a rabid male-hater. I imagine she'd be pleased by the news that men were not required for reproduction.
I think I understand. So AHunter3 is implying membership in this group? Am I the only one that thinks that linking to a hate-filled diatribe against half the human race is, at the very least, kinda pushing the "don't be a jerk" rule?

[Tenar]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Originally posted by Lemur866
See "I Shot Andy Warhol". The woman who shot him was the founder of SCUM...the Society for Cutting Up Men, a rabid male-hater. I imagine she'd be pleased by the news that men were not required for reproduction.
I think I understand. So AHunter3 is implying membership in this group? Am I the only one that thinks that linking to a hate-filled diatribe against half the human race is, at the very least, kinda pushing the "don't be a jerk" rule?
Although I can understand your distress, since men are the only group (besides fat people!) which can be almost universally belittled with impunity in "polite" society in the US today, I think AHunter3 is making a joke. My perception is that the joke is not against men, but against SCUM. Valerie Solanas was an intelligent but very mentally ill individual whose writings are amusing in much the same way that Chick Tracts are. The fact that one acknowledges their existence does not imply that one is in agreement with their contents. The "Eat your heart out, Andy Warhol" comment was kind of borderline, considering that Ms. Solanas nearly murdered him outright, and that I am given to understand that lingering complications from the shooting contributed to his eventual death, but even GD is no stranger to a little archness sometimes.

Add me to the list of people who would like (or "would have liked," since my wife is dead) to have a biological baby with my female partner. As it was, the only sperm-donor options available would have been her father or her brother, which was too creepy to contemplate! The clone question is kind of dicey, though. I don't know if I would be comfortable raising a child who would have to face the knowledge of her own biological non-uniqueness. It doesn't help that I just saw A.I. yesterday.

Originally posted by casdave:
Be interesting to know how the divorce courts get alimony from the walking wallets, usually referred to as ex-husbands.

casdave, I don't know how this has anything to do with the subject at hand, which is reproduction without male gametes. Divorce is not the issue, nor is alimony (properly known as "maintenance" or "spousal support," and equally applicable to both ex-husbands and ex-wives). In addition, alimony is rarely awarded these days, and when it is, it is usual for a finite period of time. If you or someone you know has been burned in a bad divorce and are bitter, I can understand, but your posting here implies an anger which is so strong that it permeates any discussion revolving around women. I find that I am almost as disturbed by it as The Ryan was about the S.C.U.M. Manifesto reference. Why not start a thread about your subject? GD, MPMIMS, IMHO or The Pit -- your choice, depending upon the slant you take in your OP.

[foolsguinea]

kabbes was joking about the elimination of the male sex?

Oh. Well, I read Joanna Russ's The Female Man. This news is shudder-worthy.

[dylan_73]

I can't remember if homosexuality was determined to be genetically based or not, but....if it is, would the biological daughter of two lesbians automatically be lesbian also?

The Ryan: Yeah, I assumed AHunter3 was making a joke....like Tenar said, it's a bit like linking to a Jack Chick tract in a discussion about religion.

[The Ryan]

The fact that one acknowledges their existence does not imply that one is in agreement with their contents.
But giving every indication that one has written them does. This probably was a joke, but as far as I can see not one of good taste. AHunter very well may have meant something different from what I took it as, which is why I asked him what it meant.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by dylan_73
I can't remember if homosexuality was determined to be genetically based or not, but....if it is, would the biological daughter of two lesbians automatically be lesbian also?

Why on earth would it be? All of the gay people I personally know came from two straight parents. Just because something is genetic or inherent does not mean it is heritable.

[Thing 1]

Quote:
Just because something is genetic or
inherent does not mean it is heritable.

Actually, if something is genetic then it is definitely heritable. However, it is not always a simple inheritance pattern, meaning just because a parent has a genetic trait does not guarantee that their offspring will have that trait.

As far as the article goes, it is a bit premature to speculate about applications for this technique since the researchers do not even have live mice born yet. It is quite possible that the embryos are not viable and will not develop to term.

John

[dylan_73]

Originally posted by pldennison

Why on earth would it be? All of the gay people I personally know came from two straight parents. Just because something is genetic or inherent does not mean it is heritable.

I dunno, that's why I was asking. And genetic means it is hereditary; you're only going to get genes from your parents.

Anyway, if there's a tendancy for certain numbers of people to be homosexual, surely there would be an increased tendancy in the child of two lesbians?

I know it's all speculation at the moment, but I suspect that sooner or later these are things we'll be discussing as real life cases, so why not think about them now?