UK Scientists to Create Embryo From Two Women

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a BBC story about a UK research group that has been given permission to create a human embryo with genetic material from two women. From the article: "The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies. The researchers are focusing on a group of conditions called mitochondrial myopathy, which include types of muscular dystrophy. These cause muscle weakness and wasting, making it difficult to move normally - some may need to use a wheelchair. At present no treatment for these exists, although things can be done to help with the symptoms. "

Comments

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am looking forward to the video. I hope it will be better than cam!

Beginning of a B-Movie?

[gbulmash]

Seems to me to be the beginning of one of those sci-fi scenarios where women no longer need men to reproduce. Two women want a baby, they just have this procedure done, and voila. No need for sperm to make the baby and there's a 100% guarantee the baby is a girl.

Gradually, men begin to disappear as old ones die and no new ones are born to replace them, until finally Earth is entirely populated by women.

Then some major event happens (like a giant meteor strike) that knocks technology back into the stone age. Without men and without labs, no babies can be created. The race is dying out.

And then, deep in some hidden location, a small cache of men is found in a research facility that was trying to find a way to keep the male half of our species alive. They are the last men on earth, and a planet full of women wants their stud services!

Commando teams of women try to raid the facility so that the men can be captured, mechanically "milked" for their semen, and it can be distributed. But the facility was created with superior defenses. The men inside are safe. Gradually the women realize that the men are in charge of their own bodies.

Each day ovulating women line up outside the facility, naked save for a pair of high heels, and bearing gifts of food and assorted lagers. The men choose the ones they find most attractive, then those must face off in an exotic dancing competition to determine who may enter and be serviced.

I think I've just written the script to a late-night cable movie.

- Greg

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Rei]

This is not anything like "eliminating men". They're not even recombining two women's DNA - they're using using the mitochondrial DNA from one and the combined nuclear DNA from a male and female pair.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[trick-knee]

I'm digging this scenario.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Sduic]

I realise this is a joke, but it should be noted that the first egg is fertilised.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[tktk]

Actually, I think you just squished together the last 4 B-movies you saw.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[gameboyhippo]

That's hillarious. That'll teach those lesbian lifetime watching cows.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Sduic]

First, second, whatever. The point is one is fertilised.
Oh and while I'm replying to myself:

The researchers say they have no intention of allowing the embryo to develop into a fully formed baby.

Just thought that should be noted.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Quirk]

If you like the idea you've pitched then don't miss A Boy and His Dog.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think sperm was used to fertilize both eggs.

That aside, what's wrong with sex not being used for reproduction? Many problems might be avoided if everyone were to be sterilized young and then must make a sane choice (when sober and old enough) in order to become pregnant via these techniques, which still require development in a womb.

Plus, tons of free lovin' without consequences. That's what I'm talking about.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit with the science, nerd-man. I want to see the movie!

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[MisterSquid]

This is not anything like "eliminating men". They're not even recombining two women's DNA - they're using using the mitochondrial DNA from one and the combined nuclear DNA from a male and female pair.

Hm. Now I wish I had RTFA before posting below. What I wonder is how you RTFAed between the time there were zero posts and when you posted. Either you are insanely fast, you are a subscriber, you are a PERL script, or you are from the future.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly hard to read something that was published on Thursday, 8 September 2005, 16:50 GMT 17:50 UK before now.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[modecx]

This is almost the same plot to a Star Trek next generation episode, and just about the opposite to a Red Dwarf episode, too. (ick)

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke!!! Idiot!!!!!!

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[AEton]

There was an episode of Sliders with a slightly different setup but the same conclusion. ("Love Gods"). It was a whole lot like another episode where LOL WOMEN R THE LEADERZ ("The Weaker Sex").

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you are insanely fast, you are a subscriber, you are a PERL script, or you are from the future.

Or he regularly browses through the BBC headlines, maybe via a live bookmark in Firfox. That's how most people found the story.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[paradizelost]

Well, you'd still have the STD's to worry about, but if you think of it, right now, a baby is a form of an STD, it takes away 18 years of your life etc.... :D PS - No I don't hate children, it's just one way of looking at it.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quote sure that was the premis of a sliders episode.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[LLuthor]

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[TedCheshireAcad]

That sounds vaguely like a porno I saw once. Interesting.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[realityfighter]

Psssssst.....hey buddy, women read slashdot!

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[learn fast]

I believe this is the book you're talking about.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[RackinFrackin]

That would make a good B-movie. The setup is different, but much of the plot would be similar to Phoenix The Warrior.

Shoot me for knowing this.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[blindseer]

Sci-Fi Channel did it... or at least something close. The Last Man On Planet Earth

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[WilliamSChips]

It's Rei. He has magic RTFA powers.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Loconut1389]

+3 Frightening?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[ScrewMaster]

No, you've just written the screenplay to one of the Sci-Fi Channel's "Sci-Fi Originals". Arguably some of the worst films ever made but a couple of them were actually entertaining. By all means, send it in: who knows, they might give you a few bucks for it.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[wed128]

Ah yes, life the STD

Sexually transmitted, and always fatal.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Bent Mind]

Ah yes, every man's fantasy... I've seen this plot several times and always wondered...

First there is the question of how many men are there?

I always loved the stories where it's only a single man. Talk about something being blue; not from under use, but from over use. Lets not even think of the genetic problems.

So you start with a small cache of men. You still have the problem of too many woman. So you limit who can breed. How?

Each day ovulating women line up outside the facility, naked save for a pair of high heels, and bearing gifts of food and assorted lagers. The men choose the ones they find most attractive, then those must face off in an exotic dancing competition to determine who may enter and be serviced.

Not bad. It'll limit the population, but that is probably a good thing. However, you still have multiple problems. I wonder, if you use your criteria, would natural selection give us a race of attractive, over-sexed humans? You could broaden the scope to include intelligence. How long would it take for the intelligent, attractive woman to just take over?

Of course, you leave out the most important problem. My great, great, great, great uncle through marrage was a polygamist. It was kept a dark family secrat along my Grandfather's line. When my Grandfather married my Grandmother, he shamefully told her about this distant relative. Her responce always amused me, "Any man who can put up with being married to more than one woman at once has my respect." I wonder, what would it be like to have a planet full of woman demanding that you take the garbage out? Worse yet, at that time of the month. Talk about the stuff of nightmares.

It's a good fantasy, but lets hope it stays that.

As for two woman having a baby that's geneticly theirs. Fantastic! It's one less road block to same-sex marrage. Yes, couples can adopt. However, almost everyone wants to continue their genetic line. It's how we gain immortality.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Luigi30]

You forgot about the Three Seashells.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[RevengeOfPoopJuggler]

captured, mechanically "milked" for their semen

Where do I sign up?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've just written the script to a late-night cable movie.

A boy and his dog. OLD porno flick. You left out the dog uses telepathy.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[kalidasa]

Either you are insanely fast, you are a subscriber, you are a PERL script, or you are from the future.

Didn't you know that subscribers are from the mysterious future?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been seeing this saying alot, but I can't figue out where it comes from. Would you care to enlighten me ?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

A French graphic novel uses a similar idea.

The premise is that sometime in the future, society is seemingly entirely made of women (we later learn that for an unknown reason, a long time ago, women started having less and less male babies). People don't know that there was another gender.

In reality, the government knows about it but keeps it a secret. Women are impregnated in special clinics. When they become pregnant, the government evaluates their chances of having a male baby. If the chances are good, they are moved to a luxury hospital room. Boys are raised by the government in secret.

The ending is, uh, interesting: we find out that men are kept in secret rooms where their semen is continually extracted using contraptions that look like milking machines.

I don't remember anything else about the book. Neither the title nor the authors. It was actually pretty good.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[MSBob]

Like "Seksmisja" (Eng. The sex-mission)? Incidentally it's one of the funniest commedies I've seen.

Basically, two males are hibernated and get thawed after World War III which actually turned out to be the escalated male-female confrontation. The females won and invented a way of reproducing without any male involvement.

Then those two blokes get defrosted and wake up in a world 100% ruled and controlled by women... Just watch it if you can get hold of it.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[rbarreira]

However, almost everyone wants to continue their genetic line. It's how we gain immortality.

A really strange concept of immortality if you ask me...

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[SamSim]

I think you just infringed on the copyright on several existing late-night cable movies!

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpsons, I think.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[HangingChad]

Each day ovulating women line up outside the facility, naked save for a pair of high heels, and bearing gifts of food and assorted lagers.

Ah, reminds me of college. ;)

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Bent Mind]

How so? Haven't you ever see the father or mother who is proud because their child has some genetic trait that was passed down from them? Look, she has my cheek bones or he has his father's eyes. Who we are comes down to two things: environment and genetics. You can offer environment to an adopted child, but not genetics. Have you ever known a family were there are both genetic and step children? In my experience, the genetic children are treated better because both genetic and environment attach them to their parents.

As for immortality, we currently have two options: children and accomplishments. As most people's accomplishments are not recorded in the history books, it leaves children as our best bet to immortality.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[eluusive]

Aside from the Sliders episode mentioning this, there was actually a movie somewhat similar to this...

http://imdb.com/title/tt0193283/

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Dollar Sign TA]

Well, you'd still have the STD's to worry about

He's posting on slashdot. Trust me, he doesn't have to worry about anything sex-related :-)

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Peter Gibbons: What would you do if you had a million dollars?
Lawrence: I'll tell you what I'd do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.
Peter Gibbons: That's it? If you had a million dollars, you'd do two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.
Peter Gibbons: Well, not all chicks.
Lawrence: Well the kind of chicks that'd double up on a dude like me do.
Peter Gibbons: Good point.
Lawrence: Well what about you now? what would you do?
Peter Gibbons: Besides two chicks at the same time?
Lawrence: Well yeah.
Peter Gibbons: Nothing.
Lawrence: Nothing, huh? Peter Gibbons: I'd relax, I would sit on my ass all day, I would do nothing.
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/quotes

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[kicken18]

greg, i salut you, and can only hope i am with you in this pleasing sounding idear

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[rbarreira]

As for immortality, we currently have two options: children and accomplishments. As most people's accomplishments are not recorded in the history books, it leaves children as our best bet to immortality.

The problem is that I don't count any of those two alternatives as immortality. If immortality is possible it's through medicine and technology.

Anyway, we're discussing definitions now, both my original message and this one were only an opinion :)

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[pv2b]

This whole article reminded me of the classic polish cult movie, Sexmisia.

It's not quite the same script as you described, but very similar in some aspects.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[agentkhaki]

Somewhere, a porn "director's" eyes have just lit up like a kid's at Christmas...

That being said, I'm sure this has already been the "plot" of at least half-a-dozen porn movies. Anyone care to come up with the titles?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[timster]

Uh, "she", guys. Last I checked. ;)

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[chriswaclawik]

There is a Polish movie called Seksmisja (Sexmission) where all the men are killed off, except for two men who were cryogenically frozen. It was actually pretty damn funny. See the imdb entry here.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[ShieldW0lf]

Psssssst.....hey buddy, women read slashdot!

I know it's annoying when ppl correct your spelling, but you spelled woman with an e...

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[CAIMLAS]

Actually, it sounds like a backwater planet from some Star Trek episode that got abandoned and culturally evolved independently from the rest of the Federation, or what have you.

Surprised they never tried that one. I guess it's too horrifying to imagine.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[chamenos]

Sheesh...

"I know it's annoying when ppl correct your spelling..."

That should be "people".

"but you spelled woman with an e..."

"Women" is the plural of "woman". Get a clue yourself before you start getting all pedantic man.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

sterilized young and then must make a sane choice (when sober and old enough)

Comeon, without booze, how will the ugly chicks get laid? What about their rights?

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[1u3hr]

The men choose the ones they find most attractive, then those must face off in an exotic dancing competition

There was an SF short story, possibly by Frederic Brown, about aliens who conquered earth and set up slave breeding farms. Men surrendered to join these, believing it would be like your fantasy. But of course it was like a cattle stud farm. The studs were electrically stimulated in the anus to produce sperm collected for artifical insemination, much more efficient and no exotic dancing required.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[1u3hr]

I'm sure this has already been the "plot" of at least half-a-dozen porn movies.

Extracting the nucleus of an ovum and replacing it with another one is porn? If microscopes and petri dishes turn you on...

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[gbulmash]

"but you spelled woman with an e..."

"Women" is the plural of "woman". Get a clue yourself before you start getting all pedantic man.

It seemed to me that it was a joke, meant to imply that the female population of Slashdot readers is so low that using the plural form would be incorrect.

And now I would believe that's a plate of crow in front of you. Dig in.

- Greg

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Wog]

(-1, Not Getting It)

He was implying that there is at most one womAn who reads slashdot.

Gosh. I hate you for making me ruin the joke.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[masterQba]

Another great movie based around the very same idea is Seksmisja. Some of the jokes may be lost in translation but nonetheless it's really worth seeing.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[paradizelost]

And the cure is as fatal as the disease.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Pxtl]

Woody Allen said it best: I don't want to acheive immortality through my work. I want to acheive immortality through not dying.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[ImTheDarkcyde]

i saw this one movie once, a NON pornographic movie, br
in the future men have been altered genetically to be less violent, this whole thing went well for a long while, but then the men started to become infertile,

to get a pure male the women would have to have a child the natural way, minus all the sciency procedures, unfortunately what is assumed to be the last possible one had failed.

so a few women go back to the past (which is still our future) to find some unaltered men to fornicate with, and boy do they!

but woe is them, as the space station they are looking for men on comes under attack by some space pirates


kinda gets hazy after that, my parents came home and thats hardly the smut they would want to see

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a reference from The Simpsons. Not sure which episode, I think it was the one where Burns organises a "team building" trip up a mountain. {WTF is all that about? I go out into the wilderness sometimes, precisely to get away from my bloody co-workers!} Anyway, the quote went something like this:

Bart "I think sharing is overrated too. And helping others. And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?"
Homer "Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

About men being mechanically milked for spunk ..... I wrote something along those lines once. Never fleshed it out properly, has more than a few gaps in it. But basically it was set in a future where there are only women, and history has been rewritten to exclude the male sex utterly {it being "pretended" that all famous inventors, artists, politicians &c. were women}. If you want a baby you both go to the fertility centre, the Donor provides some DNA and the Carrier an egg, it gets fertilised and implanted into the Carrier and nine months later she has a baby.

The bit you don't find out till later is that the process doesn't actually work like that. For sure they have the tech to decode DNA but not actually to fertilise an egg yet {they're working on it}. So they still need plenty of sperm to try to find one similar enough to the Donor's DNA that the element of chance will blur over the deliberate errors. Boys are raised in factory farms, then once they hit puberty they are attached to wanking machines till they have provided enough baby fluid -- then slaughtered. All of this takes place in secret: the boy farms are highly secure government facilities, the boys are random "necessarily aborted anomalous foetuses", the {women} farm workers are had by the same sort of process. The workers do not even know that the "animals" are human {there's no point educating them, any more than there would be a point in educating a dairy cow}.

Of course you can't hide science and history from people, so when a girl {in the obligatory "meddling amateur scientist" rôle} works out for herself that human beings are mammals, mammals {except humans} have two sexes, and all humans are female ..... she postulates the existence at some stage in the past of male humans. And for reasons best left known to herself {but without which there wouldn't be a story} she goes off and does a bit of detective work. This leads her on a journey where she makes some pretty unpleasant discoveries .....

And at the end, our protagonist comes to realise that sometime some things rightfully belong really deep down in the dustbin of history ..... Josephine Swan invented the electric light bulb so nobody would ever have to have their house burned down by a candle again ..... Veganism was mandated because it was seen to be cruel to animals to farm them just for their milk, their meat and their skins ..... and the all-women society was created because men killed, raped and polluted. Right at the end, the tech to fertilise an egg from a woman's DNA is finalised, and the nightmare of the boyfarms can at last be laid to rest forever.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[sznupi]

I see wishfull thinking on your part...but what if the woman DON'T WANT to back to natural ways? And last 2 man are found? Answers here: :> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/ Cult movie here. Sadly, it's humour can barely be translated to English (cult quote every 5 minutes). Warning: don't read comments on imdb, full of spoilers.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've just written the script to a late-night cable movie.

Oh, how hard was that, I think you just wrote down that recurring dream you have had ever since puberty.

Re:Beginning of a B-Movie?

[serutan]

Get rid of men? No way! As long as we can do heavy lifting, reach light fixtures and hook up home entertainment systems they'll keep us around.

Old News...

[mOoZik]

C'mon, Slashdot! This has been covered by everyone already. Whatever happened to breaking news? Or did Slashdot's purchase by you-know-who totally end whatever edge it had in the online niche news market?

Re:Old News...

[Tablizer]

New motto: "Slow News for Slow Nerds, Things That Used to Matter"

Re:Old News...

[ari_j]

Wait...slashdot got 0wned?

Re:Old News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot was bought by Lord Voldemort? :P

Re:Old News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Voldemort own's ./?

I, for one,

[cached]

welcome our new mitochondria-donating overlords.

Re:I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our new mitochondria-donating overlords.

overladies. No wonder you got modded down, get it right next time.

Muscular dystrophy

[lordsilence]

Having had my aunt die due to her muscle dystrophy (heart is also a muscle, remember?) I'm for one glad that research is done in the subject.

I wonder how long time it'll take until we can get rid of the genetic defects which we otherwise risk pass on.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Wookie Monster]

general strategy for not passing off genetic defects is to not have children. duh.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're a little older you'll find that the urge to reproduce (no, not just the urge to screw) is a bit more powerful than you currently understand.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is exactly why we should encourage suicide more.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

How old? I'm 38 with no kids and little desire. I hope it doesn't set in when I'm 80, I might not be able to perform.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

In your case, please replace "When you're a litle older you'll..." with "If you were a little more normal, you'd..."

HTH

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[lawpoop]

Actually, it's hooking up with people from far-away villages.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Jim_Callahan]

If you're female and have a mitochondrial disease, your children are stuck with it, no matter who you hook up with. mitochondria have their own reproductive cycle, and aren't carried by sperm.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[toddestan]

In your case, please replace "When you're a litle older you'll..." with "If you were a little more normal, you'd..."

It's not so much an urge, but a societal pressure to have kids. As you point out so nicely.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[T-Ranger]

1. Ziploc bag
2. TGP
3. Freezer
4. ....
5. Children young enough to be your grand-grand-grand children

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[GuyverDH]

So, the fact that someone's parents chose to create a child, that by chance had a defect (not carried by the parents, but a transcoding flaw during the combination of the 2 components) should never have children of their own?

Trust me, if that's *truly* how you feel, then by all means, do NOT have children of your own, and leave the world a better place.

Otherwise allow science to give hope to couples who wish to have children, but do not wish to pass on the health problems they had to deal with during their lifetime.

I happen to be a parent, who would have dearly loved to have this as an option, to make 100% certain that nothing was passed on to our child.

I understand, that you may have been making an attempt at humor. In my opinion, you failed miserably.

If it wasn't an attempt at humor, then I feel sorry for you.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[iibagod]

Good news! You've already started Step One: Posting to Slashdot. Congratulations! You're on your way to a lifetime of celibacy!

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[bloggins02]

When you're a little older you'll find that the urge to reproduce (no, not just the urge to screw) is a bit more powerful than you currently understand.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm having trouble deciding where to begin....

First, the "urge to screw" is nature's way of urging you to reproduce. When you think about it, humans were {designed | evolved} to have this urge way before the advent of birth control (even the "I can pull out in time" method). Hell, judging by population growth in poorer and less educated areas you can see how well this works.

Second, it is my opinion (and this can be argued) that the "urge to reproduce" as considered distinct from the urge to have sex is entirely a social phenomenon. Especially where I live, a big part of the urge to reproduce is simple peer pressure. I live in the Bible belt, and most people my age (25-30) are having kids and simply cannot fathom that my wife and I choose not to have kids at this time or possibly at any time in the future. These are also the same people who couldn't fathom why we bought a duplex and rented out one side instead of opting to mortgage the most expensive home we could afford, but I digress.

In the US's current political climate, the prevailing view is that there's something wrong with you if you choose not to have kids. While one could argue that this attitude would be detrimental to the survival of the species if everyone were to do it, I don't think there's a danger of that happening.

As an aside, if you are considering not having children and wonder if it's "normal", you may be interested in this site, among others.

Last but not least, claiming "when you're a little older, you'll understand such and such" not only makes you sound like an asshole, but it in no way addresses the factuality of the claim (i.e. it's a logical fallacy) and makes me wonder how it is that you've come to devine the parent's age by the content of his post.
But that's just me...

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[anupamsr]

I remember when I was doing this course named Introduction to Modern Biology in my institute, they taught us how diversity is good. How so called genetic sickness can be a benefit in some future, or atleast it has been that way until now.

Why o why do we need genetically modified babies? Why we think that something (having muscle weakness) is illness and should be removed from genes and some other things (genes of selfishness etc. things that ARE in human nature) are just a trait of human nature?

No no I am not saying that we should not interfere with god's work or such BS. All I am saying is modifying genes is insanity and will have bitter consequences in the future. Diversity should be praised.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[ifdef]

Hey! I post to Slashdot, and I have 7 kids. No, really.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

No... most people have a natural urge to have children. Nothing to do with society.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I also want scientists to research a way of instantly causing me to become $5,000,000 richer without anyone else losing out and without my doing any work.

You know, I don't know what the fuck it is with parents, but they seem to think they have some natural right to "respect for their (desire to have) children" over any other wish a human might demonstrate. This is entrenched in a legal system which offers bonuses such maternity leave just for the act of opening legs. Well, hey, guess what, I want some time off to rebuild my car. Oh, I can't have it? Why's that? I see, you deserve special treatment. God bless the equal eyes of the law!

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[jcsehak]

If you're serious and you mean adopting instead, current laws make it very hard. First of all, it's something like $20,000, and on top of that you can't have had any jaywalking tickets and you have to prove you've been eating Kashi for breakfast for at least a year, to prove that you're fit parents.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[Solra Bizna]

Yeah, right.

-:sigma.SB

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[sznupi]

[nitpicking]They are carried, it's just that the egg gets rid of them[/nitpicking]

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[sznupi]

Not disagreeing with you...but I wonder, why donor-egg would be that worse than this method? Certainly simpler and less expensive...and we've basically ceased the comply with the pressure of our genes to spread them anyway...

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[GuyverDH]

You think working on a car is equal to having a child?
A hunk of metal equal to a human life?
Or was it your "desire" that you were referencing?
You think the desire to have a child is just about "opening legs"?
It has *nothing* to do with the physical act, it has everything to do with wanting to raise a child, to give back to someone the same way our parents gave to us.

You sir, by way of your post, are a sick individual - maybe you can get some *mental* leave and go check into a facility to get some help.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[GuyverDH]

I'm not sure if I can express myself properly in this.

It has to do with wanting it to be you (or at least as much you as is possible) that creates the life. That goes for the mother as well as the father.

By giving both parents the ability to be part of the life giving process, it enables them to be more emotionally involved, as well a the physical contribution (even when it's via harvesting).

I'm not saying that if there's no chance for a female to donate, that a donor wouldn't work, or that parents would love that child any less. It's just that there's that something *extra* there, knowing that you contributed to the result. It's not something you can easily explain. Sorry if it's not clear.

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[sznupi]

Well, it's clearly that way in case of man...I'd say that initially (prebirth and perhaps some time after) the feelings of father toward the baby are driven by his belief that it's his child, that shares part of him. However woman...she knows it's her child. She feels it. She gives birth and feeds it. The connection is mainly on this basis, I believe...

Re:Muscular dystrophy

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

How do you know that? Given how I get parents and parents-in-law asking when we're having kids the whole time it seems pretty obvious that it's all about pressure from other people. The only actual 'urge' to have kids was cured long ago with contraceptives. If humans actually had an 'urge' to have kids, as opposed to have sex, humans wouldn't have evolved to find sex so enjoyable. In societies where the population is well educated, ie. those societies where people are able (or even encouraged) to question societal norms the birth rate is far lower than in traditional societies, even when taking into account availability of contraception.

So it's egg from one, DNA from another?

[autopr0n]

If they are trying to prevent mitocondrial diseases from being passed on, I take it they are using the egg cell from one mother with the neclious removed, and implanting DNA from another in there? That way, they'll have the mitocondria from one, but the DNA from another. A man's DNA will need to be added to the egg in order to reproduce. So really it's Two woman and one man. Or are they actualy somehow doing meosis with two eggs?

Re:So it's egg from one, DNA from another?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you've got it spot on.

Re:So it's egg from one, DNA from another?

[Anonymous Writer]

The article says both eggs are fertilised, but the genes resulting from the process will be from two women and one man. And mitochondria actually contains its own DNA separate from the nucleus that comes from the mother only. So it's "egg with mitochondria DNA from one (woman with healthy mitochondria), with nucleus DNA from another (woman with unhealthy mitochondria and man)".

Re:So it's egg from one, DNA from another?

[ImaLamer]

If you tell him what the article says when will he learn?

Let me just say that when someone has to say "I suspect", "I assume" or "I take it" then they haven't RTFA.

Four-Breasted women coming!

[Tablizer]

Sign me up for one!

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[Eric604]

I would rather have one-breasted women, one really big breast.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[Tablizer]

I would rather have one-breasted women, one really big breast.

You could always date a volcano. Just don't piss her off. Then again, that advice applies to *all* women.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[gardyloo]

My god -- think of the neck-strain that men everywhere will get. I mean, we've got the side-to-side BRBRBRRRRBRLRBRBRL thing down, but going up and down? Or, heaven forbid it, diagonally?!?

    Hm... On the other hand, they could keep all four of my ears warm. You have a point.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew a woman with 4 nipples when I was in college. Fortunately for her, only two developed full breasts. The others were essentially very symmetric birthmarks on her stomache. Never bothered her a bit, although she did remark that if she had been born that way 100 years ago, she'd have been left for dead as an infant because of the "deformity."

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[gardyloo]

she did remark that if she had been born that way 100 years ago, she'd have been left for dead as an infant because of the "deformity."

    Man! And people say that our standards just keep going up.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[KylePflug]

Modded 3: Interesting?

What the hell?

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[blindseer]

Yeah, right after the four assed monkey is perfected.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[Rallion]

Who the hell modded that interesting?

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[soupforare]

...and out there, on the recesses of Mother Internet, there are entire pr0n sites dedicated to 4 (and more!) breasted women.

Re:Four-Breasted women coming!

[Lord Kano]

I have one mouth and two hands, I only need 0.75 of these.

LK

Religion vs. Science

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that they needed to get permission to conduct scientific research that might upset God. Of course, I'm sure the Bush administration will be quick to propose the banning of such research. But then again, y'all deserve what you voted for.

Re:Religion vs. Science

[VoidWraith]

So you think that we deserve to have had Gore in 2000? After all, that's who we (the populace of the USA) voted for.

Re:Religion vs. Science

[erroneus]

It's still pretty uncertain he was actually voted in by a majority. 1) the election system needs to be improved to match today's technology since the current system was create in order to compensate for relatively weak communications of the day. 2) there's way too much indication that the last election wasn't fairly won.

Until we see an election that isn't quite so strange as the last two, I doubt we'll get what we voted for.

Re:Religion vs. Science

[glitch23]

You also upset the millions of peole who are against it. Since I voted for Bush I'm glad I'm getting what I voted for so thanks for backing me up on it.

Re:Religion vs. Science

[covertlaw]

Yeah, because scientists have done a great job with ethics in the past...Manhattan Project, Tuskegee Syphillis, African vaccine research...

Human reproduction without men

[MisterSquid]

Years ago (1995), I gave a presentation as a graduate student about the increasing representation of men as sex objects much in the same way that women had long been characterized: anxious, vapid, to-be-looked-at as opposed to about-to-do-something, etc.

In the Q & A, someone asked about gender or some such other, and I remember responding that what I really found fascinating was that though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men. The response I received was tepid to say the least. People, especially straight women, don't want to hear about a society without men.

Of course, cloning was always a possibility but for complex mammals cloning has less that desirable results (for now). This development means that a woman-only state, municipality, sect, etc. is possible and could conceivably reproduce itself in perpetuity.

Just a few thoughts.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Tablizer]

Of course, cloning was always a possibility but for complex mammals cloning has less that desirable results (for now).

Reminds of a Dilbert strip where Dilbert decided to reproduce by mitosis because dating was a pain.

Maybe 2070: "I don't need you anymore, Babe; I got my porn and my mitosis machine".

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, The Economist magazine had a similar article (with a bit of tougue in cheek) in its Christmas/New Year issue (the one that covers two weeks).

Re:Human reproduction without men

[dvdeug]

though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men.

The artificial wombs are the easy part; the genetic material from the male in mammals is activated in a way that genetic material for the female is not, and a zygote with genetic material from just females will not develop.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[realityfighter]

See, it isn't that we straight ladies don't want our boy toys taken away. It's that we prefer to keep our humanity intact.

What you're talking about - establishing an entire society with only one gender - can only be done through atrocity. Think about it for a second. Even if two women can reproduce without a man, we still have half the population male, and nothing is stopping us from reproducing naturally. We would have to kill the already living men, or forcibly take away their right to reproduce. We would, in essence, have to start a gender holocaust. You really think women are willing to commit such atrocities just to get around catcalls and obnoxious frat guys? We are not savages.

It's not the primitive state of biological science that stands between us and the establishment of a one-gender female world. It's women's respect for the rights of men. If people stop believing in that, we will have a war on our hands when science catches up with our fevered imaginations.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[GreyWolf3000]

You really think women are willing to commit such atrocities ...? We are not savages.

Yes. Sure, women aren't barbaric, but deep down inside, underneath that veneer of sensetivity and caring and kindness and feelings, there is a detestable predilection for hurting men.

--A very bitter member of the male gender.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Jim_Callahan]

Cloning can be done, and is still technically reproduction. We'll just be wiped out by changing environmental pressures when we lose our ability to adapt. But if you're going to wipe out half of humanity, you might as well hit both halves.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Jim_Callahan]

This would be true if the experiment hadn't required the two ova to be fertilized first. You learn a lot of things by, you know, reading the article/supporting documentation.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Anonymous Coward]

"The female of the species is more deadly than the male" - Kipling.

And how do you think women got so "civilized"? It had nothing to do with their being female.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Trogre]

You do realise that from that one could just as easily conceive the idea of a world without women?

No pun intended.

Re:Human reproduction without men

[E 99]

This development means that a woman-only state, municipality, sect, etc. is possible and could conceivably reproduce itself in perpetuity.

Dude, pay a little attention. "This development" has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction without the male contribution.

And seriously, if you going to go to the trouble of getting a graduate degree, get it in something other than "men as sex objects".

Re:Human reproduction without men

[argStyopa]

Sure, but at least we can be sure of a few things in a manless society: the sales of flannel shirts, light duty pickups, and softball equipment would explode!

Re:Human reproduction without men

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm not so sure that it does require an "atrocity" as you put it. We can do it without abridging anybody's rights. Men do not have a right to just have sex when they like it: if they did, it would be called rape. And they certainly don't gave a right to have sex where or with who or what they liked: if they did, it would be called public indecency, paedophilia or bestiality.

All it takes is to get the technology up and running for female-female reproduction, and just let time deal with men. Every baby with two mothers would be a girl anyway; so once it started to become the normal means of reproduction, the job would soon finish itself.

When you think about it, having something that lies, cheats, steals, kills, maims, rapes, commits paedophilia, starts wars and pollutes the environment all for the sake of reproduction is a bit much. There are distinct advantages to not having men around, and they shouldn't be overlooked just because you have some misguided notion about "rights". Keep a few men in museums if you want, with all the other obsolete technology; but don't kid yourself that they do anything like as much good as they do harm.

There are enough people!

[Jump]

I do not understand why such 'scientists' or 'doctors' even try this. Isn't earth already overpopulated? We need to find ways to reduce population not increase it.

Read what Isaac Asimov had to say about his:
http://www.emi.u-bordeaux.fr/public/asimov/saveear th.html

Or in short:

Overpopulation -> polution -> climate change -> New Orleans

Quote: "By 2000 A.D., the carbon dioxide content of the air may have increased by one third beyond today's content. This won't interfere with our breathing noticeably, but it will conserve more of the heat Earth receives from the sun so that Earth's average temperature will go up somewhat. This will change the weather pattern, probably for the worse, and increase the rate at which the polar ice-caps melt, raising the sea-level noticeably and causing coastal areas to suffer more from high tides and storms - in short, the greenhouse effect."

Re:There are enough people!

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not understand why such 'scientists' or 'doctors' even try this. Isn't earth already overpopulated? We need to find ways to reduce population not increase it.

So, to this cause you've decided to never have kids and to off yourself peacefully?

Make the case in that manner, and I can't argue with it.

Re:There are enough people!

[paradizelost]

If he's on slashdot, he's probably the last of his line anyways, we just need to get more people reading the site.

Re:There are enough people!

[mike nwdw.]

Isn't earth already overpopulated? We need to find ways to reduce population not increase it.

Umm.... embrace the Slashdot Lifestyle(TM)? You know, loserdom and faggotry. It turn people into shut-ins, plus the ones who are not losers will not reproduce because they are homos. Also increase the influx of black and brown people into our communities ought to keep ./'ers from leaving their basements or trying to hit on women (since women luv dat big blak diq).

With low birth rates in first world countries, I think most Japanese men and European-Americans have already embraced the Slashdot Lifestyle(TM)!

Topic = False Impression

[Dreoth]

This is basically a new surrogate mother approach. Nothing more. The article still mentions the need for sperm. "The result would be an embryo with pronuclei DNA from the parental egg and sperm but mitochondria - and mitochondrial DNA - from the donor egg."

Re:Topic = False Impression

[glwtta]

embryo with pronuclei DNA from the parental egg

Ok, what's an "uclei" and how is a pr0n uclei different from a regular uclei? Are uclea (uclerum?) usually not associated with pr0n?

Cytoplasm from one, nucleus from the other

[Tau Zero]

There's DNA in the mitochrondria, which is defective in the nucleus-donor egg but (hopefully) good in the cytoplasm-donor egg. Think of it as trying to replace a chromosome with a defective gene, made easier because this chromosome isn't in the nucleus.

Curiously, the DNA in the mitochondria use a slightly different genetic code than our nuclear DNA does; genes have moved from the mitochondria to the nucleus over time, but the process is not complete. It's believed that mitochondria come from an ancient endosymbiosis event.

Re:Cytoplasm from one, nucleus from the other

[johnnyb]

The problem with mitochondrial myopathies is that it is often unclear whether the problem is nuclear or mitochondrian DNA. Mitochondrion use DNA from both sources, so having faulty mitochondrion doesn't necessarily indicate that using other mitochondrion will solve things.

Re:Cytoplasm from one, nucleus from the other

[Tau Zero]

There's an easy way to be certain of that: mitochondrial disorders are almost never transmitted via the male line.

(BTW: singular is mitochondrion, plural is mitochondria.)

Re:Cytoplasm from one, nucleus from the other

[Red Flayer]

"Curiously, the DNA in the mitochondria use a slightly different genetic code than our nuclear DNA does"

Actually, Mitochondrial DNA is very, very different from nuclear DNA.

In addition, mDNA is almost always passed down from the female only -- male mDNA is destroyed in the fertilized ovum.

Here's the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

Of interest (maybe only to me) is that bananas pass down mDNA from the father. There's a nsaty joke in that fact somewhere...

Why only two women?

[drgonzo59]

If they can take from two, take it from 10 and splice in the best genes and 'there you go' - superbaby. In the day and age, where genes come from doesn't really matter as long as they are good genes.

Up until a while ago people percieved this magic or spiritual connection between child and parents. Today it is all just genes. Manipulate then anyway you can and create custom children, with selected features.

Re:Why only two women?

[emidln]

Like, totally, awesomafide! I'll take three, but only if I can get a quiet gene. I hate how babies are always, like, crying and such.
</satire>

Re:Why only two women?

[Jim_Callahan]

That's not quite what's going on. It's a mitochondrial transplant, basically, nothing to do with nuclear DNA at all. The nucleus was produced the normal way (egg fertilized by sperm). the kind of thing you describe is, well, way the hell in the future if it will ever be done at all.

Re:Why only two women?

[martinX]

Because while you may end up with a superbaby, all the really crappy genes left over will make Danny DeVito.

Hasn't Hollywood taught you anything!

Re:Why only two women?

[drgonzo59]

Yeah, but the next step is to actually splice in and out desirable genes from a more "fit" donor into either type of DNA. How many genes would it take to add and remove before that child would be considered 'not mine' anymore?

NOTE: Some genes that will cause one disease will protect from the other. This is the case if malaria and sickle cell anemia and other diseases. So there one has to pick and choose.

And the brain?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet if they would develop the embryo, the baby wouldn't have a brain since no male genes are used. ;)

Re:And the brain?

[Mostly a lurker]

I bet if they would develop the embryo, the baby wouldn't have a brain since no male genes are used. ;)

Careful research by men suggests that the total lack of a brain would occur only if both the women were blondes. In other cases, the mental processes of the fully grown subject would be extremely myserious but nontheless contain elements of apparent intelligence. The ability of the subject to remember random events from long in the past would be particularly evident.

I'd hate to be the scientist.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just know the scientist responsible is going to get hit up for double child support checks. Mod it down, but am I rite? Am I rite, people? Am I rite?

Re:I'd hate to be the scientist.

[paradizelost]

Rite is like a Rite of passage.
Right is the same as correct.

Re:Their next project

[Mitchell Mebane]

Or three heads!

Way to Go with the Misleading Headline...

[eno2001]

This isn't about two women having a baby. It's about a male and female couple's embryo being altered with material from another woman. In other words, two women and a man = embryo.

Re:Way to Go with the Misleading Headline...

[hawkeye_82]

two women and a man = embryo

You got it wrong, friend.

two women and a man = good pr0n

Re:Way to Go with the Misleading Headline...

[hedley]

I can hear Philip J. Fry now...

Fry: "wooo hoo, two women, one man! Bring it on!"

Leela: "Did you even read the announcement?"

Fry: "Didn't have too, two women was all I needed to hear"

More like a SCi-Fi..

[Karma_fucker_sucker]

pr0n movie! Oooooooo!

Ok, I've been spending Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on porn sites!

hrmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not combining the DNA from 2 women to create 1 child. With a normal child, etc. all the mitochondria come from the mother. Father's sperm doesn't have any play in this. So its 100% inheritance from the mother.

this disease is passed on within the mitochondria. What they are trying todo, it seems, is replace the defective mitochondria of the mother with the mitochondria from a healthy donor. Thus preventing the transmission of this disease.

Re:hrmmmmm

[CthulhuDreamer]

"What they are trying todo, it seems, is replace the defective mitochondria of the mother with the mitochondria from a healthy donor. Thus preventing the transmission of this disease."

What they are doing is replacing the nucleus of a healthy donor with the nucleus from a defective egg. The original healthy nucleus is removed and discarded.

In order for the nucleus of a defective egg to live, a healthy nucleus had to die. Healthy donors, beware.

Same people who own ThinkGeek...

[mOoZik]

Yep, it's true.

Excellent...

[Comatose51]

Now that men are no longer needed for breeding, the rest of them can join the Slashdot group of men who never get laid.

I kid, I kid. I mean one of us must have gotten laid right?

Re:Excellent...

[vishbar]

I kid, I kid. I mean one of us must have gotten laid right?

You must be new here.

Re:Excellent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I heard some slashdotters have had sex with each other...

Re:Excellent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please define laid :)

Re:Excellent...

[drsquare]

I kid, I kid. I mean one of us must have gotten laid right?

Depends if you count RMS arse-raping CmdrTaco while he sucks off ESR.

Re:Excellent...

[2008]

I kid, I kid. I mean one of us must have gotten laid right?

Depends if you count RMS arse-raping CmdrTaco while he sucks off ESR.
--
Why is it that naive, idealistic comments get modded up, but harsh realistic comments get modded down?

Sooooo, was that naive and idealistic or harsh and realistic?

Re:Excellent...

[drsquare]

Pretty harsh I'd say.

Re:Excellent...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealth Geeks get laid... there's probably a few who read /.

Re:clones

[paradizelost]

No, he's Patented.

Who cares? it involves two women!

[commodoresloat]

Whatever it is, we want pictures.

Re:paoiehjrg 8ph4taiuhprg8 hapehb[9pahrbg;uaer

[paradizelost]

is that a pre-recorded message of what the resulting child would be like???

Awesome

[papasui]

I for one welcome are new Jedi/Sith overlords...oh mitochondrias from two women... I for one welcome are new dyke overlords!

Re:Awesome

[papasui]

I also welcome our proof-reading overlords that correct are/our.

re: from the we're-superfluous dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must mean that "you're superfluous"

Some of US* read /. and WE* knew that already
XOXO

*non-males

hhhhhhaaaaaaaa

[SyriusLuna]

Parasite eve back in action.

Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. Have a sense of humor.

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

No ma'am, we slashdot mods don't have a sense of humor that we're aware of.

(with apologies to Men in Black)

Wouldn't it be better to just not reproduce?

[John Jorsett]

If you have genetic defects that will be passed on to your offspring, wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and less risky to just adopt, rather than trying to repair the damage? This also sounds like it's coming quite close to human cloning, an issue for which society hasn't yet adequately prepared itself, IMO.

Re:Wouldn't it be better to just not reproduce?

[Bent Mind]

You could argue that it would be better if we all hunted for our food too. Humans have used their intelligence to continue the species since there were humans. It's a survival trait.

Re:Wouldn't it be better to just not reproduce?

[demon]

Well, unfortunately we're counteracting what, I think it's safe to say, is evolution in action. Some animals are unable to reproduce, for whatever reason, through whatever natural means. Should we then invest the effort to do the same thing for every mated pair of animals? Humans are animals, y'know. (We just happen to have large brains and the power of speech, and we think we're the center of the universe.)

The trouble is we're letting emotional issues get in the way of nature's ways doing their job. How much messing around is too much? And why aren't we telling couples who are unable to reproduce naturally, or that know their offspring would have serious conditions, that they should adopt?

Excess material ?

[Animaether]

"UK Scientists to Create Embryo From Two Women"

There's no way they can fit two women into the tiny package of an embryo - where does the excess material go?

Joking aside...

1. They're not making an embryo - they're making a zygote. Which, with any luck, turns into an embryo, foetus, baby, person.

2. This still involves a man. They're taking one bit of genetic information from one woman - skipping the section where genes are considered out of whack. Then they take -that- section from another woman - where they're considered to be in order. Then they splice those two together and re-insert it into the egg cell. Next up, they get funky with the guy's sperm and do a regular ol' petri-dish fertilization.

Re:Excess material ?

[Jim_Callahan]

Actually not even that complicated. Mitochondria have their own packaging and reproductive cycle, they're basically symbiotic organisms that live in cell plasma. So all this experiment is doing is swapping the mitochondria in a sick and healthy embryo and seeing if it works. No splicing of DNA necessary at all.

"Aunt" and "Special Companion" terms of the past!

[Cerdic]

Now people don't have to be squeamish and use euphemisms for mom's lesbian lover. You can come right out and introduce people to your two mothers!

Hah! You may jest...

[djkitsch]

...but this was almost exactly the plotline of an episode of Sliders...I kid you not!

Re:Hah! You may jest...

[RNelson]

...and a great episode it was. :)

How many people read the article??

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking through it there is no cloning going on no genetic manipulation of any kind.

They take the nuclous from one egg and drop it in another because the midocondria (sp) of the origional egg don't work correctly.

I also think there would be less contriversy if they let the kid grow instead of killing 'em.

BTW I think there was an episode of not twilight zone the other show like it had a plot like the formentioned movie

Just goes to show...

[Colitis]

...even God's DRM is hackable.

And they didn't even need DVD Jon's help!

What hope do Apple/Microsoft/etc have?

Re:Just goes to show...

[ScrewMaster]

That's only because God is Open Source.

Go eugenics!

[myowntrueself]

Brave New World, here we come

I always wanted to play 'find the zipper'!

Next it will be 'better to end than mend', rocket planes and personal 'epsilon' servants with no brain to speak of. I just hope I qualify for 'beta' or better! Sod being a gamma...

Seriously though, the human race *is* rapidly approaching that choice-point where we either embrace eugenics or go with natural reproduction and just live with genetic disorders.

In a sense, those genetic disorders are our species insurance for the future.

Evolution is very much a search through genetic space and we never really know what it will turn up.

The thing is, the more genetic diversity your population can support, the more chances of finding favorable mutations.

If we were able to wipe out genetic 'defects' we would also reduce the diversity of the evolutionary search space thereby reducing the possible ways that future generations might be able to respond to a changing universe.

We would be locking ourselves into the use of technology to control our evolution and, frankly, I don't believe we have enough of a clue about evolution and genetics to risk that at this early stage.

Re:Go eugenics!

[falconwolf]

If we were able to wipe out genetic 'defects' we would also reduce the diversity of the evolutionary search space thereby reducing the possible ways that future generations might be able to respond to a changing universe.

That's a concern I have with eugenics (other than what the NAZIs tried), genetically engineering humans, that genetic tampering will reduce diversity. Though many don't realize it a genetic disadvantage in some circumstances can be an advantage in others. Such an example is sickle cell anemia, though someone with sickle cell anemia has problems they also have an advantage over others when it comes to malaria. The shape of blood cells in sickle cell anemia reduces the likelihood of and protects from contracting malaria.

Falcon

Re:Go eugenics!

[myowntrueself]

sickle cell anemia, great example!

The thing is that its a terrible hubris for the current generation to assume that it knows what will be a selection pressure on future generations.

The amazing thing that the human race is achieving is being able to keep people alive and reproductive whose genes would mean certain death.

Now, on the one hand, the ;survivalist' in me find s this terrifying; future generations may be beset with even worse health than we have today and be totally dependent on tech to stay alive.

On the other hand, the evolutionist in me finds this fantastic for the reasons outlined previously; expanding search space.

There was an episode of 'Andromeda' where they meet the genetic reincarnation of a character from the distant past. He was a Nietzchian, a race of genetic uber-men. No genetic flaws in the race. Which meant that the chances of genetic reincarnations occuring was enormously higher than in the normal human population.

Interesting line of thought if you follow that along a little way.

Re:Go eugenics!

[anupamsr]

Please mod the above post as +1 insightful.
Seriously who can say it is flamebait? I mean, thats ridiculous! He is serious on the issue.

Re:Go eugenics!

[myowntrueself]

amazingly its now -1 troll!

I really should have put the old "yeah, yeah troll, flamebait *whatever*" onto it then it'd have gotten +5 funny or something...

Re:Go eugenics!

[anupamsr]

Shit I had lot of mod points but i changed my loing some days ago :( Anyway, hail Slashdot!! :/

Simpler..

[pmsyyz]

Would it not be simpler for those with genetic disorders to not have childern?

Re:Simpler..

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it not be simpler for those with genetic disorders to not have childern?

You appear to have dyslexia: please report for a bollock-kicking at The Ministry of Cluestick.

you, my friend...

[MechaShiva]

...suck.

Time to go resubscribe to Skinemax...

A virgin birth

[StoatBringer]

Virgin birth, no miracle required.

Can't imagine anybody getting upset over that...

Re:A virgin birth

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure Richard Bransons lawyers will sue...

THEY NEED US NO LONGER BOYS

[nevermindme]

Well guess men better be on best behavior or the women folk will decide they can get rid of us.

Re:THEY NEED US NO LONGER BOYS

[Jim_Callahan]

Uh... the ovum from which the nuclear genetic material came was fertilized by a male as usual, for reasons which are obvious to those that RTFA. Headline is basically completely wrong, as usual.

Re:THEY NEED US NO LONGER BOYS

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, go kill yourself, mmkay? :) whilst you're at it, please chop off your balls and feed them to pidgeons. kthxbye~!

Britain is on a dangerous moral and social slide..

[Wonderkid]

To those outside the UK reasing this, Britain is genuinely turning into a country whose society is becoming like that described in the dire writings of veteran SciFi writers. Except, there is no hero to save the day. A 'grey' cold government is watching us with thousands of cameras (which do nothing to PREVENT crime), and businesses hiding behind medical promises to cure very rare illnesses that effect about 25 children are making it possible to create the designer baby world predicted in Gattaca. We are headed towards a morally repugnant fear based society disguised as a 'liberal democracy' - and no one is doing a damned thing about it - and if they do, they are arrested under the prevention of terrorism act - simply for their views. Help us!

Stanislaw Lem

[Rui del-Negro]

Stanislaw Lem predicted this in his short story "Professor A. Donda" (the first real information scientist).

RMN
~~~

this process still needs a man; but is it...

[512k]

currently possible, for an egg to be fertilized, only using genetic material from women?

Seriously

[FST777]

Oh yes, but where will it stop? What are the etical boundaries in the next 20 years?
This technology -=might=- harm the human race indeed. I'm not kidding! Now they are eliminating genetic diseases, next they are propagating "good" genes (like brain-development and "kindness"), next they are building the supreme human, and before we know it, by forgetting all about the fact that the human genome is far more complex then any human could begin to understand, we have created a new race of homo sapiens that is showing us we did something terribly and irreversably wrong (no, I'm not talking about them taking over the world... watch a sci-fi for that one...).

Why is it that all the great scientist in the most advanced technological fields (nuclear fusion, AI, biotechnology) are warning from time to time for disastrous side effects while the popular scientist and the politics are propagating the opposite? Will we until our end try to "advance" against the tides?

Re:Seriously

[Jim Starx]

Please go take a class on logic and learn about the slippery slope fallacy.

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

The slope is truly slippery. It's the first step on a long journey down a bad road. Logic can't solve, or explain, everything. Where does this generation of liberals draw the line? When the modern day equivilant problem of Hitler arises? It will be too late. Or, are you waiting for the rise of the machines?

Prevent genetic disease? I call "BS"

[Anonymous Coward]

>>he groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies.

Yeah, right, sure. And I'm Santa Claus. (Ho, ho, ho.)

It's being done so lesbian couples can procreate.

Why limit to the test tube?

[cpu_fusion]

Please, scientists, develop a way for this to happen without the test tube.

Sure we can have 2F + 1M sex now, but I think this will make it easier to justify to the wife.

right...

[theheff]

It's funny to joke about women ruling the world... until they all hit their period and earth explodes.

When I read this, I thought of Quantum Leap...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wanted to see him Leap (or slide, if you will) into a brothel just about when he's preparing to get a big 20 inch strapon black dick shoved up his ass.

"Yikes! You wouldn't believe who is waiting for you in the next room!"

"When does ZIGGY say the next Leap will be?"

"Hmm... ziggy says the next Leap will be in 2 weeks... No I'm kidding, just 2 days. Until then, I'll sit back and watch and give you some tips."

"Damnit Sam!"

"Well, a last resort is that empty bottle of KY Jelly in the restroom. :-("

"Find a window or weapon or somthing!"

"There is this dildo-baton...over. here... Maybe you should stay a while? :-)"

A simpler answer

[fluffy99]

Isn't it simpler to tell these people carrying fatal genetic flaws to not have biological children? Rather than figure out how to pass on defective genes and have a kid living a screwed up life, go adopt a healthy child!

It's ludicrous that couples frequently put their desire to have a child ahead of common sense when their child stands a significant chance of being abnormal or handicapped. I've heard of people who keep trying to have kids, knowing that there is a %50 chance of passing on serious genetic defect. Also related are Downs kids. It's proven that males siring kids very late in life dramatically increases the chance of Downs to as high as 1-in-20. Don't be selfish about wanting kids when the odds are so high!

Re:A simpler answer

[deburg]

Fuck you. Because, WE don't know we're like that until our children starts dying. or, WE don't have the tech or the monies to be genetically fingerprinted. or that, WE're too proud/ashamed that we have a problem. or, [insert other reasons here] Because, it's not as simple as you think. So unless you are one of us, I don't want to hear you say "tell these people ... to not have ... children", but I rather you support the research of methods to correct these problems.

Re:A simpler answer

[fluffy99]

I'm not talking about the people who have no clue about whether they carry a serious genetic flaw. I'm talking about the people who DO KNOW and keep having kids, hoping the one-in-3 odds are in their favor next time. The answer there is simple: continuing to bring children into the world when you know they will probably have a crappy life is worse than child abuse.

Before you say it, I'm not in favor of Eugenics. I'd just rather see research dollars go towards curing something wide-spread and non-preventable like cancer instead of trying to fix a genetic aberretion that affects the breeding potential of a small percentage of the population.

Re:A simpler answer

[falconwolf]

Isn't it simpler to tell these people carrying fatal genetic flaws to not have biological children?

Live for the state? Forget liberty?

Falcon

Re:A simpler answer

[tokul]

Isn't it simpler to tell these people carrying fatal genetic flaws to not have biological children?

I guess you are not the one with flawed gene.

Re:A simpler answer

[eric_harris_76]

"Tell" meaning "advise"? Or "tell" meaning "command"?

If the latter, numerous unfortunate consequences are apt to follow. The early part of the middle third of the 20th century provides some (I hope obvious) hints about what those consequences might be. -Eric

Re:Britain is on a dangerous moral and social slid

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL, I take it you must be outside the UK.

Come to think of it, that is anatomically correct.

[NRAdude]

All animalia symetrically develop a nipple or a complete breast upon every isolated abdominal muscle. I don't mean to sound obvious or sarcastic as I say; females in man-kind, developed into fertile women, only two mucous (mammary) glands will develop to secrete "milk" through two developed breasts and nipples. I do not think of man-kind as being completly developed, because the flesh appears capable of procuring traits that may have been abandoned unlike other mammals.

At least the Google search was honest...

There is a comment made in 1999 from someone and then there is this hand-drawn picture illustrating a case of a four-nippled man.

It's worse! It's worse!

[kahei]

On top of the problems mentioned above, Britain continues to be plagued by leftist panic-mongers who dump truckloads of artificial fear and guilt on anyone or anything that looks too much like it might result in some progress!

But I guess you knew that.

Re:Britain is on a dangerous moral and social slid

[Wonderkid]

No, I live here, but spent between 1991 and 2000 in the USA. British by birth, but shocked at changes since returning here in 2000. Ones perspective is different when spending time away. If you are caught up in any gradual changes they are harder to notice.

society is reactive, not proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

were we ready for the stone age? industrial revolutio?n

the world changes, and somtimes it is within your lifetime.

Re:paoiehjrg 8ph4taiuhprg8 hapehb[9pahrbg;uaer

[cdn2k1]

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and i would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

My cousins could use this...

[RealmRPGer]

My aunt has a type of muscular dystrophy. It's really horrible to watch as her strength slowly fades. She'll have to be in a wheelchair soon. Fortunately, the particular type that she has skips every generation, so her children are free from this horrible condition. Hopefully a cure can be found before they have children of their own.

Darwinism

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Who's dumber? A stupid blonde chick great at reproduction, or a smart ass virgin scientist that finds a way to make men obsolete?

Re:Darwinism

[MulluskO]

The headline should read, two women and one man. Slashdot editors don't earn their keep.

FFM Genetic Threesomes

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, my pr0n culture is getting useful o_o

no

[Anonymous Coward]

The circumstances are different, but the issue is the same.
no.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39 526

Well I don't need them either!

[mobby_6kl]

*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*

The Religious Right is gonna love this!

[cashman73]

Great! Now, instead of just being able to blame scientists on giving them evolution which destroyed the creationism theory of the bible, now they're going to be all up in arms about advancing so far as to give gays and lesbians the ability to procreate! Once the gays and lesbians can procreate, they'll surely want to get married ?!?! With Bush in office, looks like all science funding will be eliminated in the not so distant future,...

Flame war in: 3 ... 2 ... 1!

Re:The Religious Right is gonna love this!

[KillerBob]

-1 for not RTFA... This still requires a *fertilized* egg. They aren't talking about fertilizing an egg with genetic material taken from another egg (though that was what I first thought on reading the headline), they're talking about making a clone of an already-fertilized egg, using only the DNA (but leaving behind RNA and Mitochondrial DNA, which presumably cause the diseases they're talking about).

So yeah, the religious right are gonna love it. Witness the post just above yours where some guy has gone off on a rant about how it's wrong to commit evil even if good comes from it. But they aren't gonna love it because it can allow gays/lesbians to procreate (they *can* procreate, just not with their own sex)... they're gonna love it because it's basically a human clone.

Oh, and gays/lesbians can already get married in Canada, and there's a US-Canada treaty to recognize marriages performed on either side of the border. :) Of course, given Bush's stance on NAFTA, there's no reason to assume that he's planning on honouring that treaty, but still....

Re:The Religious Right is gonna love this!

[falconwolf]

Once the gays and lesbians can procreate, they'll surely want to get married ?!?! With Bush in office, looks like all science funding will be eliminated in the not so distant future,...

Unfortunaely that's probably how some on the Religious Right will see it, adding fuel to the flames Bush uses against science.

Ooh, and I keep asking what harm allowing homosexuals to marry thier partner will cause and I've yet to receive an answer. Live and let live!!!

Falcon

We may NOT do evil so that good may result from it

[bluevector]

We may NOT do evil so that good may result from it . . .

DONUM VITAE
(translated "The Gift of Life")

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN AND ON THE DIGNITY OF PROCREATION

REPLIES TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF THE DAY

FOREWORD

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been approached by various Episcopal Conferences or individual Bishops, by theologians, doctors and scientists, concerning biomedical techniques which make it possible to intervene in the initial phase of the life of a human being and in the very processes of procreation and their conformity with the principles of Catholic morality. The present Instruction, which is the result of wide consultation and in particular of a careful evaluation of the declarations made by Episcopates, does not intend to repeat all the Church's teaching on the dignity of human life as it originates and on procreation, but to offer, in the light of the previous teaching of the Magisterium, some specific replies to the main questions being asked in this regard. The exposition is arranged as follows: an introduction will recall the fundamental principles, of an anthropological and moral character, which are necessary for a proper evaluation of the problems and for working out replies to those questions; the first part will have as its subject respect for the human being from the first moment of his or her existence; the second part will deal with the moral questions raised by technical interventions on human procreation; the third part will offer some orientations on the relationships between moral law and civil law in terms of the respect due to human embryos and foetuses* and as regards the legitimacy of techniques of artificial procreation.

* The terms "zygote", "pre-embryo", "embryo" and "foetus" can indicate in the vocabulary of biology successive stages of the development of a human being. The present Instruction makes free use of these terms, attributing to them an identical ethical relevance, in order to designate the result (whether visible or not) of human generation, from the first moment of its existence until birth. The reason for this usage is clarified by the text (cf I, 1).

INTRODUCTION

1. BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one's reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to "take in hand his own destiny", but they also expose him "to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature".(1) They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful

matriarchial oppression

[milktoastman]

Uhm, how do artificial wombs give women any better chance at reproducing without men. I would think artificial wombs would permit men to reproduce without women, allowing us men to break free of the tyranny of matriarchial oppression

An opposite scenario

[Chemisor]

Lois McMaster Bujold wrote a book about a planet with no women, called "Ethan of Athos". The protagonist is sent on a mission to procure more ovaries for the breeding labs where the old ovarian cultures are showing their age. You might find the descriptions of their culture curious, if you are not as opposed to homosexuality as I am.

MOD PARENT DOWN FOR TRUTH

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA doesn't need this sort of truthfulness! Big Brother is watching.

Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[quadra23]

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a BBC story about a UK research group that has been given permission to create a human embryo with genetic material from two women..."The groundbreaking work aims to prevent mothers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies."

Then some "genius" will say let's mix the sperm of two men so that they can, "prevent fathers from passing certain genetic diseases on to their unborn babies." Whether this works or not, the conclusion will be 4 people to raise one kid, or at least cause the bith?! I don't know about you but that sounds kind sick to me. Fact is, women aren't the only ones that pass on such diseases so that alone would only solve half the equation -- if any.

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[cnerd2025]

It's just that women pass on the sex-linked problems that counterintuitively men are victim to, such as "male-pattern baldness." A woman could have male patern baldness, but it is much rarer than a man. For a woman to have male patern baldness, her father would have to have it and her mother would have to have at least one of the genes contributing to it. For a man to get it, he just has to have one gene from his mother. This has nothing to do with gay people or anything like that. I'm surprised by your ignorance.

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised by your ignorance.

I would very well be surprised by yours, it would seem that you think the male gene is perfect in every way and the only flaw is in the female gene. I'm no feminist movement person, but I'm surprised by your male gene arrogance.

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[DragonTHC]

it is impossible for two men to reproduce. a female chromosome is necessary for reproduction.

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[typical]

I don't know about you but that sounds kind sick to me.

Why, because it's different?

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[sznupi]

Please describe this "female chromosome" of yours...

Re:Two Women...plus two men for 1 human embryo?

[rdean400]

You've got it backwards. Women don't have the 'male' chromosone (Y). Men have a single (X) chromosone. One or more X's are required. They do need an egg, which would mean destroying the nucleus and replacing it with genetic information from the male donors.

I'm sure they disagree.

[game kid]

I can imagine the UK group telling an inquiring reporter, "Shh, this Human Patch technology is not a hack. Think of this achievement as a much-needed Service Pack®."

That said, it sounds like a good way to head MD off early.

Hm, parent is redundant.

[pv2b]

Hm. Apparently I can't spell in Polish (sex is seks in Polish, not sex), so I inadvertently seem to have posted redundantly.

human male disappearing

[falconwolf]

Gradually, men begin to disappear as old ones die and no new ones are born to replace them, until finally Earth is entirely populated by women.

Actually this could help save humans because as it is now the humans male is headed for extinction anyway... Generally what makes a human a male is the X chromosome. Most, not all (more explained later), humans have two sex chromosomes, either an X and a Y chromosome or two X chromosomes with females having two Xs. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome acts like a switch that controls male sexual differentiation. However the gene is decaying and will disappear.

The exceptions mentioned above are intersexuals commonly called Hermaphrodites. There are different types of intersexuals with different karyotypes. Some have the "normal" XX or XY but other may have XXY, XXXY, or XXXXY. Most intersexuals born with ambiguous genitalia go through Genital Plastic Surgery. However, no matter how they're medically treated and reared as children many don't fit into "normal" society and some may be considered "homosexual", gay or lesbian because they had their gender surgically altered, said ambiguous genitalia may include a larger than average clitoris or a smaller than average penis.

Falcon

slippery slope fallacy.

[falconwolf]

So, the slippery slope is a fallacy? Well let's see what the a NAZI propagandist had to say:

Nazi Herman Goering on Military Recruting
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It worked for the NAZIs and seems to of had worked for Bush after 911. Now, dispite there being a constitutional ban on imprisoning someone indefinately without being charged, a federal appeals court has ruled that the government holding Padilla is legal.

Falcon

Re:slippery slope fallacy.

[Jim Starx]

Again, a class in logic would be beneficial. The fallacy is that not everything goes all the way over the line. The fact that you can provide an example of something that did go over the line does not contradict that.

Also, kudo's for jumping right into the Nazi referance. That was quicker then most.

Re:slippery slope fallacy.

[falconwolf]

The fallacy is that not everything goes all the way over the line. The fact that you can provide an example of something that did go over the line does not contradict that.

The point isn't that it doesn't happen all the tyme but that it only takes once. This was one case of where it did work. And like Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The problem with the slippery slope is that you don't realize you're on it until it's too late. I'd rather prevent it from happening than to fight against it once it's started.

Faclon

Re:slippery slope fallacy.

[Jim Starx]

I'd rather prevent it from happening than to fight against it once it's started.
They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I hope you realize that those two quotes are in direct contradiction.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that you can apply it everywhere. And usually you can apply it in either direction. It carries no logical signifigance, it's only use is in attempts to jusitfy someones otherwise unjustifiable fears. Now I'm not saying that there are no justified fears. What I'm saying is that they can be justified by logically valid arguments, of which the slippery slope is not a member.

Re:slippery slope fallacy.

[falconwolf]

I'd rather prevent it from happening than to fight against it once it's started. They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I hope you realize that those two quotes are in direct contradiction.

I'm guessing you didn't get it, what I meant was that I'd rather stop, avoid, going down a slippery slope in loosing my freedom to begin with rather than to try to stop it once I'm already sliding. The first is much easier. So there's no contradiction.

What I'm saying is that they can be justified by logically valid arguments, of which the slippery slope is not a member.

And that slippery slope can be defended by a logically valid argument as well, just slice and dice. Much like the Bush admin did when seeking to justify invading Iraq. Choose intel that supports your position while sweeping under the rug any intel that contradicts the position.

I'm still waiting to see all those stockpiles of WMDs the admin knew exactly where there were.

Falcon

Re:slippery slope fallacy.

[Jim Starx]

The slippery slope can't be defended by logically valid arguments. The slipery slope is a tactic you use in an argument. You use that tactic to try and support some claim. Now that claim may or may not have logically valid arguments in support of it. But the slippery slope argument itself does not have logically valid arguments in favor of it because it is not logically valid.

Re:We may NOT do evil so that good may result from

[Anonymous Coward]

hey priest, go sodomize some choir boys ok? then kill yourself after that. thanks!

2F + 1M

[falconwolf]

Sure we can have 2F + 1M sex now, but I think this will make it easier to justify to the wife.

Why just 2F and 1 M? Why not 1+F and 1+M? Not all at the same tmye mind you but I believe along with many others that it's possible to love more than one at a tyme, that believe in Polyamory.

Falcon

Three nipples

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a freshman in high school, one of my friends had an older sister who had three nipples. Two side-by-side on one breast, and one normal one on the other. I finally got her to show them to me once, but could never get any further... she just laughed at me and called me a dorky little freshman.

*sigh*

Oh well, at least I tried.

POOP

[Danzigism]

show rick james ya titties bitch!!

sickle cell anemia, great example!

[falconwolf]

That was the first thing that came to my mind.

Falcon

Re:We may NOT do evil so that good may result from

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not just copy-and-paste a book onto slashdot.

Shit, you did.

You. are. out. of. your. fucking. mind.

Re:That's hot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to ask my wife if her and her friend want an embryo.

My Mommas always said Simpler is as Hitler does.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sterilization is so inefficient. We should kill them all! We will all become super-beings!

Sealed your own death warrant, kid. Slashdot is a meeting place for genetic undesirables. Notice all those "never get laid" comments? We all lost out in the genetic lottery. We're smart, but that's about it.

When they came for the slashdotters, I said nothing.

Are they Child Murders?

[Anonymous Coward]

A one year old child is completely dependent on it's parents and could not live unassisted. To kill such a child is rightly called murder.

The same is true of a one month old child, and a child one month before birth, or a one month old "embryo"

Conclusions:
1) A child in the womb should be afforded the same legal protection as a child outside of the womb, however old it is.
2) Dont mess around with fertilized eggs unless you are prepared to be a murderer.

Ps - What do you think will happen to the "embryo" they create? I doubt it will live to collect a pension.

Re:Are they Child Murders?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are clearly talking out of your arsehole, you pro-life male scumbag. I put it to you that your stance is motivated by the realisation that any woman unlucky enough to fall pregnant by you would be certain to seek an abortion lest she give birth to another pathetic individual like your own unlovely self.

You haven't got a clue what it's like to be pregnant, and you never will. A foetus is a disgusting parasite that lives inside you, and eats you from the inside out. For nine fucking months. Then it's born and it wears you down for sixteen fucking years: either it's a boy and gets into violence and car theft, or it's a girl and gets into smoking, shoplifting clothes and running up enormous telephone bills.

However much you might like to fantasise about the opposite, the fact remains that sometimes it is necessary to kill. And unless you are a 100% vegan who doesn't even use antiseptic because you believe that killing germs is wrong {in which case congratulations on making it this far}, you're a total fucking hypocrite.

Re:Are they Child Murders?

[Anonymous Coward]

I smoke, run up enormous phone bills and have done lots of other far more serious stuff that I am not proud of - and you are saying I should have been killed as a child?

Sounds like you killed your own baby and have a bad conscience. Listen to it and learn.

You are right that it is sometimes necessary to kill, but the only justifiable reason for killing someone is to save more innocent lives (and who is more innocent than an unborn baby?) If the law will not protect the innocent from murderers then others need to fight their corner.

Kindness?

[oldCoder]

Well, if they're high in kindness they'll at least die out soon...

The funny thing is

[hummassa]

I googled for "slippery slope fallacy". The first link brough four examples:
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
All four examples are real examples of this fallacy. All four examples are logically incorrect. All four examples lead to a correct conclusion, for the incorrect reasoning :-)

Re:The funny thing is

[Jim Starx]

False logic can often arrive at a correct conclusion; that doesn't make the logic any more or less false.

Not Slashdot's fault

[typical]

My guess is that the headline (which is in the mass media too, not just Slashdot) came from some conservative types who hope to foster enough outrage to get this practice banned before people become informed about it.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, people... haven't you ever heard of humor?

Movie already exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Polish movie (from 1984) called "Seksmisja" (Sexmission) http://imdb.com/title/tt0088083/. Theme of this movie is a long the lines with what we are discussing here.
Have fun watching in.

The differences are small

[Tau Zero]

According to this mitochondrial codon table, the differences are:

... unlike the universal code, UGA codes for tryptophan instead of termination, AUA codes for methionine instead of isoleucine, and AGA and AGG are terminators instead of coding for arginine.

That's not so different, unless you mean that it lacks things like introns. I'm sure lots of small nuclear genes lack introns too, and mitochondria only have 37 genes total in 16568 base pairs.

Allow me to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOSH...

Re:It's worse! It's worse!

[mark2003]

WFT?

The absolute crap that some people spout is beyond belief and in no way should be modded as insightful.

If you knew anything at all about the panic mongers who dump truckloads of artificial fear and guilt you would know that the chief perpertrators are the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. If you suggested to either the staff of readers of these papers that they were leftist they would take a shotgun to you before setting the hounds on you.