Slashdot Mirror
Sperm Made From Female Bone Marrow, Men Obsolete?
Shaitan Apistos writes "British scientists have discovered a way to turn female bone marrow into sperm, allowing women to reproduce without the need of male companionship. All children born of this method would be female, due the lack Y chromosomes, and there is high chance of birth defects. Eggs also can be created from male bone marrow, but men looking to reproduce would still need to find a surrogate mother to handle the gestation period. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."
I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars.
Also, SNOO SNOO!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
hello missis "i am my own mother"
...so where do transsexuals fit in here?
British scientists have discovered a way to move around by walking, making wheeled transportation obsolete. All trips made with this method would be short or very slow due the lack of speed, and there is high chance of being late. I'd like to take a moment to welcome our new ambling overlords and remind them that airplanes are still pretty handy for the really long trips.
A complete female based society all genetically created and enhanced. And no men? Sounds like a porn title seriously. Instead of "Where the men aren't" we could simply drop 'Where'.
From a sexual point of view, most women are still part conditioned and part pre-programmed to want male ahem companionship. (I could put this much more crudely but I won't). Without these urges our species wouldn't exist. You can't suddenly replace that in a generation. If you had many generations that could survive just as well (ie elliminate high birth defects etc) perhaps you'd see human sex drive die off. I like sex, so let's hope not.
From a social and evolutionary point of view, while men and women can replace each other for most things it is still true that the male tends to be physically bigger and buliker, and prefer science and math while women tend to be smaller and have more interests in social bonds, fashion and nest-making. We'd need to change both society and biology to change that. (Note that I'm not saying a man can't be a splendid nest-maker or that a woman can't do heavy work, or even that this should be discouraged - nothing sexier than a woman with a brain, or one that can kick arse - I'm just stating what the trend is currently and that it takes time to change such trends.)
So while a few scornful women may wish to bomb men out of existence but we ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Let's all be friends, instead.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
What is the goal of this line of research? Provide a means for lesbian couples have kids without going to the sperm bank?
as soon as scientists develop a machine that automatically opens pickle jars, men are fscked.
:(
I don't want to be obsolete.
now I know how Windows feels.
-I only code in BASIC.-
What happens when we have the technology to grow babies from a sperm + egg to birth without the use of a female host? Will girls be obsolete then, as well as men?
Wouldn't that be like having a child with your twin, rather than something like cloning?
This could be genuine good news for :
/. to get laid.
- Homosexual couples (2 lesbians, or 2 gay men + 1 surrogate mother)
- Couples where 1 is trans gender (and lack the correct type of gonads)
One day such technology would enable both parents in such couples to be the biological parents.
Now back to humour :
Yes, we *DO* welcome our new Amazon overlords.
Specially since, if as a consequence of this the percentage of women increases in the general population, this new girls:boys ratio (men are rare) when added to eons-old instinct (sex drive) will finally increases the chances for the average
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"We'd need to change both society and biology to change that."
Why? And who exactly wants this change?
"From a social and evolutionary point of view"
A rather limited POV, IMHO.
I think something people seem to be missing from this is that it could be great for couples (of whatever orientation) with men who are infertile. If sperm can be produced artificially from their bone marrow, they could still father children biologically.
Isn't Will Smith starring in some movie with tagline "the last man on earth"? Did the women kill the rest of them?
Full Tilt
Before you go throwing out the male gender, stop for a moment and consider this:
Sperm extracted from my bone is a lot less painful to obtain than from your bones. Think about it!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It's already been done:
https://www.officialtvwebsite.com/onetouchjaropener/ver3/index.asp?did=644&phone=1-800-540-6849&refcode=jar3Kg5
I remember there is an old Czech SciFi movie about an utopian society where men are obselete and women procastrinate by cloning. Anyone remember then name?
Apart from the obvious cackling from the feminist groups which support the SCUM Manifest. This is actually astonishing (yes I am a man). Why? Because it proves (yet again, may I remind you) of the power of stemcells.
Now here is the paradox. Feminist groups who were opposed to the use of stemcells on grounds of "limiting the woman's role in society" would now have to do a 180 degree turn and support stemcells if they want this technique. I don't know about you but I am so subscribing to every mailing list I can find about feminism.
"our new amazonian overlords and remind them that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars."
Just remember that the sort of women who want to reproduce with other women are also very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars!
If men had been the ones carrying the babies I'd betcha good money that we'd have had artificial wombs perfected in the 1930's.
This has got to be a feminist's wet dream. Women of Mt. Holyoke university (and the like), rejoice!
Hell, I be making sperm every time i bone a female.
This won't be allowed to happen. IKEA will go out of business.
Stick Men
But my sperm is Organic(TM). No telling what you're gonna get with the fake stuff.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Who says we didn't ;)
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I've been obsolete from a reproductive point of view for some time now.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
1.) This is an argument against all those advocating to ban same sex marriage, because they "cannot reproduce". Quite the common argument recently. Despite my second point.
2.) THEY DID THIS FIVE YEARS AGO. Really. While I was still in high school I cheered the first time someone pulled this off. I used it in a debate with someone on the case of gay marriage. Its in my old Science News... I mean this might be a team doing it again, or doing it better, but they are still not the first.
Just my 2 cents.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
That, or babies would be a lot...thinner. (Damn, just thinking about it hurts.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
I think mowing lawns is the skill you'll want to hone the most...it is the most likely to satisfy your amazonian woman overlords enough to keep you around.
...on a similar theme (maleless society after a plague -- women reproduce via cloning).
"Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
...open jars?
This could be a great way towards extinction.
1. Phase out men.
2. When there are no men you can only breed through a procedure.
3. Wait for a major war or some major problem where a lot of people die and a good chance many with the knowledge of the procedure will die to. (Just because the world is run by woman don't think for a second that they will solve all the problems that we have)
4. Then a slow extinction.
Generally it is a bad idea. There is also the issue rejecting half of the genetic code and the biological and psyological difference that men have give a major advantage to the specie.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Too little too late for the Asgard. Well, unless we gate through a star... y'know, again...
Registered Linux User #449434
That's the craziest thing I ever heard of. As soon women get any rights, the first thing they do is stop having babies. The old 1980's battle of the sexes is a two way street. If men may be obsolete sperm providers, then it follows that a woman is useless unless she is pregnant!
This is my sig.
Lets face it, robotic mowers exist. Garbage chutes exist. But dildo's have been around for millenia and they never replaced us yet.
Mind you, it is murder on the hips but a man got to do, what a man got to do. I will bravely sacrifice myself so that the rest of slashdot can live a pure life! Yes I am that noble.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The Daily Mail is considered a tabloid rag by many of us who have lived in the UK because they cater to people with a palate for sensationalist headlines and content. The referenced New Scientist article talking about Karim Nayernia's research was published in April of 2007 but The Daily Mail chose to report it many months later. Regardless, since last year there have been few tangible gains in this field. The problem rests in the fact that converted stem cells can achieve the first 2 of 3 stages towards mature sperm development. Even once this is done there is no guarantee the sperm can actually be used in IVF to create a viable/implantable fertilized egg.
The implications of this research are great but rags like The Daily Mail focus on the most provocative uses such as gay/lesbian couples conceiving and auto-reproduction. Before we can approve this research for use in the public we must ascertain whether the manipulations necessary to force conversion of bone marrow stem cells into spermatogonium or the products of these cells potentially introduce undetectable abnormalities within the genetic code. Next, during the process of spermatogenesis chromosomal crossover introduces genetic variability. Without more details in the original article I wonder if one of the failing stages of development involves this important process. Lastly, auto-reproduction is nearly impossible. Every person carries a set of lethal recessive alleles which manifest themselves in incestuous reproductive pairings--hence why most societies have shunned this sort of relationship. This would almost certainly guarantee the fetus would spontaneously abort.
The real application of this research is injecting spermatogonium eggs in women or men who are infertile. This would revolutionize reproductive medicine because it would allow couples to conceive naturally. However, being in the medical field, there are very valid natural reasons why couples may not be able to reproduce (i.e. certain genetic abnormalities) or why fetuses spontaneously abort that we need to decide as a society whether its prudent to interfere. I don't claim to have the answers but I would welcome discussion in this direction so we can make informed choices in the medical breakthroughs we're bound to see in the next few decades.
Incidentally, the New Scientist published a new article today on the matter discussing the implications of this research. Without having a subscription I can't read more but I certainly wouldn't count out fathers just yet. Having a child is only the first part of the equation. Raising an emotionally and psychologically well-adjusted child still necessitates their role--although many single-parents or LGBT couples may argue this point. Anyway, as a community I hope we're a bit more careful of citing sensationalist publications.
Surprise surprise, a male (Karim Nayernia) invented the technique. I guess that's how superfluous we are?
But hey it's alright to be sexist; you're female.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
men obsolete --- all children would be men
What is wrong here?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We have tubes! A series of tubes! Finally a way for all the /.ers to make babies with the internet!
I wouldn't say obsolete, just a lot cheaper.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
So men are now downgraded to just a lustobject?
Ofcourse that's very sad and tragic. But I can live with it.
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
nice homepage.....lol you know your a real /.er when you have a pink homepage full of pictures of women....though on a "superfluous" side note, the day i took out your trash, i would also be singing "its a bird, its a plane, its flying pigs" at the top of my lungs over and over
-Noc
All the offspring would be female, not male. You lose.
... for sperm? Or do I have an old list...
If you are arguing your #1 there as a reason you have no clue what the whole debate is about and that isn't "quite the common argument recently" despite your writing so.
While feminists like to exaggerate the bad properties and general uselessness of men and the superior characteristics of women, they fail to realize that those properties have been genetically selected by their sexual counterpart. If men are really that useless, this must mean that women really suck at selecting a sexual partner.
If womens "stupid useless macho" partner preference is left unchecked by a mitigating male preference, everybody in the future will pretty much be a man with different sexual organs.
Can the same procedure be used for infertile men, who are unable to produce viable sperm? If so, I think this would be a far more practical application. No disrespect to homosexuals.
But parking aside, this sounds like the kind of thing that would have us in genetic hot water in only a few generations. It would be much more encouraging to hear about research into the "shrinkage" of the y-chromosome that seems to be occurring in humans and some other mammals. It would be nice to be able to "fix" this if it ever becomes a real problem.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
"... men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars." Men are good for a few more things. Burping, farting, and oh yeah... dramatically reducing the likelihood of birth defects. But then again, here is Womankind's chance to evolve new and interesting "features" at a much faster rate!
MMM, Features...
--I like turtles...
This is the beginning of the end...
Its good to see that the saying "Damed if you do, damed if you don't", will no longer have any meaning in the near future :)
Love Linux and 3D (OpenGL) Linux games.
Her name is Emma Thompson.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The late Valerie Solanas would have been thrilled to hear this news.
Property is theft.
Maybe from her time on deep space nine.
"British scientists have discovered a way to..blah,blah,blah" /.
Next we see them inventing ways to fold soup,create extra nipples for walrus',convertible top submarines and many other things mankind has been at a loss for.
With funding like that,It's good to see the U.S.isn't the only one throwing away massive amounts of research dollars on strong hallucinogenics and crack cocaine for the lab break room.
Hey!I got an idea,how about doing something useful.
Cure disease!Find alternate energy!Fix the British Empires badly damaged chromosome pool!
Honestly,is this what we get for allowing the flower children to grow up and populate professorial positions at previously respectable learning institutions?
Perhaps we can send a radio S.O.S. into space."Save us from our culture and political systems"
Sound grumpy?I am.The world is falling into the sh*thouse and theres f**k I can do about it but to
complain on
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Blood, sweat... But mostly bone.
If they're all born female, doesn't that guarantee an inherent birth defect?
(ducks)
The summary states all children conceived this way would have a high risk of birth defects. But the article only states that there is a high risk of birth defects if the same woman is both the mother and father. It does not say anything about a high risk of birth defects if two people make a child that way.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I think the major problem with shrinkage men have is not related to the Y chromosome.
(Seriously, this simply isn't a problem. If you don't have a functioning Y chromosome, you simply don't reproduce, so the Y chromosome can't disappear from the gene pool.)
Just wait till the machine breaks and all the men are gone. Enjoy killing off humanity, women!
I mean, what is reproduction without men good for, when there is no way to make a man pay for the children?
Talk about inbreeding.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Actually I was wondering how this affected anyone on Slashdot as none of them get to mate ever anyway.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
so thats the meaning behind 'getting boned'
I mean, from a molecularbiologic point of view isn't it infinitely easier to make women from male-DNA (splice two X's from different males together) than whatever strange X-chromosome-amputation they must be getting at in the article?
Somehow a civilization of bone-marrow specialist dykes does not seem all that likely...
Does that mean the artifical womb makes women obsolete? No men, no women. What will be there?
Perhaps the fetus can gestate in a box?
END COMMUNICATION
A 20 year study has also confirmed, that defects like these can be achieved by SMOKING CRACK!
There will be no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up.
Several years ago, I had read that there are differences between the male and female X chromosomes, one of them being that socialization attributes for women are strongly influenced by the male X. This may have implications on an all female society. Sorry, no references.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
if the only way i can survive the male die-off is by living with a monkey named Apmersand I'm going to be so pissed off.
Sounds like Al Qaeda will have a large supply of remote detonated 'suicide' bombers.
that would be overladies then, wouldn't it?
Women are made obsolete.
Gives a whole new meaning to "getting boned"!
Here is Roy Baumeister's invited talk at the American Psychology Association, definitely worth a read if you're wondering what good men are: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
Personally, I think freedom is great. I think dependencies are limiting and bothersome. I think that for the entire history of our race, women have needed to enter into sexual relations with men in order to reproduce, which constitutes a limiting dependency. Soon (once the whole birth-defect problem is worked out) women will be free. Some women will choose to have male companions at various points in their lives, and others will not. If any men are frustrated by the fact that they will no longer be "needed" by women, then I would accuse those men of being selfish at best, and sociopathic at worst.
This door swings both ways, of course. Men only "need" a womb for their children until such time as appropriate vats can be constructed. Before too long we will be able to grow new humans, in a vat, from synthesized genetic material that has already been purged of genetic diseases. Neither men, nor women, will be necessary to make either gender. Good, bad, or bizarre, these technologies are on their way, and they will transform humanity's idea of what it means to be human.
Personally, I am a big fan of transhumanism.
Now maybe they'll quit bugging us on Superbowl weekends.
Have gnu, will travel.
they should at least find you handy
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
If men were the ones carrying the babies, we'd have no arguments about legal abortion. It would just be accepted that abortion was OK.
I'm a female and personally believe that abortion is very wrong but I have to say that it should still be legal because if it's completely outlawed then women are just (willing or unwilling) incubators.
"that men are still very good at mowing lawns and fixing cars" And rigging explosives that blow up clinics aimed at ending the male.
You may be trying to be funny, but if you RTFS, you'd see that Adam would have had to have been female.
Posted without karma bonus as close to being OT.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Okay, am I the only one somewhat concerned by this? Imagine the day when a chick can take a swab of your skin (skin cells are relatively easy to grow in a Petri dish, so quantity isn't such as issue as long as you get down to some live ones), and make a baby with you...imagine what the ethical and legal implications would be...
Ironic sig you got there.
"And the father is ... Mrs. Cartman!"
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
1. While the Y chromosome doesn't have many genes on it, it has a few, and some pertain to the development of sperm. So if you're going to make sperm from a genome that lacks a Y, your sperm may be ... um ... sub-optimal.
2. During meiosis, parental chromosomes swap sections of DNA to mix things up a bit. The article doesn't mention if that occurs or not, but that mixing and recombining is one of the biggest sources of new genetic diversity in a population. So even if they perfect this method, there will still be a need for the old-fashioned way.
Well, the Y-chromosome could have been a birth-defect.
"I'm not good. I'm not nice. I'm just right."
We know you need somebody to take out the trash. You aren't capable of doing it yourself. Besides, women shouldn't be allowed out of the house, anyways.
Can you imagine? How awesome is it that men won't have to be around to suffer any more? That's very considerate of women (which is exactly why it will never happen).
I don't usually like to take sides in this debate, because it doesn't affect me either way, but your position is just stupid. With regards to children, women *are* incubators. To argue otherwise is foolish.
ResidntGeek
But many women like the, ahem, companionship of other women. If this has a genetic basis (almost certain) then the genetic offspring of two such women is very likely to feel the same way. A female-only subculture is almost certainly on the way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Jack Harkness? Is that you?
+5 funny
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
.. you can only get inbred retards. I don't see the breakthrough.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Now this means I have to endure more TV commercials about that "not so fresh" feeling.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
i'm a femele and i have to say that abortion is right, because god created the concept of it and has a plan for the women who do it. certainly god's plan for women who abort babies is not for them to go to hell, but for god to have lots of little babies in heaven that he can play with.
Men cant be removed from society. in fact you have just as a good of a chance to remove men as you do elderly people, or anything else that makes some one "incompatible" or "unnecessary".
Watch Logan's Run and figure it out.
Why is that? Can't women be just as inventive as men? It always amuses me when I hear women say things like that as a way to put down men. Really it is just saying that they don't believe that women can invent useful things which is clearly a ridiculous statement.
...until someone develops an artificial womb, I guess. I seem to remember that there are scientists working on something like that.
I could be used for snu-snu!
sic transit gloria mundi
Yes, they have thought about it. Doesn't the fact that they're willing to go through such pain mean anything to you? They could have what they need in 2 minutes, but they'd rather do the bone marrow extract. Think about it!
Oh, wait. Are you talking about BDSM? Oh, okay. Never mind.
testing out my trending skills
Wha? Who still gives a shit about their karma? That's so 2001.
our new female overlo... never mind... not new.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That's just about the most moronic argument I can think of. I mean, considering that the same argument would work just as well in justifying the Holocaust, you really ought to return to the drawing board.
Welcome our new Amazonian overlords!
No sig for you!!
Poetic license.
You ignore the other side of the issue as well. Its the woman's body and she should be able to abort if she wishes, but its the man's life and obligation as well and either one of them should have the right to choose not to keep the baby.
am I the only one who saw that as bitch?
Little boys don't get born from this procedure. There's no Y chromosomes.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
From a purely technical point of view, *any* form of reproduction which involves *more than one* individual acting as gene donor, *will* strengthen the gene pool overall by creating new permutation.
Whether combining genes from a natural sperm and and a natural ovocyte, OR combining an ovocyte with some synthetic sprem-cell produced from a (different, un-related) amazon, or artificially reshuffling chromosome in a test tube from two different cell lines, or even some times two bacteria getting their DNA mixed (phage transporting pieces of genetic material in addition of their own genetic code, for exemple)... as long as you combine from two source to obtain a new different mix, the results are the same.
On the other hand, reproduction where only 1 individual is the genetic donor, either "classical" cloning, or more esoteric methods (reproducing by using both gamete from the same individual, at least 1 of them being artificial) do not strengthen the gene pool (basically you just have the same genes around).
In the Amazon-overlord-ruled-world proposed by the news-poster, the only limitation will be the diversity of Y-chomosomes. As only girls are involved in this procedure, there are no mixing around of Y chromosomes.
On the other hand, as the source cells are a little bit more downward the differentiation tree compared to natural gametes, the would probably contain more mutation - on the ground of having undergone more divisions - and thus contribute a little to genetic diversity. This would also explain why the current observed yield is low and there are more birth defects.
Of course, a different reason could also explain the problems : if the current sperm-cell differentiation protocol used in the test isn't perfect and the obtain cells, while looking very closely like sperm cells, haven't in fact achieved perfect differentiation and there are still a few more details needed (like proper epigenetic modifications of the DNA).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Until we have RFID implanted in all men and a total surveillance society to track them, men can still decide at any time after a baby is born that they just don't care anymore about it and skip out with practically no consequences compared to the woman they leave behind. Only women with the resources to both battle in court for child support and track the man down who flees jurisdiction can count on guaranteed support, and in most cases it's easier to just go on without the help that keep such a problematic "father" somewhere in the picture.
In reality the biological burden of gestating a child and the financial burden in raising a child are both squarely on the woman's shoulders. So IMHO the woman should get the first and only say about whether or not she is ready for it.
Right now. If you can do that from a female, though, we'll also be able to do that from a male shortly. At that point, you could create both genders of offspring from a single male, but only one gender if you started from a female (a severely damaged X chromosome becoming a Y notwithstanding).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Seriously, sperm contributes some information on the developmental process, besides the plain old DNA. The technical term for the developmental "recipe book" is imprinting. The egg has most of it, but sperm has what's increaasingly looking like a critical part that is not duplicated by the egg.
What it means is that trying to clone a human with the female or the male part of the "recipe" missing is very likely to end in nonfunctional messes. Unlike the equivalent case in a sheep or a mouse though, there are some major issues with just offing the "mistake" and starting over.
"While I was still in high school I cheered the first time someone pulled this off"
;-)
Let me correct this for you:
When I was in middle school I cheered the first time I pulled it off
Libertas in infinitum
You don't like to eat pussy, or you wouldn't have used the words you did to describe lesbians. ...You must be gay! Since you're acting decidedly homophobic, you must also be a hypocrite! Therefore, I proclaim you a DOUCHEBAG. Shut the fuck up, douchebag.
Your heart is in the right place, but you got one detail wrong: Although answers may have axiomatic foundations, questions are always valid.
Validity is not eternal, but must judged on a person-by-person basis.
To deny the asking of a question is to lengthen the time the answer can be found, if at all. But why "if at all", you wonder. Because what one generation has answered, the next has yet to learn. Thus, to progress, each generation must ask the same questions. The nice hack is when the preceding generation prepares for the current one not only the answer, but an entertaining meta-answer (ie, how the answer is answered).
Hey Plutonite,
Gay people reproduce if they want to. It requires cooperation (and never rape).
Is that a sick idea? Adding a new method is just adding a tool.
The relationship needed to raise a child is far beyond "humping", whether the parents are gay or not. And your concept of gay sexuality for either gender is ridiculous.
It's already happened. There's this case: http://www.ivf.net/ivf/deaf_lesbians_choose_to_try_for_deaf_child-o33-en.html This deaf lesbian couple wanted to try for a deaf child, because they see deafness solely as a cultural attribute, instead of a disability. There certainly is deaf culture, I see plenty of people signing (I live in Washington DC, home of Galludet U.), but deliberately depriving an unborn child of one of his/her senses is complete madness.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
While feminists like to exaggerate the bad properties and general uselessness of men and the superior characteristics of women, they fail to realize that those properties have been genetically selected by their sexual counterpart. If men are really that useless, this must mean that women really suck at selecting a sexual partner.
I would like to point out that natural selection has given us obesity (thanks to genes adapted to surviving famine), arthritis (due to inflammation mechanisms meant to fight off diseases), a lack of ability to produce Vitamin C (due to the abundance of fruit in our ancestors' diets), and a whole host of other adaptations that seemed like a really good idea back when we were uncivilized hunter-gatherers but which are flaws in modern society.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Become a hermaphrodite and get rid of both sexes.
Love thyself and nobody else!
That would be the perfect answer for most people.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Given that a lot of people may have defective genes as a result of the geographical isolation of their ancestors (inbreeding), any form of cloning to produce offspring is not a good idea. There are already over 500 diseases caused by genes. Better to breed with a person from as different a genetic group as possible, to ensure your child's genome is as robust and diverse as possible. As an example of inbreeding recent DNA analysis has shown that all blue eyed people share a single common ancestor.
For a good visualization of human genetic diversity.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
Pick a mate that is on the most distant part of the human family tree from yourself.
There is a very good reason that sexual reproduction evolved, it works well and protects the integrity of the genome.
Only if you got yourself an irresponsible husband, that is. Lots of marriages work fine, where both parents contribute in raising their children.
Women still need someone to take out the trash.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There is a science fiction short story that talks about this scenario exactly: what will human civilization be like if there were no men, and women couples are able to have children that are genetically linked to both parents?
Excellent short story; was nominated for the Hugo and won a Nebula.
Joanna Russ: When It Changed
First of all, a far from insignificant number of fertile women oppose legal abortion, so there'd still be an argument. Second of all, I strongly suspect that men didn't historically have a possessive attitude towards women, rape would have always been legal too since they would only lose and never gain by its illegality. That is neither here nor there.
Truth is, all humans tend to be selfish, biased towards their own group, given to bouts of irrationality, powerhungry, and generally bloodthirsty. The reason this has been more traditionally associated with men and not women is because men, being stronger, have had all the power.
... that women don't enjoy sex. What's the purpose of this? BTW, the poster is waaaaay p-whipped - jeeeez. I know it's supposed to be funny, but I keep seeing these self(men)-denigrating comments all the time now. What is it with you guys? Dig deep and try to find your balls, for crying out loud...
I don't know if we're obsolete yet, but we're definitely going to be deprecated. How long we're kept around for legacy support is an open question.
A boner
Surely you mean "Overladies"?
OWW!! Honey, it's just a joke. Hey! OWWWW! Honey!
Think about the consequences here people, do we really want to live in a world where there is no more "pull my finger" jokes? These guys need to be stopped now before it's too late!
What exactly prevents women from doing the same thing?
On the other hand a woman can get a abortion, or give a child up for adoption without too much trouble. A man would have little say in this matter, and should he choose not to run (those pesty social ties) it'll be easy to get the courts to force him to pay, even if it's a situation like a woman changing her mind after causal sex.
Eh, this was rather offtopic. It's that you made it seem as though women are at an disadvantage when it comes to decision concerning kids. I suppose this is true for the dregs of society, but I assume they're a minority.
The invention of power tools.
In light of your comment, I find your sig very apt.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Uhhh... no.
If a child is already growing inside her then it's no longer just "her" body, but two that are affected. Murder is never acceptable.
Gay people are perfectly capable of having children and often do. Go to any major american city's gay pride parade and you'll see a large troupe of gay and lesbian parents marching with their children. We're just less likely to do so, because of a number of reasons prominently including worry that heterosexuals will try to take our children away from us, and the fact that since heterosexuals don't let us marry, it's more financially and legally difficult for us to have children.
Furthermore, the whole "if the world was entirely gay" BS is a strawman argument; it hasn't happened, it isn't going to happen, grow up.That's not what evolutionary biologists have to say about it. What seems to be the case is that having gay children benefits other children in the extended family because as they become adults the gay people would likely be interested in being an additional caretaker and provider for the heterosexuals in the family, thus improving their chance to survive to reproduce.
We gay people are here, we're not going to tolerate repression any more, and you have no choice but to live with the fact. So start dealing with it.
And to think, until recently people believed that only a male rib could make a whole woman, amazing what we can do nowadays. I don't really see the technology as being, ethically speaking, anything but an improvement over current fertility treatments, such as IVF. In the same way that IVF does, it can allow couples to reproduce who are otherwise unable to. I do worry a little though, about society's acceptance of children born from such a conception. I believe that there is already a degree of prejudice against children raised by gay/lesbian couples, i highly doubt that biologicaly children of same sex couples would escape that. It may not be right, but is it fair to the child to ignore it?
Puts a bit of a painful spin on "getting boned."
Saying "you don't know jack shit about women" isn't going to solve anything. The person to whom you are responding has a very common contemporary view of women held by many men. If you simply dismiss it, you fail to recognize that many men have this opinion, and they have reasons for believing it. You may not agree with their conclusions about women, and that's okay, but you should recognize that men have this opinion for a reason, and if you want men to stop seeing women that way, the burden is on *everyone* to make some changes to our culture to relieve mens' fears.
I am a gay man, so please understand that all of the following is an attempt to educate you about how men see the world.
Consider our high divorce rate. Men are not filing the majority of divorce cases; women are. Men file only a tiny minority of divorces.
Consider why women divorce. While there are unquestionably many cases in which women have been mistreated, that's still a minority of divorces. Extensive study has been unable to determine a way to predict the success or failure of a marriage, except for one factor: women who have a tendency to "trade up" from one thing to a better one are very likely to divorce, while those who prefer to keep what they have rather than "trade up" are unlikely to divorce. While most men don't know this as such, they certainly can feel the fact that they're being tossed aside for something their (now former) wife feels will be "better", rather than due to a particular failure on their own part. So they usually feel very bitter about their divorce, because they never wanted it.
Consider that in a divorce, a woman has a substantially better chance to get the house, and will get the children in almost 100% of cases, and will often get ongoing financial benefits from her former husband. So, the man comes away feeling like the house that was his home and which was supposedly equally his has been more or less stolen from him, and now it's hers, yet he still has to pay for it. This ensures he'll almost certainly never be able to have that standard of living again (although his ex-wife will), and he will feel that his children, who he loved, have been taken from him (visitation is BS, men know darned well that getting to see their children occasionally doesn't allow them to be a real parent any more), and he is likely no longer in a financial position to be able to start another family and have other children, because a huge chunk of his income is going to support the home and family he had that he feels his ex-wife has stolen from him.
Consider that there are many men in this situation, and they talk to their friends, including their single male friends. Also, their children watch all this, and their male children grow up watching their father try to scrape together his life and try to put together a little dignity and find some source of happiness, and never quite succeed in being what they used to be. Adult men see their fathers unable to retire because they were ruined financially for life by the divorce and the associated financial demands, so the fathers will have to work themselves to death. How do you think that makes a young man feel about women?
If you want men to lose this harsh perspective of women, we need as a culture to carefully examine divorce as we know it and start making changes to our culture and legal system so that men don't keep ending up feeling that they have been changed from husbands and fathers to slaves-to-their-ex-wives, and don't end up teaching others that they too could end up like this.
Chewing out men for feeling that way isn't part of the solution.
Morally, Perhaps you are right. I think in any stable, functional relationship the couple should agree to come to a joint decision about the fate of the child. But in matters of law we often have to make arbitrary lines. In this case someone has to have ultimate legal authority over the child - if children were able to grow outside of the mother, then it would make sense for both parents to have equal power over the child. But if the man has a veto on abortion then that sets up an unacceptable scenario of women's bodies being subject to a men's will - thus we are forced to give authority to the mother herself, which although not perfect is better than the alternative.
Uh, hum... That research surely means we wont be seeing any more Al Bundy stories.
Of course the fact that women choose the EXACT wrong time to fucking ask is not a coincidence either.
Note to Females: Tasks CANNOT be handed out to any man during a sports game. He is incapable of remembering it, and will agree to any statement to refocus the 10% of the concentration he gave you back to the game.
I suppose this is true for the dregs of society, but I assume they're a minority.
You assume wrong.
What exactly prevents women from doing the same thing?
How about the fact that pregnancy is not just some period of time that is conveniently forgotten once it's over? Reproduction is not an equivalent experience between women and men. For those women who choose to undergo a pregnancy, it comes with permanent and often unwanted physiological changes to their body coupled with a rather long time to form an emotional bond with their future child. Men don't experience that, and frankly no amount of being there and being supportive and going to the store at 3am for weird food or whatever will really equate to an actual pregnancy with the shoes that don't fit anymore to the stares and random advice from absolutely everyone an expecting mother sees. A man may love his woman and future child more than anything but there will always be an experience gap he can't cross over to achieve full understanding.
If it's not clear already, I'm not "pro-abortion" but I am pro-choice. Women who choose it should get far more social (emotional) and financial support than they do already, particularly non-white women in America who are often blamed from mainstream society for all of its ills because they reproduced at all. Women who choose otherwise should have that decision respected.
guys this is nothing new, this technique has been used off the coast of spain for at least 10 years http://daveyville.myminicity.com/
Perhaps there are at least 4 factors that determine sexuality: the bio, psychoanalytic, ethical and environmental realms - just a guess.
I can't imagine what would possess someone to try to eliminate the male gene, or create sperm from female marrow - apart from being completely driven in mad science - how does this really benefit anyone? Simply to say that it can be done? Wheehoo - a major breakthru - you get an A on your science fair project - so where is this going to lead you? You've successfully created a freak of nature for what purpose?
Perhaps females are less inclined to go down these scientific roads, as there is no clear benefit - apart from the "mines bigger than yours" theory -
In performing this experiment, they are meddling in forces that they cannot possibly understand or control and will surely die. Grindalf
The purpose of existence is to make money.
That's funny, because I can think of 4 friends/acquaintances off the top of my head that are or have raised their kids alone because the mom just up and decided being a druggie in another state was much more fun than being a mom in this one. They did a damn good job, and I couldn't imagine their sons or daughters believing that the absent mothers would have loved them more than their fathers did.
Oh, fyi, a lot of the bonding is from endorphines and hormones that are released by stimulating the nipples. No breast feeding = less bonding. (Also - if your pet just had a litter, but shows no interest in them... just rub its nipples!)
Lets see...
Artificial Sperm:
Difficulty: Very complex process
Risk: Probably has a high likelyhood of sperm with damaged genes
Cost: Thousands of dollars (at least)
People: Requires many highly skilled specialists
Process: Obtaining bone marrow is painful or unpleasant at best
Natural Sperm:
Difficulty: Limited by how fast the woman can call the man and how fast he can run to her bedroom.
Risk: May end up in a bad relationship or with an STD
Cost: Usually the price of a dinner and a few drinks
People: Requires at least one reasonably clean, functional and attractive guy (more than one? You perv)
Process: Generally extremely pleasant, unusual hardware may vary the experience though.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
'But if the man has a veto on abortion then that sets up an unacceptable scenario of women's bodies being subject to a men's will - thus we are forced to give authority to the mother herself, which although not perfect is better than the alternative.'
Agreed but you misunderstood what I meant. I am not suggesting the man be able to veto an abortion, I am saying that he should be able to require it. A man has no right to force a woman to carry a baby to term but likewise the woman has no right to bring a child into the world. After all, legally the man has obligations (although in most states few or no rights except in wedlock) both moral and legal if the woman is allowed to carry to term.
Thats not at all offtopic, at least not in this thread. That was precisely my point. A man has moral, ethical, and legal obligations if a child is brought into this world. As long as a reasonably safe means exist to abort then either the man or the woman should have the authority to require it.
Even a waiver disclaiming the man's legal obligation isn't enough, if the child is born then the moral obligations do not magically disappear and such a waiver would only serve to make the relationship between father and child more difficult later.
Its obvious that either you or someone close to you has had a hard time with this. Sorry about that.
In the real world both mothers and fathers skip out on children. It may be unthinkable to you, but it is also unthinkable to many that by and large when a parent murders a child (and I'm not calling abortions murder) it is the mother who does it, not the father.
Just because you happen to think enforcement is lax does not change the actual moral, ethical, and legal obligations a father has and those obligations are the same a mother has. A child should not be brought into this world unless both parents agree to assume those responsibilities. If either parent is unwilling then abortion should be mandatory. That cuts both ways, that also means no man can require a woman have a child. The argument is being made the other way only because a womans right to abort is already being recognized.
You are right that ethical people are far more rare than unethical ones (be they fathers, mothers, employers, employees, or any other role filled by humans) but the solution is not to put up barriers to taking the high road. People live longer in this day and age and yet the biological imperative that the males of the species feel for sex still comes at the same early age. The result is that our society prepares a male for fatherhood at 30 and males begin having sex at 15. Is it really so surprising that we have deadbeat dads? Allowing the men the right to say "I'm not ready" in the same manner women can will mean a drastic reduction in dead beat dads. There will be fewer younger fathers overall, but they will at least be more likely to be responsible fathers. It will be easier to enforce child support since the courts and police will not be flooded with requests.
Given your strong views on the topic you may not agree and that is fine, but consider it, consider the implications of every father choosing to have a child rather than choosing to have sex. Trust me, men are not going to stop having sex irresponsibility, that is an impossible dream.