Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 26, 2012 @11:54AM from the and-in-chickens dept.

sciencehabit writes "Men typically produce working sperm as long as they live, but most textbooks say female mammals are born with all the egg cells, or oocytes, they will ever have. Since 2004, however, reproductive biologist Jonathan Tilly of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston has challenged that conventional wisdom, arguing that in mice—and perhaps also in humans—there must be an ongoing source of new eggs. Today, Tilly and his colleagues report isolating rare cells in ovarian tissue from adult women that can grow in lab dishes and form immature oocytes. The potential egg stem cells could help scientists devise new ways to help rescue the fertility of women who have to undergo cancer treatments or who suffer from premature menopause."

91 of 142 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Unpossible by Kohath · 2012-02-26 11:58 · Score: 3, Funny

The science is settled. What's up with these finite-egg deniers?
1. Re:Unpossible by Mashiki · 2012-02-26 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, if you were Al Gore, you'd be correct.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Unpossible by Misanthrope · 2012-02-26 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Can't tell if humor?
3. Re:Unpossible by Sulphur · 2012-02-26 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, if you were Al Gore, you'd be correct.
  Watch his amazing prior hoc ergo propter hoc demonstration.
4. Re:Unpossible by Dast · 2012-02-27 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Um....
  "prior hoc ergo propter hoc"?
  I think you meant "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
  
  --
  This sig is false.
5. Re:Unpossible by Sulphur · 2012-02-27 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Um....
  "prior hoc ergo propter hoc"?
  I think you meant "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
  I meant to say before this therefore because of this in Latin. I was refering to a graph behind AG showing temperature swings followed 800 years later by the Carbon Cycle.
  If one wanted a post-hoc assertion, then he would say that the Climate Cycle drives the Carbon Cycle.
"or who suffer from premature menopause." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 12:00 · Score: 1

...or even regular menopause.
1. Re:"or who suffer from premature menopause." by Samantha+Wright · 2012-02-26 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not without serious advances in other areas of longevity research. Pregnancy in forty-five-year-old women is a dangerous proposition.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:lololol by masternerdguy · 2012-02-26 12:01 · Score: 1

They do way better. Stem cells are indeterminent posts. They are any post you like.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:lololol by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 12:03 · Score: 1

I'd like to see them make toast or bacon.
Not safe by Hentes · 2012-02-26 12:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most women lose their fertility for a reason. Whether it's menopause or cancer, getting pregnant is not a good idea in either case.
1. Re:Not safe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 12:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Trains and vehicles are unsafe. Humans do not move faster than they can run for a reason. How dare we either go against god or risk finding out why evolution made us this way!
2. Re:Not safe by maxwells_deamon · 2012-02-26 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Have you actually looked into this?
  In africa infertility used to be the second most common reason women went to the doctor. AIDS was number one. They will not do to the doctor if they are just old.
  Obviously menopause is a common reason women can no longer have children but it is expected. Cancer is way, way down on the list.
  Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem. If you go to the doctor, much of the time the honest answer is that "we just don't know"
3. Re:Not safe by Hentes · 2012-02-26 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  In africa infertility used to be the second most common reason women went to the doctor. AIDS was number one. They will not do to the doctor if they are just old.
  The population growth of Africa is the highest of the continents. Africans have many problems but infertility isn't one of them.
  
  Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem. If you go to the doctor, much of the time the honest answer is that "we just don't know"
  And in most of those cases it is possible to use the woman's own eggs. When it's not feasible then there is some problem with the woman's body, which can make pregnancy a risk.
4. Re:Not safe by morari · 2012-02-26 13:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem.
  Is it?
  It seems like an out of control population is a much, much larger problem.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
5. Re:Not safe by artor3 · 2012-02-26 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  What about in vitro fertilization using a surrogate? This would allow a woman who is infertile to still have a child carrying hers and her husband's DNA. Not the most important thing, I'll admit, but for the rare couple in such a situation, it would be nice to have.
6. Re:Not safe by Arterion · 2012-02-26 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hold on, let me put on my tin foil hat.
  Okay.
  Obviously, it's a government plot to seed the clouds over Africa with chemicals to sterilize the population. It's one of the uses of chemtrails. We don't have the problems over here so much because drink water that's been treated, and most of us either drink bottled water or have a filter on the tap. The chemicals they use are not transdermal, so the little bit that's in our tap water doesn't affect most people from showering, laundry, brushing theeth, etc.
  
  --
  "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
7. Re:Not safe by ralphdaugherty · 2012-02-26 14:39 · Score: 2
  
  Along those lines, a quote in TFA on why women had all the eggs they will have in the beginning and don't make eggs:
  "Then why would women have menopause?"
  I found that less than compelling reasoning from scientists.
  I was shocked to find that the biology I've been reading that says that a woman (and all female mammals) has all her eggs in the beginning is really just conjecture and that no one has ever seen the eggs stored. There's quite a lot of reasoning involved, about how important it is for integrity of DNA germ line in eggs to be produced in the beginning with a minimum of accumulated DNA damage, the opposite of male sperm being produced on an ongoing basis.
  Appears to be more wishful thinking and rationalization than anything else.
8. Re:Not safe by martin-boundary · 2012-02-26 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  Most women lose their fertility for a reason.
  
  No. Evolution does not operate by reason or intelligence.
9. Re:Not safe by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-02-26 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's not actually well established what the reason for menopause is. Not all mammals undergo menopause. Socio-economic status is a far better predictor of the ultimate health of the child than the age of the mother. The reason why women lose their fertility is merely because they run out of eggs. They run out of eggs because from an evolutionary perspective, there's no downside to running out of eggs 20-30 years after the onset of menarche. Evolutionary adaptations don't have to be advantages per se; they merely must not be deleterious. This is why we still carry around vestigial organs like the appendix. By and large, it's not a problem, but it no longer confers any advantage.
  Don't anthropomorphise evolution. It has no purpose or direction. Creatures end up where they end up because of the context of the selection pressures. That's it.
10. Re:Not safe by EdIII · 2012-02-26 15:41 · Score: 2
  
  women have become obsolite
  Really? You must have one fantastically talented hand....
11. Re:Not safe by blahplusplus · 2012-02-26 15:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "population control is inherently racist,"
  This must mean the chinese are racist? Or is it that they realize that a finite planet can only sustain a certain amount of people without doing long-term harm to their own interests as a nation?
12. Re:Not safe by MrEricSir · 2012-02-26 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  His point isn't strictly a selfish one. The egg is the first step in a very complex process, and women who have general health problems (cancer, early-onset menopause) aren't likely to produce the healthiest babies.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
13. Re:Not safe by misexistentialist · 2012-02-26 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Survival of the species doesn't count as a purpose? Hard to see how more genetically similar and increasingly defective babies born to decrepit mothers wouldn't be deleterious.
14. Re:Not safe by tibit · 2012-02-26 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
15. Re:Not safe by tibit · 2012-02-26 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that "running out of eggs" is anything more than a bedtime story told to kids, or even flatly a lie. At 45 years old, one has lived around 16 thousand days. Even if someone ovulated once a day, running out of 16,000 cells is good as a joke. If you think otherwise, educate us, please. Show where someone counted those eggs, and has shown that they have ran out.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
16. Re:Not safe by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-02-26 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Are you also opposed to therapies for lost eyesight, lost mobility, lost hearing, and so on? All of those happen for reasons.
17. Re:Not safe by martin-boundary · 2012-02-26 18:02 · Score: 2
  
  Cause != Reason.
  The word reason implies some mental process or justification, an explanation or rationale for an event.
  The word cause is neutral, and is appropriate to describe factual relationships.
18. Re:Not safe by Hognoxious · 2012-02-26 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  If I say my car won't start and someone says "for what reason?" they aren't implying that the darn heap of junk has become sentient and made a conscious decision to go on strike.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
19. Re:Not safe by viperidaenz · 2012-02-26 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they mean a lack of eggs may not be the leading cause of infertility.
20. Re:Not safe by viperidaenz · 2012-02-26 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, cause != reason.
  Take this example:
  The reason she is infertile, is ovarian cancer destroyed her ovaries.
  The cause is defective cellular reproduction leading to a cancerous tumour.
  
  A reason is the explanation of a situation or circumstance.
21. Re:Not safe by viperidaenz · 2012-02-26 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  There is a benefit of menopause. Grandparents are free baby sitters. Before the niceties of modern civilisation, a mother was dependant on others to help her care for her children. Human infants are physically and mentally under developed and completely useless, the only reason they're born after 9 months is so their head doesn't get stuck on the way out.
22. Re:Not safe by martin-boundary · 2012-02-26 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  If I say my car won't start and someone says "for what reason?" they aren't implying that the darn heap of junk has become sentient and made a conscious decision to go on strike.
  
  Correct. They are implying that you (a human being) can supply a logical explanation that will satisfy their curiosity.
23. Re:Not safe by martin-boundary · 2012-02-26 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  I would replace the first example by "she is infertile because ovarian cancer destroyed her ovaries".
24. Re:Not safe by GmExtremacy · 2012-02-26 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  so by saying we don't need more people, you're being racist.
  Your argument sounds highly convincing and I wish to hear more about how saying things that are disadvantageous to people of a certain race automatically makes someone racist.
25. Re:Not safe by St.Creed · 2012-02-26 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  I understand your sarcasm, but it fits really well with re-reading a very old SF book I read last night. "When they came from space", Mark Clifton (1961). He discusses the attitude of self-righteous people as the root cause of much slaughter. How true it is.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
26. Re:Not safe by u38cg · 2012-02-26 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually quite shocking what we don't know about female biology. There is still not a scientific consensus on whether the G-spot exists. The clitoris only made it into textbooks in the mid 20th century. A sort of scientific analogue of the Bechdel test, I suppose.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
27. Re:Not safe by GuB-42 · 2012-02-26 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Fighting piracy (real piracy, with guns, not copyright stuff) is inherently racist. Piracy happen mostly in developing countries, i.e. brown and black people. So, by saying we don't need pirates, you're being racist.
  A high standard of living and high birth rate will always lead to overpopulation, whatever the race is.
28. Re:Not safe by Krau+Ming · 2012-02-27 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  So if we stopped attempting to treat all those darn infertile people of the world would that put any kind of dent in the population growth rate? Along the same of thinking, we should also stop medically treating old and sick people so that they die earlier to help lower the population and save money/resources.
  Perhaps a better solution would be that all families be limited to 2 children and that we continue to treat people with fertility problems.
29. Re:Not safe by morari · 2012-02-27 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  population control is inherently racist, and yours is a racist comment.
  It sounds like you're just trolling to me, but I did want to elaborate on my comments. I didn't meant that Africa's population was strictly the problem. I meant that humanity's worldwide population is the issue. Less people means more resources like food and land... y'know, those things that directly effect me each and every day. If you want to treat infertility, go ahead. You say people have the "right" to breed, and I say it's just nature doing its job. At the very least, developed countries should limit the amount of children per person/couple to no more than two.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
30. Re:Not safe by Dixie_Flatline · 2012-02-27 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ostensibly, the number of eggs that a female is born with is the number of eggs she carries through her life. It's perfectly believable that a) the number of eggs is a finite and small number; and b) no more eggs are created after birth. The wikipedia article on ovum claims that this fixed number is a property of all mammals.
  I haven't seen any scientific articles that have claimed otherwise, though I admit that I've taken this on faith. It IS fact that human ovulation has a beginning and an end that don't coincide with the absolute beginning and end of the woman's life.
  But given the preponderance of scientific consensus on this matter, I think you'll need some evidence to back up your assertion that women are born with or have access to more eggs than about 30 years worth.
31. Re:Not safe by morari · 2012-02-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, I doubt it would significantly correct population growth. Not when you have whack-job religious, middle-class families throughout America popping out 5-7 kids per couple. I would be willing to compromise and let infertility be treat if a "2 children per family" law was implemented and enforced, along with proper sexual education. Furthermore, there should be a very basic parenting license that you must apply for along with this hard limit. Repeat criminal offenders need not apply. People with adverse genetic defects that would be passed onto their children would be turned away. Drug tests would be mandatory. Basic child-care classes would become the equivalent of Driver's Education in this scenario. Population control is important for those of us who don't enjoy living like sardines, one on top of another, in the crowded urban areas. It's important to those of us that have the foresight to realize that we're already staining our resources. We need less people consuming less resources, as well as more manageable and responsible practices to preserve said resources. If you think concerns over oil are bad, wait until water starts to become visibly scarce.
  And yes, a lot of old people simply need (and want) to die. Have you ever been to a nursing home? I have two family members that work in that particular industry. Those people aren't alive, they merely exist. Most have no idea where they're at, and the ones that do are miserable. The only reason anyone is ever put into that kind of situation is because their family doesn't love them enough to provide care themselves. They never visit, but they want the moral high ground of knowing that "grandma is doing great... somewhere... we asume". These are ritzy places too, not those industrialized slums that nursing homes are so generally stereotyped as.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
32. Re:Not safe by tibit · 2012-02-27 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  30*365/(7*3) 522. Five hundred cells? Show some papers where they have counted them and can show that women actually ran out of anything. Oh, and it better be done by multiple groups, from various "angles", just to be sure we have reproducible results and not just due to one group's (mis)-interpretation. Because I think it'd be big news, possibly Nobel-prize-worthy. There's IMHO a whole lot of BS that's repeated over an over, but no one bothers to look at the original sources and think "hey, that's, like, conjecture at best".
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
33. Re:Not safe by tibit · 2012-02-27 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, meant to write 30*365/(7*3) &lt 522. Heck, and this probably should be more like 7*4, but still, we're talking about roughly half a thousand eggs. That's a rather silly number, if you think about it.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
34. Re:Not safe by root_42 · 2012-02-27 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  People with adverse genetic defects that would be passed onto their children would be turned away.
  Uh oh, treading on very shallow ground here. We already had this kind of stuff in a slightly different setting, some 70 years back. It was not so much turning people away from fertility treatment, but rather making sure they are infertile. The question always is: where do you draw the line? If there's a risk of injury / disability in your family or with your pregnancy, the doctor should inform the parents, so that they can make a decision, if they want to get pregnant or if they really want to carry out the baby. But simply saying "people with ... defects ... would be turned away" is borderline unethical.
  
  --
  [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
35. Re:Not safe by tolkienfan · 2012-02-27 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. Survival of the species is not a purpose.
  Some species adapt and survive, and some don't. They don't try to adapt for the purpose of surviving. There is no guiding hand.
  Some genes make it into future generations and some don't.
  If a species is prolific and successful early on and then starts producing deformed offspring that die early its genes will still have made it.
  Defective offspring is not necessarily a deleterious occurrence.
36. Re:Not safe by tolkienfan · 2012-02-27 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  What does silly mean in this context?
  You have some kind of feeling that it seems way off?
  Or does silly have some biological meaning that I'm not familiar with?
37. Re:Not safe by tibit · 2012-02-28 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  In terms of number of cells, that's barely a blip. Since it's such a small blip, you'd think someone somewhere would have counted the damn eggs already. Now, the way things are, the ovaries have volume measured in millilitres, not nanolitres, and I've yet to see an actual egg count. That's why the assumption that humans somehow run out of eggs is silly, and that's why the presumed small number of eggs is silly as well. Unless there's some hitherto unknown (at least to me) mechanism that kills a whole bunch of egg cells per every ovulated one.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
38. Re:Not safe by Sally+Forth · 2012-02-29 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese one-child/forced-abortion policy isn't racist, it's sexist.
MOD STORY DOWN.... by LostCluster · 2012-02-26 12:24 · Score: 3, Funny

This is Slashdot... do we care about the inner workings of a woman's body?
1. Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-26 12:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe you don't but this should freeze your balls:
  
  Tilly holds a patent on the human egg stem cells
  (and is starting a company to help alleviate human suffering and cash out on his find).
  Hopefully, no public funds were used in this endeavor, otherwise I smell an ethical rat...
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... by LongearedBat · 2012-02-26 15:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  holds a patent on the human egg stem cells
  Public funds or not... in my opinion that is the rat I'm smelling.
3. Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... by interkin3tic · 2012-02-26 18:57 · Score: 2
  
  This sounds like he has a patented method for screening for these cells. If it's a fancy microscope or artificial chemical that he developed, good for him. More likely it is a method of culturing cells using generic culture methods, and he is just going to try to prevent anyone else from doing anything with those cells. If that's the case, there are bigger ethical problems than funding.
Re:Hypocritical by adonoman · 2012-02-26 13:08 · Score: 2

It was easy enough for me at 25 in Canada. I walked in for a consultation. Came back a week later, 10 minutes later walked out with no future worries of more children. You just need to be able to convince the doctor that you're serious.
If this is true.... by mevets · 2012-02-26 13:23 · Score: 1

How did the medical community miss this? Is this another 'we didn't bother checking with actual women' thing that seems to be plaguing them?
What is with that? I thought one of the benefits of being an MD was access to lots of women....
1. Re:If this is true.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because no doubt some researchers decades ago did a study with a p-value 0.05. Because most researchers--like everybody else--are statistical idiots, they presumed either the null hypothesis wrong and/or the the alternative hypothesis true and moved on. When what should have happened instead was generation and testing of a new hypothesis, preferably one which sheds light on both previous hypotheses.
  Consider that with a p-value of 0.05 one out of twenty experiments, on average, will see "improbable" results. But that's worse case. Imagine studying an area with poorly known and highly variable behaviors. A priori you have no idea what the universe of possible results are. Every study you do could end up seeing "improbable" results, even though the null hypothesis is absolutely correct. You have no idea how to size your samples, etc, without making completely arbitrary guesstimates.
  We're still in the stone ages of science, people, especially when it comes to biology.
2. Re:If this is true.... by tibit · 2012-02-26 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Someone mod this up. An insightful comment if I ever saw one.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
3. Re:If this is true.... by tehcyder · 2012-02-27 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I thought one of the benefits of being an MD was access to lots of women....
  Yeah, lots of women with injuries or diseases, uncomfortable if not in actual pain.
  
  Still, whatever turns you on...
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Found in women? You don't say by ChromeAeonium · 2012-02-26 14:34 · Score: 1

Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women
So, as opposed to the egg cells found in men?
Re:Hypocritical by ChrisMaple · 2012-02-26 14:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

The research is expanding the knowledge of mankind and has enormous potential. We already know plenty of ways to make people sterile.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well, yeah. by BenJCarter · 2012-02-26 15:19 · Score: 1

"Men typically produce working sperm as long as they live..."

Well, yeah. Men typically op-test the sperm banks as often as possible.

Maintenance is important ....

--
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
seriously you guys by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-26 15:24 · Score: 1

"rescue the fertility of women who have to undergo cancer treatments or who suffer from premature menopause."
They already have a solution for that. It's called adoption. Until we figure out how to sufficiently take care of the children there are on this planet we shouldn't be going out of our way to make new ones.
humans reproduce plenty by OrangeTide · 2012-02-26 15:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

While interesting from a scientific point of view, why are we obsessed with fertility when some people have more children than they can take care of? Perhaps we can address fertility issues caused by rare events like cancer, or the fertility of women as they get older as a solution to a shortage of orphans.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:humans reproduce plenty by GmExtremacy · 2012-02-26 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't to me. Why do they have to make a new one? What exactly is wrong with adoption?
  You can't live through your genes. You don't become immortal by having children. What exactly is the obsession with having biological children?
2. Re:humans reproduce plenty by GmExtremacy · 2012-02-26 21:11 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps because fertility is what perpetuates the human race.
  Believe me, we're in no danger of going extinct.
  
  are obviously concerns to us all
  Are you sure? Many people don't seem to care at all.
3. Re:humans reproduce plenty by olau · 2012-02-27 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is of course a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway. The answer is that you don't have be obsessed, but the women who get sick and can't have a child would like to have some kind of cure. Maybe that's selfish of them, but if what you are thinking of is the sustainability of the earth, I'm sure that if you did the math,, it's more selfish to eat meat.
  The truth is that many Western countries have a fertility rate below 2. So while there may be too many children born in some parts of the world, the population will decline in others ignoring immigration for a second. And somehow, I don't think the typical mother with 6 kids in a poor country is going to give up her kids just like that, even if she can barely support them.
4. Re:humans reproduce plenty by olau · 2012-02-27 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think it's just the way people think about. Nobody dreaming of having a child starts out by thinking they aren't going to make it themselves. So naturally they'd prefer to make it themselves, and while some people are probably going to resign relatively quickly if they can't and think about adoption instead, it's not really surprising to me that some are obsessed and will do anything, even going through several years of nerve-wrecking treatment.
5. Re:humans reproduce plenty by tehcyder · 2012-02-27 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't to me. Why do they have to make a new one? What exactly is wrong with adoption?
  You can't live through your genes. You don't become immortal by having children. What exactly is the obsession with having biological children?
  Most bizarre comment I've read on Slashdot in a while.You honestly don't realise why creatures want to raise offspring? Has the whole concept of evolution passed you by completely? You might as well ask why people try to avoid fatal accidents.
  You appear to have missed the point entirely. Children who are adopted have by definition been born to parents who do or can not raise children properly.
  
  The parents who adopt do want to raise offspring, there is just no need for them to be biollogically theirs.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:lololol by mevets · 2012-02-26 15:25 · Score: 2

did you push the button?
http://i718.photobucket.com/albums/ww186/prufrock55/push-button-receive-bacon.png
Even more so for the infant by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-02-26 16:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Pregnancy in forty-five-year-old women is a dangerous proposition.
If it's dangerous for the mother, think of the child in the womb
Babies born by older mothers have much higher chances of having being born with many types of defects
Down syndrome is just one of them.

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Even more so for the infant by TheLink · 2012-02-26 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  It seems as if they do about as well as younger women that undergo induced pregnancies: http://www.livescience.com/18289-pregnant-women-age-50-complications.html
  But since those younger women are going for induced pregnancies they might not be that healthy either...
  If those induced pregnancies weren't that much more dangerous than normal pregnancies, then it may not be so dangerous for older mothers and their babies if the eggs and sperm are good quality (whether donated or via some new-fangled stemcell thing) and the fertilization process is improved.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
2. Re:Even more so for the infant by quenda · 2012-02-27 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  If it's dangerous for the mother, think of the child in the womb
  Babies born by older mothers have much higher chances of having being born with many types of defects. Down syndrome is just one of them.
  But you have completely missed the reason. It is because of the old eggs. If a 45yo woman is pregnant using a donor egg from a young woman, all those risks go away.
3. Re:Even more so for the infant by smellsofbikes · 2012-02-27 04:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If it's dangerous for the mother, think of the child in the womb
  Babies born by older mothers have much higher chances of having being born with many types of defects. Down syndrome is just one of them.
  But you have completely missed the reason. It is because of the old eggs. If a 45yo woman is pregnant using a donor egg from a young woman, all those risks go away.
  Actually, there's extensive evidence that it isn't because of old eggs: it's because as a woman gets closer to menopause her body spontaneously aborts less often, so she'll bear children with defects, that when she was in her twenties her body would've dumped. Tim Birkhead in "Promiscuity: the evolution of sperm competition" discusses this quite a bit. The theory is that when she's younger her body wants to focus its resources on only the best offspring, and as she approaches menopause, it's more important to just have kids to pass on her genes, than it is to be selective.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Momy issues by fragMasterFlash · 2012-02-26 17:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, I don't think this is going to work...unless the Batman cape and cowl really does get your juices flowing.

*sucks thumb*
1. Re:Momy issues by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-27 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno about that but when I play Arkham City as Catwoman I have a semi the entire time
  I mean that could be downright dangerous for teenage boys. They should have a warning on that game about erections lasting longer than 4 hours...
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Genetics and birth environment by phorm · 2012-02-26 18:18 · Score: 1

Also, when you have your own child, then hopefully you have (some) idea of what might be in store for you genetics/environment wise. You know the family history (if it's bad, then maybe adoption *IS* a better option).
You also know that you aren't going to run into that possibly difficult moment where the child you've raised decides to look for the genetic parents. Knowing some people that have been adopted, the whole birth-parent-genetic-parent can be hard on a kid and on a family.
One fear of mine would be not knowing the parent of your child, and the circumstances of birth. Was the parent an alcoholic or drug user? Did the child get enough nourishment, etc while in the womb? Many children are given up because of a bad home environment, which often might have adverse factors later affecting said child's health.
That being said, I have in previous relationships discussed the possibilities of adoption. In one case it was with a partner who was somewhat older than me, and past child-bearing prime. In another case I was with somebody who did have some fertility issues and was concerned whether that might affect our relationship later on.
For me, adoption was a viable option but generally secondary to having our own child. For some others, adoption is a way to avoid personal genetic flaws or the pains of childbirth. For yet others, it's a way to give a chance to a child who may otherwise have been left behind by society, but people doing so had better be sure they're ready to face all the aspects of adoption, both good and bad.
1. Re:Genetics and birth environment by OrangeTide · 2012-02-26 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  My grandfather was raised in an orphanage.
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
2. Re:Genetics and birth environment by tehcyder · 2012-02-27 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  One fear of mine would be not knowing the parent of your child, and the circumstances of birth. Was the parent an alcoholic or drug user? Did the child get enough nourishment, etc while in the womb? Many children are given up because of a bad home environment, which often might have adverse factors later affecting said child's health.
  Adopters (here in the UK at least) get to know a fair amount about the birth parents. As most children aren't adopted as babies here, any obvious health issues are normally apparent by the time they are adopted.
  
  And in any case, if an adopted child turns out to have some unfortunate medical condition, it's the same as if it's your biological child, you deal with it.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Eggstra! Eggstra! Read all about it! by Hognoxious · 2012-02-26 20:30 · Score: 1

Ei'll be glad when you switch oeuf your computer and all these bad puns will be ova.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Eggs found by Hognoxious · 2012-02-26 20:34 · Score: 3, Informative

So it's now acceptable to refer to them as chicks?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Hypocritical by viperidaenz · 2012-02-26 20:56 · Score: 1

30 year old cut off? You had your first child at 35. Where is your experience at raising children while under 30?
Re:Hypocritical by St.Creed · 2012-02-26 22:18 · Score: 1

"Do as I say, don't do as I do"

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Just to be annoying by bazorg · 2012-02-26 22:27 · Score: 1

Occasionally there are news about how sperm can become redundant and some unpleasant banter about men becoming extinct comes along. Can we conclude from these news that the opposite could happen, ie: stem cells from a man being set up to generate his own egg?
Slashdotters would then be able to reproduce asexually, which would be clear progress :)
Re:Hypocritical by Joce640k · 2012-02-26 23:07 · Score: 1

I think he's admitting he did it wrong...

--
No sig today...
Oh NO! by glorybe · 2012-02-26 23:17 · Score: 1

Now the uber morality wizards will have to apply their opinions as to the moral issues raised by this threatening discovery.
Re:Hypocritical by Anonymus · 2012-02-27 01:59 · Score: 1

Or, "I got mine"
eliminate women from world? by peter303 · 2012-02-27 03:04 · Score: 1

I've read scifi stories of society not needing men. Women could clone and bear children themselves. With stem-cell eggs and potentially wombs in males, then the flip could be true.
Re:Hypocritical by Talderas · 2012-02-27 04:09 · Score: 1

And a gait that tells every man who observes you that you either got hit in the nuts or a vasectomy.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Hypocritical by adonoman · 2012-02-27 05:28 · Score: 1

If that was your experience, then you have my sympathies. The guys I went to pretty much does just vasectemies, and does them well enough that I took an advil that evening, and haven't felt any pain since.
Re:Hypocritical by viperidaenz · 2012-02-27 06:19 · Score: 1

... with no experience to compare it to
Re:Eggstra! Eggstra! Read all about it! by tolkienfan · 2012-02-27 17:56 · Score: 1

Nice