Motherless babies possible as scientists create live offspring without need for female egg

Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.
The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.
It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/13/motherless-babies-possible-as-scientists-create-live-offspring-w/

didge wrote:Motherless babies could be on the horizon after scientists discovered a method of creating offspring without the need for a female egg.
The landmark experiment by the University of Bath rewrites 200 years of biology teaching and could pave the way for a baby to be born from the DNA of two men.
It was always thought that only a female egg could spark the changes in a sperm required to make a baby, because an egg forms from a special kind of cell division in which just half the number of chromosomes are carried over.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/09/13/motherless-babies-possible-as-scientists-create-live-offspring-w/

What and why do we need to do this for?  We don't need help to have babies? Is this for when they wipe out 90% of the worlds population and need a few slave labourers or do all men want to be gay and do away with women all together.  I do not understand why we should bother with this when the world is overcrowded anyway.

dragonfly wrote:
What and why do we need to do this for?  We don't need help to have babies? Is this for when they wipe out 90% of the worlds population and need a few slave labourers or do all men want to be gay and do away with women all together.  I do not understand why we should bother with this when the world is overcrowded anyway.

Some people are unable to have a baby

Plus you take awy the pain of childbirth?

didge wrote:


Some people are unable to have a baby

Tough for them...adopt.



And that's bulshit anyway.  As if they care if someone cant have a baby when nobody gives a shit about starving babies, paedophilia, child abuse etc.  Spend the much needed money solving that IF its about caring and giving a shit about people.  Boohoo, someone cant have a baby...well it wasn't meant to be was it. 

This breakthrough is definitely not for them that's for sure.

didge wrote:Plus you take awy the pain of childbirth?

Coming from A MAN .

dragonfly wrote:
Tough for them...adopt.



And that's bulshit anyway.  As if they care if someone cant have a baby when nobody gives a shit about starving babies, paedophilia, child abuse etc.  Spend the much needed money solving that IF its about caring and giving a shit about people.  Boohoo, someone cant have a baby...well it wasn't meant to be was it. 

This breakthrough is definitely not for them that's for sure.

Why is it tough if we can create babies without the need of a woman?
You already do not need to have sex now for artificial insemination.
You are now arguing something completely different as a reason to deny this
That is absurd.
If you want to tackle that problem, then that problem needs to have people stop preaching bullshit from the Catholic faith for example over the use of condemns.
These are seperate matters, which you are trying to link, which is daft.
If this makes having children easier I can guarante many women will opt for this and its not your right to decide for them

didge wrote:


Why is it tough if we can create babies without the need of a woman?
You already do not need to have sex now for artificial insemination.
You are now arguing something completely different as a reason to deny this
That is absurd.
If you want to tackle that problem, then that problem needs to have people stop preaching bullshit from the Catholic faith for example over the use of condemns.
These are seperate matters, which you are trying to link, which is daft.
If this makes having children easier I can guarante many women will opt for this and its not your right to decide for them

Its not natural.. You play about with Mother Nature, you are playing with fire.  I do not and will not accept this ever.

dragonfly wrote:
Its not natural.. You play about with Mother Nature, you are playing with fire.  I do not and will not accept this ever.

Define natural?


Is blue eyes natural?

didge wrote:


Define natural?


Is blue eyes natural?

How is this natural? Explain please.

Over 7 billion people on this rock 381.350 born today at the last look so its probably more like 400.000 now and someone thinks its a brilliant idea to make all this even easier to churn out more children many of whom won't reach their first birthday, some might not make it through their first hour, many of the others will have miserable lives of poverty and religious subservience, physical abuse, disease and anything else you care to think about.
501.000 now. Sheesh.

dragonfly wrote:
How is this natural? Explain please.

I asked you to define natural.

Is cesarean section natural?

Flix wrote:Over 7 billion people on this rock 381.350 born today at the last look so its probably more like 400.000 now and someone thinks its a brilliant idea to make all this even easier to churn out more children many of whom won't reach their first birthday, some might not make it through their first hour, many of the others will have miserable lives of poverty and religious subservience, physical abuse, disease and anything else you care to think about.
501.000 now. Sheesh.

And you think this is the reason they have done this

Yes words fail me at why you think that.

I guess you have not consider that there is a decline and continued decline in mens sperm count and the fertility in men is in the decline?

Why is it people look at the most fdaftest reasons failing to understand why such things are created in the first place?

There may be a decline in the west but it hardly seems to stop usually unwanted pregnancies, as for the rest of the world there doesn't seem to be a problem or any decline in sperm counts, concidering the size of families throughout the world, especially men with 20 or 30 children. If there is a decline we should be looking at the cause of that probably a side effect of all the chemical compounds we now have in food, clothing well just about everything really.

Flix wrote:There may be a decline in the west but it hardly seems to stop usually unwanted pregnancies, as for the rest of the world there doesn't seem to be a problem or any decline in sperm counts, concidering the size of families throughout the world, especially men with 20 or 30 children. If there is a decline we should be looking at the cause of that probably a side effect of all the chemical compounds we now have in food, clothing well just about everything really.

You are talking about two seperate things and this is hardly going to be a case for where babies are being born prolifically
What is disaster struck the earth tomorrow.
This is sure step to recovr populations if the case needed to be.

If Britain lost  99%  of its population by natural/human disaster, we'd still have a population about the the same as after the Romans left and after a plaque that ravished Europe about the same time, we managed to come back from that with presumably a breeding population of considerably less than the whole.

Anyway less people in the world can only be a win situation, for the world, the other species that we keep squeezing out of habitats and killing off one way or another and generally for humans, less people more resources for longer,  possibly all life including humans being seen as more precious.

Flix wrote:If Britain lost  99%  of its population by natural/human disaster, we'd still have a population about the the same as after the Romans left and after a plaque that ravished Europe about the same time, we managed to come back from that with presumably a breeding population of considerably less than the whole.

Anyway less people in the world can only be a win situation, for the world, the other species that we keep squeezing out of habitats and killing off one way or another and generally for humans, less people more resources for longer,  possibly all life including humans being seen as more precious.

And yet countless species have become extinct because of natural diasters and when the plague hit, the human species was not on the brink of extinction.
So that is a poor example, as there was a point when humans were down to around tens of thousands and very close to extinction.
If such a diaster today happened and the population went down to 1%, it could be irreversable, based on the problems and knock on effects this could then create as then it would be very much survival of the fittest.
Eventually the populations will balance out as we are seeing happenning in places like Italy.
The point is there is no reason not to continue with this research, as in time we have to lok to colonise further afield than this earth.
This could be a far more productive way to bring life easier to other planets, when all adults would need to remain fit and in shape for such long voyages

Apparently the population went into great decline during the,  last ice age, down to numbers that its thought people wouldn't come back from - but we did, humans are so aggressive, so selfish that they clawed their way back.

The article mentions being able to help endangered species, to what end when their habitat will continue to be lost if we keep going as we are and they will only exist in zoos or protected reserves (which won't last long once people need that  space as well) We'd be better of teaching and supplying family planning. I see no real decline in birth rates happening in too many developing or rabid religious countries. Until women get an education and jobs outside the home, little will change, it took long enough here. I am researching family histories and the number of children in some families is staggering as is the number dying young. The average was 10 many 15/16 some even a mind blowing 22.
As humans we need to grasp the nettle and do something we can't wait for everyone to catch up.

didge wrote:



I asked you to define natural.

Is cesarean section natural?

what? 



Are you ill or something?





What is the only natural way to conceive?  Anything else is messing with nature. We are breeding a weak race of human beings ffs.  The human race is about survival of the fittest, at this rate we may as well go for the full lobotomy and to hell with it. We are wrong to do this, we should adapt with nature and our surroundings, in tune and at the same pace. This is nothing but twisted exploitation.

dragonfly wrote:
what? 



Are you ill or something?





What is the only natural way to conceive?  Anything else is messing with nature. We are breeding a weak race of human beings ffs.  The human race is about survival of the fittest, at this rate we may as well go for the full lobotomy and to hell with it. We are wrong to do this, we should adapt with nature and our surroundings, in tune and at the same pace. This is nothing but twisted exploitation.

Again define natural?

You keep using it and yet are unable to define this.

Should we not have cesarean sections then, as to you they would not be "natural"?

Flix wrote:Apparently the population went into great decline during the,  last ice age, down to numbers that its thought people wouldn't come back from - but we did, humans are so aggressive, so selfish that they clawed their way back.

The article mentions being able to help endangered species, to what end when their habitat will continue to be lost if we keep going as we are and they will only exist in zoos or protected reserves (which won't last long once people need that  space as well) We'd be better of teaching and supplying family planning. I see no real decline in birth rates happening in too many developing or rabid religious countries. Until women get an education and jobs outside the home, little will change, it took long enough here. I am researching family histories and the number of children in some families is staggering as is the number dying young. The average was 10 many 15/16 some even a mind blowing 22.
As humans we need to grasp the nettle and do something we can't wait for everyone to catch up.

Again it was not on he brink of extinction.
About a third died, that is no where near extinction.
You are also wrong about land, the earth has actually gained more land, than lost to the sea and many areas are being created as nature reserces.
You just keep offering poor excuses not to use something so great it can save endangered species.
You may not see anything with decline, but there is methods on this that calculate.

Don't expect me to do anything about it, folks. At 77 my sperm count isn't exactly adequate for procreation of any kind!

Lord Edmund Moletrousers wrote:Don't expect me to do anything about it, folks. At 77 my sperm count isn't exactly adequate for procreation of any kind!

And that's for a reason, you wont be around to care for your pride much longer, so its Mother Natures way of restoring the balance. And I'm sorry for that tactless remark Lords, then again, I know you couldn't give a rats anyway, so bless and long live the mole. x

You could however,  if didge had his way, carry on until rigor mortis  set in - with other men to boot, if you so wish..! Myself, I think mother knows best.

dragonfly wrote:
And that's for a reason, you wont be around to care for your pride much longer, so its Mother Natures way of restoring the balance. And I'm sorry for that tactless remark Lords, then again, I know you couldn't give a rats anyway, so bless and long live the mole. x

You could however,  if didge had his way, carry on until rigor mortis  set in - with other men to boot, if you so wish..! Myself, I think mother knows best.

Dont lie with yet again infantile claims and drag Me lord into your failure to answer my points here.
How pathetic
I am sure if Me lord thinks I am wrong, he will have no problem tlling me
Still waiting for you to define natural..

Hey h=o

Oh and for the record Dragonfly.
Mother nature is humanities enemy.
As Mother nature is chaos
It is volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, Tornadoes, tsunamis, famine, drought, ect.
Though out of chaos does come order and rebirth