One of the reasons often given by some people who oppose marriage equality is that marriage is for advancing the human race and that same sex couples can't biologically reproduce in the "normal" way.
That may very well change in the future according to British scientists.
This is amazing:
Sperm cells created from female embryo
Sperm cells have been created from a female human embryo in a remarkable breakthrough that suggests it may be possible for lesbian couples to have their own biological children. British scientists who had already coaxed male bone marrow cells to develop into primitive sperm cells have now repeated the feat with female embryonic stem cells.
The University of Newcastle team that has achieved the feat is now applying for permission to turn the bone marrow of a woman into sperm which, if successful, would make the method more practical than with embryonic cells.
It raises the possibility of lesbian couples one day having children who share both their genes as sperm created from the bone marrow of one woman could be used to fertilise an egg from her partner.
Some living creatures are able to reproduce parthenogenetically. Certain aphids for example:
Some aphid species have unusual and complex reproductive adaptations, while others have fairly simple reproduction. Adaptations include having both sexual and asexual reproduction, creation of eggs or live nymphs and switches between woody and herbaceous types of host plant at different times of the year.
Only females are present in the population (although, a few species of aphids have been found to have both male and female sexes). The overwintering eggs that hatch in the spring result in females, called fundatrices (plural). Reproduction is typically parthenogenetic and viviparous. Eggs are parthenogenetically produced without meioisis and the offspring are clonal to their mother.
The embryos develop within the mothers' ovarioles, which then give live birth to first instar female nymphs (viviparous). The offspring resemble their parent in every way except size, and are called virginoparae.
This process iterates throughout the summer, producing multiple generations that typically live 20 to 40 days. Thus one female hatched in spring may produce thousands of descendants. For example, some species of cabbage aphids (like Brevicoryne brassicae) can produce up to 41 generations of females.
What does this all mean? We don't know yet, but perhaps through science we will be able to put away forever the idea that marriage is only for male and females who can biologically reproduce (it never really was solely for that purpose anyway). And perhaps we can also leave behind us the old definition of what biologically "normal" human reproduction is. Some people will protest that this is "playing God." Of course it is not playing God anymore than saving someone from dying by performing a heart transplant, or a kidney transplant or curing someone's cancer is "playing God."
Years before our current medical technology, organ transplants, and medicines were available, people accepted as "God's will" deaths from heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, etc. Medical science intervenes today in what people once believed was God's will. And it is universally accepted as sound medical practice (if one is lucky enough to be insured or can afford it, of course).
It appears that nature, through science, is revealing secrets that will allow us humans to redefine how we reproduce and with whom.
Someday little Joshua will not only have two mommies, but he will also carry both of his mommies' DNA!
12 comments:
"Hermaphroditic
Our culture's becoming,"
Said Shirley to Marion
Chatting at tea.
"Unisex costumes,
Ambiguous hairstyles
Are very confusing,"
Said both men to me!"
~ FreeThinke };-)>
Back in the 1950's I read a [decidedly second-rate] science fiction novel called World Without Men in which a scenario much like the one described in Ms Shaw's fascinating post had been fully implemented.
The only hitch there was that a certain number of males were still needed to produce the sperm necessary to perpetuate the race. These males were kept in a kind of "stock farm" the all-female government kept secret from the general population.
The female couples had no idea their children came to them through government-supervised artificial insemination. Most of the male babies were killed at birth and quickly disposed of, but a small percentage of those with the most favorable genetic background, as determined by the government, were kept to be raised at the stock farm to ensure the long term survival of the human species such as it had become.
The book was obviously derived from Huxley's A Brave New World. The vision it presented, like Huxley's, was disquieting and decidedly eerie.
I can't remember who wrote World Without Men. Pseudonyms abound in the world of letters. I think the author's name indicated a male. However, from today's perspective I see it could very well have been the ultimate Dream Wish Fantasy of a Lesbian Feminist or that of Freud's classic Castrating Mother.
In any event should the projected biological phenomenon outlined in Ms Shaw's post be fulfilled, you may be sure that homosexual males will soon be out marching for Science to give them their proper "rights" by developing viable methods for males to produce their own ova, impregnate themselves and carry their offspring to term -- "just like everybody else."
After all EQUALITY must supersede ALL other considerations in a truly JUST society, mustn't it?
FT, males don't have uteri, so I doubt anything of the sort would happen. Males must rely on surrogate women to carry embryos to term.
In the future, humans may find a way to bring embryos to gestation outside the womb, so in that case two males may very well be able to produce life with their own DNA, as the article posits this may be attainable in the future:
"In Brazil, a team led by Dr Irina Kerkis of the Butantan Institute in Saõ Paulo claims to have made both sperm and eggs from cultures of male mouse embryonic stem cells in the journal Cloning and Stem Cells.
The researchers have not yet shown that their male eggs can be fertilised to produce viable offspring, but they are thinking about possibilities for same-sex human reproduction.
If all these experiments pan out, then the stage would also be set for a gay man to donate skin cells that could be used to make eggs, which could then be fertilised by his partner’s sperm and placed into the uterus of a surrogate mother.
"[M]ales don't have uteri, so I doubt anything of the sort would happen. Males must rely on surrogate women to carry embryos to term."
Well, I'm taking a "wait and see" approach to that. After all With Science ALL Things Are Possible -- at least potentially -- isn't that right?
Incidentally, I find these ideas and discoveries genuinely fascinating, though I can't help seeing a certain comic-grotesque element in the visions.
After all, should't nurturing each child no matter where it comes from or to whom it belongs with affection and intelligent discipline designed to help it achieve independence in adulthood be THE Primary Goal for any society that presumes itself to be enlightened?
There are so very many infants who come to us "The Old-Fashioned Way" who are born into poverty, and deprivation, some with congenital diseases caught in the womb from infected parents. These children tend to grow up willy nilly in single-parent households. Their future is generally bleak, and most are apt to become a burden on society.
Surely we would do better to focus our love and concern on them rather than strive to find news ways to create even more human beings on an already-overcrowded planet?
For the record I am very much in favor of homosexuals adopting children -- provided these prospective parents are in stable, committed, long-term relationships and have sufficient financial means to provide adequately for their adopted children. I am not sure, however, that there isn't a large element of vanity in wanting to produce a child biologically one's own.
Responsible, mature, achieving adults usually come to realize that it's not all about THEM.
Que sera sera! It will be interesting to say the least to see how this all pans out.
This I most certainly do believe: Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.
'Y' not ... !
"X" actly...!
There's a hidden point in that story. Aphids proliferate insanely. You can find a few on a plant one day and 3 days later the plant is covered with the little critters. We're close to that now as a species, do we really need more ways to reproduce?
There's plenty of sperm donors if a lesbian wishes to bear a child but if enough of them make it economically profitable for some enterprising doctors or med scientists to make this possible, then that's going to happen.
There are people running loose in society now who've had their tongues split and faces altered with implants under their skins, by doctors, to make them look like devils and snakes. So what the hell, why not make it so women can impregnate women?
Why stop there? Let men impregnate men. After all, they already produce sperm, a little internal modification here and there, say, a vaginal opening and uterus just inside the anus where sperm might find it's way....
This whole idea of reconstructing parts and pieces of us is insane. Just because we can do things like this doesn't mean we should. Haven't we made enough mess of our species and this planet as it is?
Aphids. Wow. What a comparison.
Black Sheep,
The possibility for producing sperm from female bone marrow and impregnating another female is a long, long way off.
I don't see how once researchers start the process it can be stopped. Besides, if it ever succeeds, it will probably be prohibitively expensive and available to very few couples.
I've always supported any effort for finding cheap, safe birth control for those countries that cannot feed the populations they already have.
But the RCC and some other fundamentalist sects are anti-birth control, and they have a strong presence in third world countries. They work against any efforts to control population growth.
I read this blog often, but never comment, as I myself do not run a blog.
To attract as much hate, vitriol, and damnation as you have, Ms. Shaw, over at the Tea Party blog "Always on Watch" and over at "Free Thinke" blog means you have gotten so far under their skins that you're gnawing at their very bones.
Relentless as they have been in attacking you at AOW and FT, Ms. Shaw, their behavior points to the fact that they read you almost every day, and you enrage them.
This is good.
While it is not pleasant to read such illiterate and juvenile prose, it should give you a sense of pride that people of such small intelligence do not like you.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Ms. Shaw. You are doing a great job of nettling them and keeping them in a constant state of hysteria. They can do no harm while they continue to run here, read your fine blog, and complain in their own devious way that you've gotten to them.
Well done.
A. Reader.
If this can be done without creating seriously abnormal offspring, it will be an amazing achievement. I imagine it will also be quite expensive. In any case, I think it's a stretch to refer to it as normal in any sense. It's a product of advanced science and technology. Measured against the traditional means of conceiving, it's a contrivance.
I'm a bit surprised no one brought up the possibility of cloning oneself.
It's a fascinating concept. Several years ago "DOLLY," the world-famous ewe, proved conclusively that cloning was a viable possibility.
Not being a reader of Scientific Journals I've seen little material on it since the early sensationalized publicity splashed all over the net. I'm not one of those who thinks such a thing "unthinkable" or "immoral" on religious grounds, but I have to admit the idea of there being an exact duplicate of myself -- or anyone I know and love -- is more than a little eerie.
However, it might be a pleasant prospect for homosexual couples to want to raise exact duplicates of each from infancy to adulthood.
Any thoughts on the subject?
Once again -- and FOR the RECORD:
At my blog I do not welcome hateful, personal remarks directed against Ms Shaw, who is a FRIEND of mind, despite our considerable differences, or anyone ELSE.
Neither does AOW, but her policies differ from mine in that she is less apt to DELETE what-both-she-and-I regard-as nonsense on a level I see as "pre-adolescent."
If people want to make asses of themselves, who are WE to stop them? I do make a point of hauling out the trash frequently at my place, but can't manage to get it all by a long shot.
AOW, I know, works very hard at many things other than maintaining a blog. What she does with her place in cyberspace is no one's business but hers.
That is true for all of us.
However, YOU, A. Reader, have committed a form of LIBEL. You can't be sued or punished, but you CAN be corrected.
You, obviously, don't read my blog or AOW's, so you have no right whatsoever to say what you have said.
I don't expect you to reform, but I feel it a duty myself and to Truth, to try to set the record straight.
Hey. I think this was an interresting topic. I you could hint me the source to this study :)
Post a Comment