Women may be able to grow own sperm

Women may be able to grow own sperm

www.telegraph.co.uk

Women could one day grow their own sperm, says a scientist who today claims to have turned bone marrow into early-stage sperm cells.

His team is now studying how to grow fully fledged sperm from bone marrow as a means to restore fertility in young men who have undergone cancer treatments. It could be five years before trials start.

(visit the link for the full news article)

According to reports they are less than 5 years away from human testing.

If women can make their own sperm, what do they need men for?

Will we become obsolete?

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Will men become obsolete? Well, from a capability stand point, yes,
but from a practical stand point, no.

Not until no woman wants a man, will we become obsolete.


On a side note, Imagine hundreds of years from now where men and
women have gone off to live on sperate planets because women no
longer wanted men, that would be interesting.

Firstly, women don't "need" men except to procreate. But women do LOVE men. And they WANT men in their lives. Not as a sperm donor, but as a partner. So I don't see a problem with that. Their place is secure. Most women today don't have a man because she "needs" him. Obsolescence is not a concern, I don't believe.

Secondly, if a woman wants to have a child, she can go to a sperm bank. She doesn't "need" a man, just his sperm. So, if she can now make her own sperm, I wouldn't worry about the obsolescence of the man as much as the obsolescence of the Sperm Bank.

I've seen the newsmedia in our Canadian media.

If a WOMAN can produce her own sperm:

"Would there be need for a MAN?"

IMO: "There is always need for man and woman kind".

Both equally.

Let's turn the tables and say the opposite:

Is there need for woman?

YES...UNEQUIVICABLY!"

Let's take it down to the 'genetic-level'?

Without a 'FULL-GENETIC' sequence from both individuals...And I stand by the statement:"FULL GENETIC SEQUENCE from both individuals, there won't be any 'viable' genes from both reciprients, to contribute to a 'viable' offspring.

To take the genes of both male and female and fertilize into another being is 'acceptable' - to constitute another human being.

To 'scientifically' and genetically manipulate the genes of one organism to produce an 'opposite affect (probably opposite gene for the purpose of procreating?) - will IMO and scientific results effect:

'The clone effect'.

This 'effect' would occur resulting with procreation/ with the same genes...over a period of time.

The degredation of 'over-using the same cells' results in genetic manipulation on the cellualar count; and therefor IMO, canNOT result in
'vaible' human cells to create human beings (as we know as 'human')

It is IMO, 'Possible' to create humans from cells generated 'souly' from females; however. the outcome (result) would be a:

*Bastardization* of human procuration. IMO




[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

And then of course there are religious implications here.

How will the Christian right feel about women who choose to share bone marrow, create sperm, and have their own babies without being married to any man, in fact without any sexual relations with a man?

[edit on 16-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
And then of course there are religious implications here.

How will the Christian right feel about women who choose to share bone marrow, create sperm, and have their own babies without being married to any man, in fact without any sexual relations with a man?

[edit on 16-4-2007 by UM_Gazz]

UM_Gazz...ThankYou my friend, for that statement!

The Repricusions or Rewards that a Christian or (any other) will face will be ongoing:

Examples:

Stem Cell Research:

One example

I remind everyone that these examples and topics discussed surrounding the ideas given: are 'on-going'.

It's beneficial to view these threads with other 'posted' - substantiated links to help support topics.



[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

mod edit to fix link

[edit on 16-4-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
How will the Christian right feel ...?

I don't care how they feel. It's none of their business how I procreate. Nobody's forcing them to procreate this way.

How will the Hell's Angels feel?

Same answer.

I heard years ago the opinion of how procreation should be done in church. The view is that it should be a natural act of love to create another human being. Of course this means all unnatural objects that might prevent such a human being coming into existence not be used as well. I can easily imagine how cloning may cause genetic problems.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
How will the Christian right feel ...?

I don't care how they feel. It's none of their business how I procreate. Nobody's forcing them to procreate this way.

How will the Hell's Angels feel?

Same answer.

You know what hon? B.H.?

It really isn't anyone's business HOW YOU procreate

Period. (Saying this passively but with aggresive spirit)

Like I said previously, If people are going to 'extend a little bit of themselves'...Genetically pass on DNA/RNA)

...And make others: wonder WHY?

"The square of the hypontenuse....blah blah blah.

In other words: 'Why would a man and a woman who want to procreate in a natural/selective way, want to pass on the knowledge of procreation to just 1 woman?

And have that 'ONE WOMAN'... have the ability, to be able to give 'Away her geneology', (only to be misconstrued/genetic breakdown) to others? - HENCE my previous post




[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by TheDuckster]

You know, I have no problem if women won't need men for reproduction in the future.

Women's sexual relationship with men is just a part of a bigger commitment when you are in a serious relationship.

The bigger issue here is how are we going to look at families in the future. Children born under normal circumstance, i.e. born with a married couple will grow up knowing he/she has both father & mother beside her and this is what a family should meant to be

Any child who is born with a single or divorced parents should understand what I mean.

As a single father, (who used to live with a wife) I find it hard to go on everyday. I am struggling to do both the roles of mom & dad to a child.

Now, women, having a child in a natural way (without the need of men) is sure another story.





[edit on 16-4-2007 by searching_for_truth]

I thought I read about this months ago, anyways...I support the women that would want this procedure done...for whatever reason. As long as they take good care of their child, I see no fuss about it.