Woman says 3D made her pregnant

Faith in humanity restored!

Temporarily, at least.

reply to post by pazcat


Nah, let's keep the ball rolling. Better than all the doom and gloom floating around.
Hoax or not, it does highlight the guilability of some people.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by pazcat

 

They watched a 3D movie about ocean life and were eaten by sharks.

Good riddance.

HAHAHAHA! I almost fell over when I read that! Too funny! Anything is possible as that woman's idiot husband puts it.

I am definitely not going to be watching any 3D pornos in the future then, Having to duck out the way of incoming projectiles sounds a bit nasty tbh,

Did you folks hear about the new TV technology that could introduce odor particles into your nose? It was supposed to enhance your viewing experience with the sense of smell, and they nicknamed it Smell-o-vision.

What are they going to call this new television technology that introduces sperm into your body, [censored]-o-vision?

Is this article a hoax, or are some people really this dumb? I'm skeptical.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Slightly more plausible than blaming the Holy Spirit.

I had seen this story before - it was a year ago or more, I think. I have my doubts as to the legitimacy of the story (and that the guy actually believes the story ... some people I've met have it in their mind that once they marry someone, they really take that "for better or for worse" line).

Anyway - to address the knocks against "immaculate conception:"

www.slate.com...

Still, the process hadn't been proved in sharks or mammals. And there seemed to be a good reason why. An egg that fertilizes itself makes two identical sets of chromosomes, including sex chromosomes. In birds, snakes, and most lizards, two identical sex chromosomes make a male. That allows parthenogenesis to function as a DNA survival mechanism, since an isolated female—close your ears, kids—can produce a son and mate with him. But in sharks or mammals, this wouldn't work, since two identical sex chromosomes—XX—make a female.

Or so we thought. Three weeks ago, Biology Letters delivered the second surprise: "Virgin birth in a hammerhead shark." A perfectly formed baby shark had appeared in a tank in Nebraska. Tests proved she, too, was a parthenogen.

www.slate.com...

So, while it's possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it's very, very unlikely: These two genetic deletions might each have a one in 1 billion chance of occurring, and that's not counting the calcium spike and division problem required to initiate parthenogenesis in the first place.

Bonus Explainer: Are there any case reports of virgin births in the medical literature? Sort of. According to a 1995 report in the journal Nature Genetics, a mother brought her infant boy to the doctor after noticing that his head was developing abnormally. When doctors analyzed his blood, they found something truly bizarre: Despite his anatomically male features, the boy's blood cells were entirely female, consisting only of genetic material from his mother. Some of his other cells—such as those found in his urine—were normal, consisting of a combination of both maternal and paternal DNA. No one knows exactly how this occurred, but the best guess is that immediately after being fertilized, one of his mother's eggs fused with a neighboring unfertilized egg that was dividing parthogenetically. This gave rise to a boy who was considered half-parthenogenetic, since approximately half of his cells were derived from a "faux" conception, containing no remnants of his father's DNA.

I believe the expression is: "Life finds a way..." - To seriously mess with your head.

I hope it wasn't a pirated video, because if it was, I expect their baby will soon start saying things like, "Ooo-arrr, me hearties! I be fearful hungry, I be! An' I not be wantin' just any hard tack, neither..."

And they might have to invest in a parrot as well...

Edit to add: but on the other hand, if the baby has at least 50% artificial intelligence it will have to be a good step ahead of the mother -- and her husband!

Best regards to ye all,

Mike

reply to post by Aim64C

Can't we rule out parthogenesis in this case, where the mother is white and the baby is black?

I suspect the more common cause of virgin birth is a related to the fact that penetration is not necessarily required for conception. In some cases, conception does involve sperm but the woman can still be a virgin with an intact hymen. The hymen is just a small opening, not a perfect seal, so the sperm can swim right through the opening, if given a chance.

That's pretty bizarre about the boy with female blood cells though, I never heard that one, thanks for posting it.

reply to post by pazcat


i feel i can sum it up in a fairly simple manner.


Bull ****

This may be one of the funniest and most horrible things I have ever read.

I am at awe at their delusions and lies. That's almost as bad as saying an angel came down and impregnated me because he found me good looking. This is truly the human intellect committing suicide.

I wonder if the guy on his return took the opportunity to sit down and watch said porno to meet the so called father. And if so, what did he experience and how did he feel afterwards? sore ( * )

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Can't we rule out parthogenesis in this case, where the mother is white and the baby is black?

Well, obviously this is a case of an unfaithful woman. I was merely addressing the smug, ignorant comments of people claiming that natural human parthenogenesis is less plausible than ... .... I can't even come up with a clever pseudo-technical name for what this woman claims happened.

I suspect the more common cause of virgin birth is a related to the fact that penetration is not necessarily required for conception. In some cases, conception does involve sperm but the woman can still be a virgin with an intact hymen. The hymen is just a small opening, not a perfect seal, so the sperm can swim right through the opening, if given a chance.

This is true - and, in fact, the hymen can remain intact after penetration - it's a bit of a misnomer that an intact hymen indicates virginity (bad news for people who have trust issues - like myself).

However - the vaginal cavity is a very hostile environment for any cellular structures - especially those running on a 'battery.' The probability of fertilization is more or less directly proportional to the depth of insemination (all other factors being the same).

What it comes down to is that older claims of virgin births need to be taken with a grain of salt due to the inability to verify the claim. However, with today's technology, it is quite easy to test the claim.

That's pretty bizarre about the boy with female blood cells though, I never heard that one, thanks for posting it.

I hadn't, either. I had heard the theory on parthenogenesis being behind the virgin birth of Jesus, before, and found it fairly interesting (and humorous due to the assertion that Mary would have been a hermaphrodite - which can send zealot church crowds reeling).

Admittedly - the probability is quite small. It doesn't help that no real figures can be drawn due to the lack of reported cases and serious testing. It also doesn't help that sexual education in this country is completely failed. I, the virgin, have been absolutely shocked and horrified by what people engaging in sex do not understand about it... my room mate came up to me one day and said: "Hey, did you know that a woman can get pregnant from 'precum.'" ... I appreciate his attempt to keep me informed... but

Then you have the opposite end of the spectrum - women afraid they can get pregnant from a guy ejaculating in the swimming pool or something weird like that.

It's made me appreciate my parents and their efforts to teach me how to weigh risk/benefit and think beyond the next ten minutes in life.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I was merely addressing the smug, ignorant comments of people claiming that natural human parthenogenesis is less plausible than ... .... I can't even come up with a clever pseudo-technical name for what this woman claims happened.

Who mentioned human parthenogenesis? Inception via a supreme deity is not parthenogenesis.

Nah, It wasn't the 3D porno that got her pregnant.
She just forgot to wipe the toilet seat at the Starbucks before using it.

reply to post by john_bmth

Who mentioned human parthenogenesis? Inception via a supreme deity is not parthenogenesis.

I suppose when you feel you are able to dictate the methods of said supreme deity, it's rather impossible to have an intelligent conversation.

The entire premise for the conception of Mary was that Joseph was told, to the effect of, Mary was not unfaithful and that the child was God's doing.

All we can do is speculate on the mechanics.

When someone scoffs and essentially claims that any pregnant woman had to be inseminated to bear a child, they are clearly unaware of the reality. To, then, try and say: "Parthenogenesis is not inception by a supreme deity" is active ignorance.

The argument was: "Women have to be with a man to have a child." The context of this forum is infidelity, further.

This is, simply, not the case. It is merely a function of probability for a parthenogenic pregnancy to be carried to term and produce a healthy child. It's likely not unique to the case of Mary and Joseph, but the phenomena would go virtually unnoticed in females who were sexually active (it would be presumed the child was from such acts with no further questions) - since this encompasses most of the females of reproductive age, it is quite unlikely for subsequent cases to be noted.

"But it's not God."

I can see how such an arrogant person can proclaim to know how God can and cannot produce results. God is a concept that is based around belief. At its very core - our universe is nothing but probability; even so far as to be indistinguishable from the mathematical formulas that define it. The more advanced our scientific understanding of the universe becomes; the more philosophical the roots of our schools of thought become.

Again - the argument: "Mary couldn't have been a virgin and have a child."

The counter: "Parthenogenesis and the plausibility of it in human beings."

The attempted rebut: "That isn't God."

My response: "What is?"

At that point - the answer becomes merely philosophical and strays outside the realms of objective plausibility.

A plausible avenue exists for a virgin conception and birth. It is your choice to believe whether or not that avenue was used (or manipulated by any form of a higher power - be them another technological species or a supreme spiritual entity - or a technological species being manipulated by a supreme spiritual being...). It's your choice to believe whether or not that course of events was the work of some intelligent force.

/Facepalm.
sigh

I bet Maury would love to have this lady on his show.

reply to post by Aim64C

Quit getting your knickers in a twist. Who said that parthenogenesis doesn't exist? "Parthenogenesis is not inception by a supreme deity" is saying that the phenomenon of parthenogenesis does not need to be attributed to a supreme deity. We do not need to invoke a supreme deity to explain parthenogenesis, considering the former is a real phenomenon and the latter has no supporting evidence. How you've managed to interpret that as claiming to know the inner workings of a supreme deity (of whom there is no evidence for) is beyond me.

reply to post by john_bmth

Quit getting your knickers in a twist. Who said that parthenogenesis doesn't exist? "Parthenogenesis is not inception by a supreme deity" is saying that the phenomenon of parthenogenesis does not need to be attributed to a supreme deity. We do not need to invoke a supreme deity to explain parthenogenesis, considering the former is a real phenomenon and the latter has no supporting evidence. How you've managed to interpret that as claiming to know the inner workings of a supreme deity (of whom there is no evidence for) is beyond me.

All of this was clearly addressed in my previous post.

Please read it again, paying attention to where I took special care to respond to this post ahead of time.

Your standpoint has been completely compromised and has no defensible ground. You would be wise to submit.

Im guessing it wasnt lesbian porn then..

Slightly more plausible than blaming the Holy Spirit.

Just what I was thinking... I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the house of Mary and Joseph when that conversation happened...

Joseph: Mary, how are you pregnant? We haven't even...you know...done that yet?

Mary: It must be a miracle! It has to be...I have been with no other!

(another villager, in the other room, finishes donning his robe and climbing out the window)....