Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers 435
An anonymous reader writes "Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Behringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers. The study was posted Wednesday at the online site of the journal Biology of Reproduction. The achievement of two-father offspring in a species of mammal could be a step toward preserving endangered species, improving livestock breeds, and advancing human assisted reproductive technology. It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."
In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Funny)
It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.
This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Insightful)
A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought it was crazy at first, too. Then I realized that if one or more single-issue lobbying groups were involved, it's almost stupid enough to be true.
Re: (Score:3)
All these arguments are not really something that makes me say anything aside of "so?".
Frankly, if people want to get pregnant for the purpose of selling the embryo for research, what's the problem? I care more about the life and living quality of those alive than about the life of those that might be alive some day, provided nothing goes wrong during pregnancy. And I seriously question how "compassionate" and "moral" people are who see it the other way around.
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine the above isn't a troll, but just in case the abortion argument really is still in the "stone age" as it were, I'll bite:
The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.
Simply put, any act that ends the life of another (in this case even an abortion) must be justified-- and for many people there is even more simply no justification for the taking of another life. To get a feel for this type of mindset just replace the word "abortion" with murder, and then try to argue the typical "right to privacy", "betterment of other people" arguments.
It's much harder to justify scientific research for the betterment of mankind when the process to procure the research material involves murdering children-- which is exactly what these believers think.
More importantly, it is important to realize that as "silly" as this idea may seem to you, the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option because you don't agree. Many people hold at least some personal belief about when "life" starts-- the fact that you've chosen one point in the timeline of development and that someone else has chosen another does not discount their opinion.
Because we are dealing with one of the most basic and agreed upon human rights-- the right to life-- the argument understandably gets heated when one side believes that the other is committing what they believe is murder in order to improve their own lives.
*(It should be noted that this is in no way a new idea, and has existed even in ancient cultures where the murder or beating of a pregnant woman would be dealt with more severely than with one who was not-pregnant. In "ye olden days" when having a baby was even more dangerous than it is today, and the infant death rate was extremely high, the idea of "potential life" was very important to early peoples.)
Simple but incorrect or incomplete (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By what logic do they stop at the moment of conception? The thing that was just conceived is almost exactly as alive as t
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Insightful)
I get that. And that's respectable.
However, IRL, the people that I've run into that are "anti-abortion" are usually pro-war, have some detectable racism tinge, have no issues with issues like child exploitation (eg. google "baccha bazi DynCorp"). To me, that's hypocrisy. They have no respect for the lives already here that need protection because they are defenseless (civilian casualties, sexually exploited children, the list goes on..)
Yet they try to project some vague "respect for life" ethos. I wonder how much of that is a case of "every sperm is sacred" (Meaning of Life) mentality as opposed to truly valuing and respecting life.
Re: (Score:3)
the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
I think you missed the point.
Your belief that life does not start at the moment of conception is also a matter of philosophy. Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers? If you can say that their philosophy can be easily disregarded, then so can yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it is about compassion or morality. It is about a very narrow faith based agenda that does not leave room for rational or critical thinking. It is the same thinking that makes some religious groups anti masturbation because it is "spilling the seed". Doesn't matter that science shows that the seed is "spent" whether or not it is ejaculated.
The more we learn about life's processes, that more we demonstrate that it is bases on chemistry and physics and less on mysticism. The article isn't demon
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Informative)
Or am I mistaken here?
Re: (Score:3)
A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
Less rational people are, by definition, less rational, whether religious, agnostic, or athiest, and should be ignored.
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it doesn't really help him anymore, a few centuries after his death. But you have to see it from the perspective of the church, and what that actually means to them.
It is not easy for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that they erred. There's still that dogma about the Pope being infallible, and it took them a while to tapdance around that. IIRC the solution was that the inquisition made the mistake and not the Pope, and the inquisition may err.
Yes, it looks ridiculous to us that this is some iss
Re: (Score:3)
> Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
Precisely!
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
Just because there is absence of of proof doesn't mean that's proof of absence!
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a credible witness and testify that you've experienced the FSM, it would only be reasonable for me to consider the liklihood of its existance.
Not in a world where self-delusions, lying and hallucinations exist.
Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.
And those who are afflicted with various mental problems which generate realistic hallucinations are likewise convinced. That doesn't mean that their delusions are real, and it would be foolish to take their word without empirical evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If homosexuality is a biological imperfection, then that in itself gives no reason to fix it. Evolution relies on the existance biological imperfections and, completely coincidentally, biological diversity is so prevalent that nobody even knows what "biological perfection" would be.
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, now that we have progressed so far with science, all bets are off. All kinds of genetic defects that would normally get weeded out pretty much straight away in nature, are now able to thrive as we 'fix' all the ailments that they create. All we have done here is fixed yet another (and in so doing we are enabling the homosexuality genes to flourish in future generations).
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:4, Funny)
Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway?
I don't think we understand the causes enough to say that. For instance, if male homosexuality is caused by a gene that gives heterosexual females a reproductive advantage, then it will never go away unless we outlaw daughters. Maybe that's what they are up to in China?
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Interesting)
If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.
Ready to have your mind blown? Homosexuality does increase the chances of survival of the species! Yeah, I said it. Have you ever looked at the gender makeup of a human/social services university or masters program? 75-80% female, and maybe between a third to half of the men are gay. That's up to 10x the rate of (male) homosexuality in the general population! Interesting that so many more gay men are interested in working to support others, isn't it?
To put it another way, it is an advantage to the cycle of reproduction that not every adult is a parent. Additional caregivers have value to the species. Gays have been having sex and getting pregnant since before we were sapiens. It's a good thing we have their genetic diversity. In fact, it's not hard to argue that the western "nuclear family" is more detrimental to the species than the queers ever could be. We developed as communities (tribes, villages, etc) with shared parenting responsibilities. A smaller group of caregivers results in less care and supervision of the offspring.
I guess using these arguments you could try to make a case that gays reproducing with each other reduces their value to the species, but in this culture, if you don't have a family you're forever alone. I guess we'll find out soon, either way.
And by "soon" I mean in another few hundred thousand years at the earliest. We'll all be in the cloud by then anyway though, so who cares.
Snausages; Snausages (Score:3)
I think you not only failed to RTFA, but you also failed to read the fscking summary. The whole issue that sparked this thread is that scientist now thing it may well be possible to pass on their genes to a sibling through this new technique.
Also, your post doesn't take into consideration that, if there is in fact such a gene, it hasn't "taken care of itself" thr
You have not thought about this carefully. (Score:3)
There could be many other factors distorting natural human behavior in modern society - much more chemical exposure (BPA, pthalates, etc.), an unnatural social order (nuclear families, lack of tribal focus), and vastly incr
Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray (Score:5, Funny)
I'm chronically heterosexual, but I have to say that if there is a genetic imperfection that needs to be fixed, it is the genetic imperfection that produces offspring that equate homosexually with pedophilia and bestiality. The goat and the child cannot consent, but an adult male can, and if psychology is right those on that side of the debate are also often deathly afraid that they might. Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong, even though they preach freedom of choice. Either the whole human race is moronic on every issue (and I admit an argument to that effect could be made), or these things are not as clear cut as you assert them to be.
Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong,
Citation needed. Recreational drug use has been around since long before current social structure and laws came into being.
By your logic, would not alcohol also be judged by "most people" as morally wrong? What about marijuana? Apparently you are ignorant of the 60's & 70's, and/or have a very skewed view of what exactly a moral is.
Recreational drug use is recreational. We have warlords in Mexico running amok because our idiotic government won't legalize and tax the recreational drugs that give them power.
Remember the prohibition of alcohol and the gangsters that the sell of illegal alcohol funded? Clearly, people would rather purchase their recreational drugs from a safe, clean, regulated environment such as a grocery store, liquor store or pharmacy rather than purchasing their drug from a gangster... Evidence: Gangsters are not selling illegal alcohol to the public at large now that it is legal. Tobacco Cigarettes are nearly addictive as heroin, yet they are legal and not "morally" wrong to most people; The common belief is, "If you want to smoke, fine, just don't do it around those that do not smoke."
I would argue that most people judge moderate recreational drug use (such as drinking wine, liquor, beer) as moral. Many people I know only judge the use of other recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth) as "wrong" because they are illegal. Many of these same people have told me that if using said drugs were not against the law then it would not be "wrong" to use these drugs in moderation. Therefore, I posit that this it is not so much a moral issue, but one of legality.
Abuse of any drug is wrong simply because abuse inherently implies wrongdoing. Please do not confuse Abuse with Use.
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Doesn't follow. Homosexuals alter the balance of the sexes for reproductive purposes; they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...) If your thesis is that the only value proposition in the human race is that of reproduction, then you're just being silly. We're intelligent; we have our own uses for our fellows that go far beyond if they choose to breed or not.
And if their "biological imperfection" doesn't infringe on other people's well being or freedom, and the "imperfect" person is well satisfied? Einstein could be viewed, using your simplistic "not the same as the rest of us" criteria as being afflicted with a "biological imperfection"... would you have "fixed" him? Or Alan Turing? I mean, really. You need to think this over a little more comprehensively.
Marriage, at present, is a state that alters access to health care, access to one's SO in the hospital, taxes and other issues. This is entirely aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling one might enjoy if "married" is a state one admires. Consequently, there are very practical reasons to seek (and not to seek) marriage. The obvious spit here is over the contractual and ritual components. Myself, I see no reason that marriage should provide any contractual elements at all. If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
Or, to paraphrase a great leader:
Kang: Civil unions for all.
[crowd boos]
Very well, no civil unions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Hmm... Civil unions for some, miniature American flags for
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?
Yeah, and I wrote "spit" where I meant to write "split." Sometimes I edit poorly. It's not that I'm extra fond of Turing; I *am*, however, extra fond of Bacon. :)
You think that's bad? (Score:5, Funny)
You think that's bad? How about, now when the boss rides your ass all afternoon, you can actually get pregnant? Man, trust science to make IT and programming jobs even shittier ;)
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.
Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.
I'm certain that religious people will love this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm religious but I figure it's God's job to enforce his rules, not mine.
If he disapproves of cloning or babies from same-sex couples, then He'll strike them down. If not then I guess He approves. (shrug) Not my laws; not my job to enforce them on others.
Re: (Score:2)
Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue.
Um, that one isn’t from the Bible.
I'm certain that religious people will love this.
Some might, some might not. The prevailing attitude, however, would probably be ambivalence. Or... “hey, make your own dirt!”
Re: (Score:2)
Technically then, it's 1 Brother, isn't it? Adam can't be Eve's Father -- it's more like a twin, isn't it? And, I've never been really clear on who Cain and Abel might have married.
It's all very confusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In b4 shitstorm (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget that they'd consider emulating god to be hubris.
You mean except in cases where they offer "clarification" on His words.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Adam Carrington [wikipedia.org] and Steve Carrington [wikipedia.org].
What did you expect, mythbusters?
obligatory... (Score:3)
Son of Kronar [oglaf.com]
(nsfw)
I for one (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You welcome robotic dogs [youtube.com] from the 60's?
They come with a bone of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Would a gayling be gay itself? Potentially quite an interesting experiment.
How do you know the parents were gay? Did you watch them having sex together?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay. If you RTFA, you'll see that it suggests that gay couples could have offspring using a technique similar to the one performed with the mice.
I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.
Re:I for one (Score:4, Insightful)
such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.
Why? Gay people have normal children all the time. Doesn't that give you enough data?
Re: (Score:2)
Two gay people of the same sex can not currently have children that are decended from both of them, are you suggesting that they can?
If you are meaning that gay men have children with gay women, then maybe they do, but it's possible that gay men and gay women are gay through different causes.
So no, there isn't enough data. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many studies being done on the subject.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What a waste of money (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.
They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
amazing spambot still fails turing test... news at 11
Re: (Score:2)
All the world needs is bloody gay mice.
Why, did the two male fathers had sex with each other?
Oh, Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Now instead of the mice in my house just eating my cheese, I have to worry about them reupholstering my furniture.
Close, but no cigar (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah yeah yeah. Just two fathers. That's some trick there, getting a male to generate a fetus. What an age we live in.
Cut me a break, and at least report that a female was in some way required, OK? I know it does not have the same "zing" as a story not involving females at all, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the thing of real importance was the one completely not mentioned (summary or comments, from what I’ve seen so far):
If they created a mouse embryo and brought it to term with no surrogate mother, this is indeed a breakthrough. If they used a surrogate mother... meh!
Same sex couples, with limitations (Score:2)
It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.
As long as they're happy with only female children, or are males themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I be both fathers? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the same method can theoretically be applied to two sperms from the same male. I can be the father and mother of my own child then.
Should he/she be considered my "child" or my "clone"?
Two times child support? (Score:2)
I'm not sure that is a good idea.
Wouldn't it be incestuous? (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be akin to having biological children with your own identical twin, with a high likelihood of birth defects, since your two sets of chromosomes are being remixed, possibly making your child getting two "bad" copies of some gene? It won't be like a clone at all.
female mitochondria DNA required (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm reading Oxygen by Nick Lane, and recreating with male mitochondria is a universal no no. Even worms while forming excrete the male mitochondria from the gametes used to form it.
The male mitochondria passed on is aged and defective, the female mitochondria an unused preserved version.
In other words, there's a reason it doesn't work the way it's being forced to work. That's why we have sexes. Thank God or evolution, your choice.
rd
So... who's yer daddy? n/t (Score:2)
AKA Jesus Mice (Score:2)
Lonesome George (Score:2)
That's good news for Lonesome George [wikipedia.org] and his species(assuming you could get male and female offspring from a single father). Sure, there would be heavy inbreeding but it would not be worse than most European royal families.
Re: (Score:2)
but there is another father - Tony in a Prague Zoo (see the wikipedia article you linked to)
That Took a Lot of Balls... (Score:2)
a gay male couple (Score:2)
could have daughters or sons
XY+XY -> XY/XX
but a gay female couple can only have daughters
XX+XX -> XX
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
75% of a person!
the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
75% of a person!
the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X
Perhaps "bit" is an understatement: the Y have roughly 80 genes, while the X has around 2000; the Y is about 4 times smaller than the X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No Y means you're female.
Also, deficiencies in the SRY region, or particular disruptions to the process that determines physical sex. People exist who were phenotypically female at birth, and only discovered their "maleness" at puberty when their testes descended and they grew unexpected amounts of facial hair.
Not that simple...XY females are also possible (Score:2)
Complete Androgen Insensivity Syndrome.
Biologically female except for the gonads. They have XY chromsomes but develop as women because
they lack the receptors for male hormones. Also because they lack the male hormone receptors
they typically have very feminine features even for women.
Life's a bitch and then you die (Score:5, Informative)
Well, then life's a bitch and then your zygote dies.
The Y chromosome is not a variant of the X chromosome. The X chromosome is one you actually need. The Y chromosome actually has very little information, and most of it related to testosterone production and sperm production. It doesn't even encode most of the differences between a male and a female body. Those are already taken care of by other proteins and testosterone.
In programming terms the Y chromosome is a little more than just a flag, but basically at an oversimplified level you can view it as a flag. The real important information is elsewhere.
So basically it's akin to, dunno, if you took out the .exe from the world of warcraft directory, but flagged it as Cataclysm compatible twice. It ain't gonna be very useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then blood type would be essentially haploid, i.e. we'd have just genotypes A, B, 0 instead of the observed AA, A0, 00, AB, BB, B0 (where A0/AA and B0/BB are phenotypically the same). AFAIK the blood type is autosomal on chromosome 16.
Re:i'm fine with that (Score:5, Funny)
Scientists said they were able to able to achieve this remarkable result by "forcing a mouse to have sex with his father."
And...
Human trials of the new procedure are set to begin in January 2011.
And also...
When asked if he was concerned that his son might object to being forced to participate in this study, Mr. Anonymous Coward Sr. responded "This is a life or death situation here. My son had 38 years to go out and find a real woman to procreate with - but instead he spent all his time in my down in our basement twittering with his Ham radio. He had his chance to spread his seed around and pass on our genetic legacy, but he wasted it. Now it's my turn to take over and make sure that we've got a suitable heir to the family dynasty. My son can push back as much as he wants, but as far as I'm concerned, that's only going to make my job that much easier."
Re: (Score:2)
How does one lead to the other?
All this could accomplish is that two men will be able to have biological offspring. And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?
Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equiv
Re: (Score:2)
...and a couple of decades later, no one will care anymore.
That's also conveniently what I see as the ultimate result of businesses checking myspace and facebook profiles -- either the majority will become much tighter about how they present themselves on the 'net, or the current older crop will die and eventually no one will care because it's not "shocking" anymore -- everyone does it and always has.
Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you like it if your mom was drunk that one night and got knocked up by a guy she didn't even know and that result is you?
No?
Gee, too bad, life ain't a request programme. You get what you're dealt.
Would I prefer if both my parents were guys who went through the hassle (legal, financial and otherwise) to have a child together and that child is me? Sure as fuck more than the alternative I gave above. Because one thing's sure: They definitely, truely and without a doubt WANTED me to be. I would've been no accident, not even a "happy coincidence", there is positively no way that I could have existed unless they really, really strongly wanted me to exist.
I honestly can't think of any better way to tell that parents WANT a child than going to impossible lengths to get one. Take in vitro. Does anyone doubt that these parents really wanted to have that child, an that this child will probably be loved more than many other kids who "just happened"?
Personally, I like the idea that my parents really wanted me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?
Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (Score:4, Funny)
No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?
Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?
I think that a lot of slashdotters are thinking of the advantage of doing it the other way round to GP's suggestion , like the body of a woman and the brain of a rabbit.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree? What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?
Or even cats and dogs, living together.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't. Certainly not to a blanket statement without a reason for it. I don't arbitrarily reject things because it "feels wrong" or vague junk like that. You're going to have to provide a good reasoning for what's wrong with it.
RL furries, that would be so awesome.
Re: (Score:3)
"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."
You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... I'm surprised how few people remember that just a year ago, or so, the news was that scientists finally decided to poke around with an egg plus an egg and found that it's insanely easy to fertilize an egg using the DNA extracted from another egg, no sperm required.
I mean, without keeping that in mind, this news has no context or relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.
On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...
Re: (Score:2)
Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.
This isn't right in humans or in any animals. We don't know what the long-term effect of this would be in mice. The point the OP is making is that humans have differences in genetics that make this process even more fraught with danger than the basic stuff they've managed to accomplish so far. Allowing offspring to go through that is totally uncivilised.
On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...
Mark my words, crazy fuckers and those promoting 'equality' for same-sex couples will be pushing for this. I have no problems with same-sex relationships bu
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Like quite a few people you seem to be really sure that it'd be wrong, but don't provide any reasons why.
So explain, why isn't it right?
Well if we don'
Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (Score:5, Insightful)
The same could be said about IV fertilization and other fertility treatments. In fact, the same thing WAS said about them, but it was a strawman every bit there as it is here. You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time. Who's gonna think of the monster children?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd rather give money to fags than to wankers, given a choice.
You'll disappoint a lot of slashdotters here.
Re: (Score:3)
IN YOUR FACE LESBIANS :D
This conjures up a very interesting picture .... let me just think about it for a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, this have almost already happened due to chimerism(the ovaries being a different genotype than the blood that is used for DNA test).