British Scientists Discover How to Make Women's Bone Marrow Into Sperm

here

The article mentioned the reverse could possibly be done for guys as well (turning male bone marrow into eggs). So I guess this opens the door for homosexual couples to have children that's biologically their own. Thoughts?

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

• break your arm off
• go under the covers
• lovin time

Thoughts?

Aznsilvrboy

It's evil because that would then be the end of the "gays suck because two ****s can't make a baby" argument.

:roll:

But seriously, I didn't click on the link. But if it's true, that's awesome. That'll potentially let a lesbian couple bear a child, without having to resort to being impregnated by sperm from a strange man. One chick can provide the egg, the other can provide the sperm, and that lesbian couple can get a child of their own without having to get a dude's help.

That'd be awesome.

That is, assuming that it works like that.

[QUOTE="Aznsilvrboy"]

Thoughts?

MrGeezer

It's evil because that would then be the end of the "gays suck because two ****s can't make a baby" argument.

:roll:

But seriously, I didn't click on the link. But if it's true, that's awesome. That'll potentially let a lesbian couple bear a child, without having to resort to being impregnated by sperm from a strange man. One chick can provide the egg, the other can provide the sperm, and that lesbian couple can get a child of their own without having to get a dude's help.

That'd be awesome.

That is, assuming that it works like that.

Thats so ****ed up, im sorry, but it is. :?

[QUOTE="Aznsilvrboy"]

Thoughts?

MrGeezer

It's evil because that would then be the end of the "gays suck because two ****s can't make a baby" argument.

:roll:

But seriously, I didn't click on the link. But if it's true, that's awesome. That'll potentially let a lesbian couple bear a child, without having to resort to being impregnated by sperm from a strange man. One chick can provide the egg, the other can provide the sperm, and that lesbian couple can get a child of their own without having to get a dude's help.

That'd be awesome.

That is, assuming that it works like that.

Souns expensive though.

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

elblanquito_81

oh.... crap. I think its time we silence this scientist

Great, now guys are useless!

-_-

but there is more to reproduction than the actuall fertilization. There is partnership and courtship and all the awesome things that we have summed up in one word : Love

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

elblanquito_81

1) You're assuming that all women are lesbians.

2) If a non-lesbian woman chooses a woman over you, that says more about you than it says about her.

3) Apparently you forgot that many women take birth control pills, so that they can have sex without making babies. Your statement implies that making babies is the sole reason why women have sex with men, which is contradicted both by the fact that heterosexual women use birth control, and that heterosexual women have sex with men who have condoms.

4) Or to put it another way...suppose that technology was suddenly produced which gave men the ability to produce eggs and bear children. Would you then say "well, since I can now have a child with a gay dude, there's no reason for me to be interested in chicks"?

5) Really...you ARE aware that not all women are lesbians, aren't you?

Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...Agriath

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...MrGeezer

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

You make a good point, but those are things that threaten peoples live's and keep them from living properly. Having a child with someone is great but it's not neccesary and doesnt detract from quality of life. It shouldn't get that much research when disease and conditions ( such as the ones you mentioned) still remain uncured.

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

elblanquito_81

damn!

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

MrGeezer

Once again MrG, you provide an intelligible, yet sarcastic response.

I salute you sir!

Hmm... I wonder if that means girls can impregnate themselves... eewww

if they make it into sperm and females have sex... all they can create is another woman... they have no Y chromosomes to create man... but i guess, would they really need men?remmbermytitans

hmmm, that is true.

if they make it into sperm and females have sex... all they can create is another woman... they have no Y chromosomes to create man... but i guess, would they really need men?remmbermytitans

Moar nag.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...Agriath

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

You make a good point, but those are things that threaten peoples live's and keep them from living properly. Having a child with someone is great but it's not neccesary and doesnt detract from quality of life. It shouldn't get that much research when disease and conditions ( such as the ones you mentioned) still remain uncured.

Oh Jesus. Did you just say that being incapabple of bearing children with the person you love does NOT detract from the quality of one's life?

I mean...god. I don't have children and hope that I never do (hate the bastards) but even I know that there's a difference between a couple having to bear a child on their own, and having to adopt someone wlse's kid.

And that's not to knock adoption at all, but most people, when they decide to have kids, don't say, "well, it's time to go down to the adoption agency". Most people would RATHER have children that embody them both in in body AND values, and I find it insane that you're suggesting that technology that allows people to do that is pointless.

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

MrGeezer

1) You're assuming that all women are lesbians.

2) If a non-lesbian woman chooses a woman over you, that says more about you than it says about her.

3) Apparently you forgot that many women take birth control pills, so that they can have sex without making babies. Your statement implies that making babies is the sole reason why women have sex with men, which is contradicted both by the fact that heterosexual women use birth control, and that heterosexual women have sex with men who have condoms.

4) Or to put it another way...suppose that technology was suddenly produced which gave men the ability to produce eggs and bear children. Would you then say "well, since I can now have a child with a gay dude, there's no reason for me to be interested in chicks"?

5) Really...you ARE aware that not all women are lesbians, aren't you?

But I get the sense that this issue is a very touchy one with you so I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. (Not that I came on here to argue anyway). So if you're just looking for someone to fight with I suggest you look elsewhere.

[QUOTE="Agriath"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...MrGeezer

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

You make a good point, but those are things that threaten peoples live's and keep them from living properly. Having a child with someone is great but it's not neccesary and doesnt detract from quality of life. It shouldn't get that much research when disease and conditions ( such as the ones you mentioned) still remain uncured.

Oh Jesus. Did you just say that being incapabple of bearing children with the person you love does NOT detract from the quality of one's life?

I mean...god. I don't have children and hope that I never do (hate the bastards) but even I know that there's a difference between a couple having to bear a child on their own, and having to adopt someone wlse's kid.

And that's not to knock adoption at all, but most people, when they decide to have kids, don't say, "well, it's time to go down to the adoption agency". Most people would RATHER have children that embody them both in in body AND values, and I find it insane that you're suggesting that technology that allows people to do that is pointless.

It doesnt detract from life the way something like Huntingtons disease does...

if they make it into sperm and females have sex... all they can create is another woman... they have no Y chromosomes to create man... but i guess, would they really need men?remmbermytitans

aww duh! I cant beleive I didn't realize this! It's ironic because on friday I took my genetics test in AP Biology... lolz abound

Wow.

Soon men will be able to have babies. And make babies with themselves :) Meh___Guy

Just like snails...

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

elblanquito_81

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Agriath"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...Agriath

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

You make a good point, but those are things that threaten peoples live's and keep them from living properly. Having a child with someone is great but it's not neccesary and doesnt detract from quality of life. It shouldn't get that much research when disease and conditions ( such as the ones you mentioned) still remain uncured.

Oh Jesus. Did you just say that being incapabple of bearing children with the person you love does NOT detract from the quality of one's life?

I mean...god. I don't have children and hope that I never do (hate the bastards) but even I know that there's a difference between a couple having to bear a child on their own, and having to adopt someone wlse's kid.

And that's not to knock adoption at all, but most people, when they decide to have kids, don't say, "well, it's time to go down to the adoption agency". Most people would RATHER have children that embody them both in in body AND values, and I find it insane that you're suggesting that technology that allows people to do that is pointless.

It doesnt detract from life the way something like Huntingtons disease does...

Are you aware of the fallacy of this argument? It's the same argument that says "why should we study space when people are dying down here?"

And that's the most pessimistic argument I've ever heard. I can multi-task when I'm at work, and I'm just one man. If I can multi-task, I think that OUR ENTIRE ****ING SPECIES can multi-task to.

Hell, with that line of thinking, let's completely ignore diabetes. Sure, diabetes is bad, but it isn't malaria. ALL of humanity must focus ALL of its efforts on Malaria. Then once we have malaria beaten, we can start studying ways to treat people with filial elephantiasis.

Figures...everyone on here is screaming about how now they won't be able to have any sex because women won't need them anymore (which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and just highlights who on GS hasn't gotten laid and feels like they never will) or screaming about how now those evil homosexuals will be able to have babies, rather than notice the more insane consequences of this technology.

Think about it: The tech is now out there to turn male bone marrow into eggs and female bone marrow into sperm (or more likely the ability to turn either gender's bone marrow into both). Now if an infertile person were to use this technology they could essentially reproduce by themself. 100% of the genes for their child would come from them, which would essentially make their child a genetic clone or be more akin to asexual reproduction. Granted their offspring would probably be hideously inbred (you think its bad enough when a brother and sister have a kid? Only 25% of the genes are shared in that case) but the possibility is there, assuming this technology is viable.

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]

No. It means women will no longer have any need for us men.

*runs and hides from the coming apocalypse*

FlaminDeath

No guys, come to my place. I have Doritos.

Stuff like this makes me scared.Spazoid

Amen brother

I'm having trouble grasping how that would be biologically possible. I guess I should read the link, but I have trouble seeing how you could possibly transform one specific function cell into a completely different one.bman784

[QUOTE="bman784"]I'm having trouble grasping how that would be biologically possible. I guess I should read the link, but I have trouble seeing how you could possibly transform one specific function cell into a completely different one.elblanquito_81

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"][QUOTE="bman784"]I'm having trouble grasping how that would be biologically possible. I guess I should read the link, but I have trouble seeing how you could possibly transform one specific function cell into a completely different one.bman784

Figures...everyone on here is screaming about how now they won't be able to have any sex because women won't need them anymore (which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard and just highlights who on GS hasn't gotten laid and feels like they never will) or screaming about how now those evil homosexuals will be able to have babies, rather than notice the more insane consequences of this technology.

Think about it: The tech is now out there to turn male bone marrow into eggs and female bone marrow into sperm (or more likely the ability to turn either gender's bone marrow into both). Now if an infertile person were to use this technology they could essentially reproduce by themself. 100% of the genes for their child would come from them, which would essentially make their child a genetic clone or be more akin to asexual reproduction. Granted their offspring would probably be hideously inbred (you think its bad enough when a brother and sister have a kid? Only 25% of the genes are shared in that case) but the possibility is there, assuming this technology is viable.

gameguy6700

Yes, and the fact that this technology has been invented at all makes me very worried that humans might have to use it. I come to this conclusion because cousin imbreeding has actually worked in humans' evolutionary past because sometimes there just weren't any other people around to mate with. I've read that Samaritans can interbreed with cousins with very minimal abnormalities but it was done out of necessity and a lack of other people to mate with. It's all nature's way of keeping humans alive. Now humans develop a technology that allows them breed with themselves? This is unsettling in so many different ways.

[QUOTE="Spazoid"]Stuff like this makes me scared.n_kors

Amen brother

Same here.

[QUOTE="bman784"]I'm having trouble grasping how that would be biologically possible. I guess I should read the link, but I have trouble seeing how you could possibly transform one specific function cell into a completely different one.elblanquito_81

Well, looks like hollywood had it just one step off this whole time. The zombies who inherit the earth aren't going to be zombies at all, they're gonna be genetically abnormal inbread, saliva-drooling freaks.

here

The article mentioned the reverse could possibly be done for guys as well (turning male bone marrow into eggs). So I guess this opens the door for homosexual couples to have children that's biologically their own. Thoughts?

Aznsilvrboy

Aw crap. The militant feminist at school's going to be all over me on Monday about this. I scoffed when she told me her radical wishes for the future, and now she's going to attempt to give me a 40 minute spiel about her "perfect reality".

Man. I was actually thinking once the Superbowl was over, that nothing could darken my Monday. Nothing.

Now...well, at least I have ammo for the man turning marrow into eggs, but I know exactly what she'll say anyways, so why bother?

Guh.

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"][QUOTE="bman784"]I'm having trouble grasping how that would be biologically possible. I guess I should read the link, but I have trouble seeing how you could possibly transform one specific function cell into a completely different one.n_kors

Well, looks like hollywood had it just one step off this whole time. The zombies who inherit the earth aren't going to be zombies at all, they're gonna be genetically abnormal inbread, saliva-drooling freaks.

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...MrGeezer

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

I would like to point out however that most africans, african americans have sickle cell anemia in its recessive form. Sickle cell anemia gives you protection against malaria which was more important than the risk of getting 2 recessives and suffering in africa

[QUOTE="Agriath"]Wtf, why is research money spent on this crap? It benefits homosexuals.. a small percentage of the population. Why not research something the average person can benefit from...MrGeezer

Yeah dude, the average person doesn't have spina bifida, Huntington's disease, or sickle cell anemia. Why waste time and money helping those losers?

I love you.

here

The article mentioned the reverse could possibly be done for guys as well (turning male bone marrow into eggs). So I guess this opens the door for homosexual couples to have children that's biologically their own. Thoughts?

Aznsilvrboy

Yeah, well, they have also discovered that certain parts of the male anotomy, including the testicles, vas deferens, and epyditymus, can also make sperm (along with semen).