Researchers have created eggs from the cells of male mice, raising the prospect of male couples having their own children...

Sounds like an inferiority complex to me! I’ve never felt it necessary to refer to ‘the patriarchy’.

Can't we be treated like goddesses and have a grumble now and then?

Back in the day before it was realised that men had any part in making babies women WERE the "gods".

Then of course once the patriarchy took over after sperm discovered it was then believed women were mere carriers of male seeds we were treated like "vessels".

Even the discovery of eggs didn't change that POV.......

Blimey

Goodness big Louis I’m proud of being a woman and proud of having given birth to four children proud of the pain I endured and CERTAINLY NOT DEGRADED by my fulfilment as a woman
In my opinion we will never have equality while women collude with the patriarchy by regarding themselves as degraded by their feminine function
And I think it is a terrible shame when women moan about having a uterus and its rhythms
I wonder if that discontent and the tension around it often makes PMS worse
Women should be held sacred and given peace while menstruating (fat chance at the moment!)
And we should be treated as goddesses for our ability to nurture new life

WonderBra

If you read the nature paper, it's a really interesting piece of research.
The intention of the research wasn't to make eggs from male human cells, it was to look at why and how stem cells in culture have such a high likelihood of chromosomal loss or changes. Stem cells are researched in the main to look at cures and therapies for human disease, including cancer, dementia and other genetic conditions, so is very important research. During the research, it was found that a reasonable percentage of stem cells lost the y chromosome in culture, so the researchers looked into this further. The main focus of the ongoing research seems to be the hope that it could be used in endangered species, where numbers are so depleted that this could be the last chance before extinction.
The success rate of live births was incredibly low (less than 1% of implanted embryos, with only 30% of cells becoming eggs, and only 40% of those fertilising), so the likelihood this would ever be used in human reproduction is incredibly small.

That is very interesting WonderBra. I suppose you never know what researchers will discover which might be nothing to do with the original aims.

Well I for one don't think the most wonderful experiences of my life were degrading!

pen50

I have a nephew who is unfortunately unable to produce viable sperm. I think it's great news.

It would be great if the same technology could help your nephew 🙂

We wouldn’t make progress without research and heaven knows I’ve benefited from medical research, but this seems a step too far to me.

Germanshepherdsmum

Sounds like research for the sake of it - funded by whom?

Possibly everyone like those on here who think it’s a good idea. I don’t, but I donate to Cancer research and the heart foundation because I think that research is a good idea so why not.

Sounds like research for the sake of it - funded by whom?

Hate the idea, reminds me of some sort of scary horror film - just WHY?

I don’t understand pen. This is about manufacturing eggs isn’t it? Sperm donors help people like your nephew, or should I say his partner.

I have a nephew who is unfortunately unable to produce viable sperm. I think it's great news.

If you read the nature paper, it's a really interesting piece of research.
The intention of the research wasn't to make eggs from male human cells, it was to look at why and how stem cells in culture have such a high likelihood of chromosomal loss or changes. Stem cells are researched in the main to look at cures and therapies for human disease, including cancer, dementia and other genetic conditions, so is very important research. During the research, it was found that a reasonable percentage of stem cells lost the y chromosome in culture, so the researchers looked into this further. The main focus of the ongoing research seems to be the hope that it could be used in endangered species, where numbers are so depleted that this could be the last chance before extinction.
The success rate of live births was incredibly low (less than 1% of implanted embryos, with only 30% of cells becoming eggs, and only 40% of those fertilising), so the likelihood this would ever be used in human reproduction is incredibly small.

sundowngirl

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny If you can't or won't see that society thinking it's perfectly reasonable to abort a baby solely because it will have Down syndrome gives a negative, hurtful message to a child with Down syndrome then I can't do anything about that.

Children given up for adoption, children whose mothers die in childbirth, all are in the same position as surrogate children, all are loved and cared for and thrive. while I wish that was true that all are loved and cared for and thrive, children given up for adoption or the much rarer ones whose mothers die in childbirth weren't created with the sole purpose of removing them from the woman who gestated them.

I don't think society thinks that. I think individual women can and should make their own decisions. Why is it more hurtful for Downs children to know some children with the condition are aborted, than for any child to know that some children are aborted?

Surrogate children are not "removed" from the mother at birth the mother gives the child to the genetic parents, just as a birth mother gives a child to adoptive parents.
Why is it wrong for a woman to offer to carry a child for two people who desperately want one?

I totally agree with you Glorianny - it definitely isn't wrong for a woman to carry a child for two people who desperately want one.
My daughter had frozen embryos (i.e. biologically from both her and her husband) but could not carry a child without serious danger to both her and her unborn child. A wonderful surrogate carried their son for them. He is our much loved grandson and my daughter and son-in-law are his biological parents. They meet up with their surrogate 3-4 times a year (they live in different ends of the country) and they all have a brilliant relationship. Why would anyone deny them their happiness?

Thanks for your post sundowngirl I think it is so important to realise we are dealing with real people. So happy your DD has the child she wanted and you have your grandson. A much wanted and much loved child

sorry how will this work. do you mean a child will grow in a tube ? or a saragate woman will carry ? no way could a male carry a child they not built for it !!! Frankenstein in the making !!!

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny If you can't or won't see that society thinking it's perfectly reasonable to abort a baby solely because it will have Down syndrome gives a negative, hurtful message to a child with Down syndrome then I can't do anything about that.

Children given up for adoption, children whose mothers die in childbirth, all are in the same position as surrogate children, all are loved and cared for and thrive. while I wish that was true that all are loved and cared for and thrive, children given up for adoption or the much rarer ones whose mothers die in childbirth weren't created with the sole purpose of removing them from the woman who gestated them.

I don't think society thinks that. I think individual women can and should make their own decisions. Why is it more hurtful for Downs children to know some children with the condition are aborted, than for any child to know that some children are aborted?

Surrogate children are not "removed" from the mother at birth the mother gives the child to the genetic parents, just as a birth mother gives a child to adoptive parents.
Why is it wrong for a woman to offer to carry a child for two people who desperately want one?

I totally agree with you Glorianny - it definitely isn't wrong for a woman to carry a child for two people who desperately want one.
My daughter had frozen embryos (i.e. biologically from both her and her husband) but could not carry a child without serious danger to both her and her unborn child. A wonderful surrogate carried their son for them. He is our much loved grandson and my daughter and son-in-law are his biological parents. They meet up with their surrogate 3-4 times a year (they live in different ends of the country) and they all have a brilliant relationship. Why would anyone deny them their happiness?

The problem is that the cost of that research could have been spent on finding a cure for one of the one of the illnesses/conditions that some babies are born with.

I'm far from old-fashioned. Infact I am alot more the other way than most. This though just gives me the creeps

When will scientists learn that nature knows best? It may be a ’good idea’ for now, but what of the long term effects?
Poor Dolly the sheep was riddled with arthritis. Scientists would be better researching how we can continue to live on the planet here and now, than going off into ridiculous fantasies.

VioletSky

I'm so angry about this

Furious

Why make it so men can procreate when us women could have got rid of the lot of them

👏👏👏 I'm with you VioletSky

I don’t support the idea, because God made Male and Female for a reason. God made women to carry children, not men. But how can a male be carry a baby without having a WOMB? That is impossible. The world with sick ideas is going to ZERO.

Well most laws are difficult to enforce, it's why people break them. I will never support paid surrogacy, what I would be interested in is long term follow up of the children of those born to altruistic surrogacy and then we could look at what safeguards need to be in place. I think that was the theme from the programme on DNA testing, IVF, etc that these adults were given information that impacted them greatly and were just left to get on with it.

The only parallel that could possibly be drawn would be if someone was proposing that all Downs syndrome children should be aborted.
Something I would certainly completely oppose but which is a logical view. If you ban one set of children from being born why not another?

Except that virtually every child with Down syndrome has been conceived naturally and is just an element of nature. You are deliberately destroying an actual foetus. Banning surrogacy does not destroy something already in existence. Do you consider contraception as "banning children from being born" in which case you already have your precedent.

I think it is a law which would be difficult if not impossible to administer if some people chose to ignore it. After all if one woman gives birth to a child for another couple, who would you punish and how? Take the baby into care? Fine the woman and the couple. Insist the birth mother keep the baby?
Nothing really helps does it?