Stem Cells Discovery Will Allow Gay Men to Create Eggs for Surrogate Birth


Stem CellsRecent findings by a group of scientists from the Kyoto University Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (iCeMS) have taken the scientific world by storm, by announcing a stem cell discovery made that will allow gay people to create their own eggs that could be used in a surrogate birth.  The discovery raises numerous questions about the findings, as well as its potential uses and abuses.

The new results will allow gay men to create an egg of their own, instead of having to use a donated egg from a female donor, thereby allowing creation of a child born with both parents’ DNA, not just the DNA of one of the men and the DNA from the egg donor, as is currently the case. This finding has the potential to invigorate the LGBT community, and whispers of its use in this manner are already beginning.

The Japanese research team, led by Mitinori Saitou of Kyoto University in Japan, said that they had finally attained their seemingly insurmountable objective, creating eggs from embryonic stem cells, as well as producing eggs that will become healthy offspring.stem cells

The new technique used bio-engineered eggs fertilized in-vitro with sperm which was also created from stem cells, and then implanted into mice. The resulting pregnancy produced healthy mice, and so far, this accomplishment is a rousing success.

The embryonic stem cells used in the study were a different kind of stem cell than what is usually discussed, which are umbilical cord stem cells. This differing type of stem cell, referred to as “induced pluripotent stem cells,” can be obtained from the skin cells of a mouse or a human. This brings the debate over potential uses and abuses to the forefront.  The discovery could lead to cloning of humans without the need for either a man or a woman. Depending upon point of view, this can be termed either abuse or groundbreaking new use.

The fact that this discovery has been attained could lead to wondrous uses for this new, emerging technology. This will be a boon for older women that wish to have children later in life, because of a new marriage  or for whatever other reason. Women with infertility issues, such as inability to create viable eggs or who suffer from miscarriage. Bio-engineered eggs made from stem cells could be created and refined to eliminate these problems, giving affected women hope.

This discovery could also lead to gay men in same-sex relationships having the ability to create an offspring completely from just the two donors’ DNA. Skin cells from one of the men could be used to create the egg and sperm, or sperm created from the skin cells of the other man can be used to fertilize the egg in-vitro, leaving only the surrogate uterus for implantation on the table.

If scientists ever discover a way to create a viable womb that eliminates the need for a women’s uterus, it would be a shocking discovery, one that may lead us down a path of no return.

As with all things, this discovery is not a question of if, only when.

It would appear that this is the next avenue for discovery for the Kyoto Team, and it’s very likely that another research facility is already currently researching this eventuality, and that it will be attained someday.

Someday will be here soon enough.

Opinion by Jim Donahue.

74 Responses to "Stem Cells Discovery Will Allow Gay Men to Create Eggs for Surrogate Birth"

  1. Chris Dokos   May 22, 2014 at 7:22 pm


  2. jim   May 22, 2014 at 12:07 am

    Like anything else, this can be used for good and it can be used for bad.
    But who will declare right from wrong?
    That’s the scary part.

  3. Gracie B   May 5, 2014 at 6:07 am

    These comments have really given me a sense of just how pathetic humans really are. Just who do you people think you are to say whether or not teo people who love each other can have a baby or not? The entire human race needs to learn how to preach equality and peace and fairness. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but ifyou don’t believe “test tube babies” are right- guess what? You don’t have to participate. But you can just prance around telling people what they can and cannot do. Its not your choice. Its theirs.
    And to those of you who are helping others understand and trying to decrease the number bigoted minded people Iin this world, I thank you.

  4. Angela   May 1, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Hi, there’s literally no direct source to the study / finding on the researcher’s website. Please post resources to where you get your information from. For all I know, you could have made this up. This story is not credible unless there is a direct source presented.

    • Steven   May 3, 2014 at 2:46 am

      If you google the name of the doctor listed, you will find his overview for the company listed (I typed this all out once and had the link but the page glitched and I don’t feel like doing it all again) listing the scientific papers (a big thing in the science world) that he has written. They seem to be in line with this sort of thing. Course, just cuz it LOOKS like it’s in order doesn’t mean that it is. But here’s to hoping and being to tired to do any more research on it. If you find a 100% yea or nea, please let me know.

  5. Kinsey6   May 1, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    I absolutely LOVE this! I can already hear conservatives/Republicans/theocrats/fundies starting to go completely bonkers over this. And any time they’re upset it means something good is happening!

    • Nodak   May 1, 2014 at 1:38 pm

      What is good about yet another way to sell humans like cows and pigs to whoever has the cash to buy them? What is good about willfully denying a child a mother? What about the rights of the child who did not and could not consent to any of this?

      Many children born from the test tube 30 years ago are frequently hostile to such technologies that turned them into commodities to be sold to the highest bidder.

      • Gracie B   May 5, 2014 at 5:35 am

        What is good about you telling others what they can and cannot do and what is or is not right? If you don’t like it or if you don’t believe this is right then guess what you can do? Not do it. But don’t go around trying to force your beliefs on others. It does nothing to improve the earth as a whole, so what is the point

  6. Lee-Roy   December 10, 2013 at 2:10 am

    Me and my husband are a gay couple we want a baby, but our own! I would happily do this if it meant I could have a baby with my husband as this is a dream of mine and if there are anyone wanting to experiment, Me and my husband would be happy to oblige as the end result will be a blessing in every sense of the way.

  7. Jonathan Sanchez   June 25, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    The male chromosome “Y” is more dominant over the female chromosome “X”, male “XY” and female “XX”… Which leads to the question: If the egg is created from a male’s stem cell and fertilized by male sperm, could the result be “YY”? and what would the result be?

    • NickM   June 25, 2013 at 6:12 pm

      Not true. An X chromosome is actually ‘dominant’ over a Y chromosome. That is why many congenital diseases, e.g. Hemophilia, are fatal for boys, but women are merely carriers. The X isn’t so much stronger – it carries a little more genetic information. If you have two XXs like females do, then if one has a congenital disease gene, it will be off set by the other X chromosome. You get the X from your mother if you are male and the Y from your father; women get an X from each parent. If they make a viable egg from your pluripotent stem cells, it would have to carry your mother’s X chromosomal info.

  8. Jonathan Sanchez   June 25, 2013 at 2:23 pm

    The male chromosome “Y” is more dominant over the female chromosome “X”… Which leads to the question: If the egg is created from a male’s stem cell and fertilized by male sperm, could the result be “YY”? and what would the result be?

  9. Tonnya Marisse   June 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    the epitome of misogyny and patriarchy.

  10. ANGER   April 5, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    Ever single one of you sicken me, nether man nor woman is more dominate. Any who think that way are barbaric and should go back to there cave to pout. As for the gay thing scientific studies have shown that gay men (not as many studies have been done on woman) have different sexual brain patterns then straight men and thus can’t choose. The small percent that does choose is usually bisexual. As well if god didn’t want something he wouldn’t allow it, he could easily damn them to hell if it was wrong but he doesn’t. The research as well he could stop, why allow it if its wrong. What’s more a gay couple can live a normal healthy life just like anyone else. Also it’s all about the test tube baby oh no, what about the orphans. All are equal, man or woman, black or white, you all sicken me so good night.

    • Steven   May 3, 2014 at 2:49 am

      I don’t think they were referring to dominate as in social roles, but as in genetics where it is a matter of fact that the X chromosome (female, but cared by both genders) is dominate. This explains why all babies are female in the womb until a very specific surge of hormones changes them to male, if the Y chromosome is present.

  11. alaa   April 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    Do who born without testes reproduction through stem cells?

  12. andrew   February 25, 2013 at 1:33 am

    it might be a wonder in the history of science such discoveries!as far there are some good news such as healing people from deadly diseases or creating test tube babies for those who are unable to produce babies etc… my question stands in the name of science why scientists create things against the natures will? is this is the beginning of human extinct? however what will be the out come of these discoveries such gays and lesbians producing babies against nature,s will, it might be a miracle in science but it will be a threat to the human community! further those scientists have forgotten they were the children of two opposite sex(mothers and fathers) not gays or lesbians children!!!!!1

  13. Mikaelo   January 20, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    Interesting article (albeit being a bit badly written). The wonders of modern science are getting intense, but it will always be controversial. There’s a thin line between what’s acceptable and not, and people have a hard time agreeing if that line still exists in particular topics. Either way, this news is very astounding.

  14. jamie   January 8, 2013 at 10:31 am

    it would be nice if they could turn your balls into egg producing ovaries and that would be great for those who want to have a sex change and give birth and all that once scientists have perfected the male womb and all think about that a world where you can be who you really are and be complete not just and for those who had their parts removed for health reasons like cancer they could get a new womb and still have children i have met a few women like that who wished they could have children and this would be a great way for them to finally have the kids and family they always wanted and no care all men will not turn gay although can i ave your ex’s number i need a bf

  15. positivelyantagonistic   January 4, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I think pregnancy will soon be a thing of the past. I can imagine a beautiful world where any 2 people can have kids regardless of gender, and instead of a uterus the embryo could just have like a special tube or artificial uterus and couples could come in and check on it’s development until it reaches 9 months, and then it would be taken out as a HEALTHY NEW-BORN….We almost have the technology to do this !! And think about it – It is a LOT less risky than actual pregnancy, and obviously straight couples could still do it the old fashioned way if they chose too…

    But just think you could also use this to get rid of unplanned pregnancy. Women could deliberately go infertile so they can safely have intercourse and then use the stemcell research to have a child with their future boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife….So this would get rid of risky pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies and introduce ways for all couples to be equal regardless of orientation….It’s a beautiful idea!

    The only worrying thing is…(which for some reason no ones thought of) what happens if a person has both sperm and egg cells made out of their stemcells and then reproduces asexually?? That could be messy and I think they would have to do a law against this….

    • Robert Harvey-Kinsey   January 4, 2013 at 10:36 am

      While reproduction from a single person would be possible, this would not be a clone. Each time an new egg or sperm cell forms the resulting cell randomly takes from either the person’s maternal or paternal genome. Keep in mind normaly everyone has a two copies of each gene with the exception sex chromosomes, for a male a YY combination is unviable but XX and XY will work so these combinations would fail 1/3 of the time. The resulting child would be more a like a sibling than a clone. The risk here is that if a person happened to have a recessive genetic problem the child could get two copies of that gene and thus express it. As for the ethics of a single parent, we already deal with those. I think the primary reason this choice should be banned is the same clinical reason we ban incest, the risk of genetic illness

      • positivelyantagonistic   January 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm

        Thanks for clarifying that and yeah,that makes logical sense. And yeah you’re right whilst incest and cloning aren’t the easiest things to compare, I certainly think people having kids with themselves should be prevented just because human inbreeding is illegal anyway.

    • Blondie28   May 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm

      You people are disquesting! what about the beauty of a women being pregnant and actually having a child. I’m not against gay marriage or relationships or whatever you wanna call it but to ruin the sanctity of pregnancy too? ugh, waaaaay to sick. disquesting! but then again do you even know what that is? my guess is no :/ sad 🙁

      • TheCorrector   May 17, 2014 at 7:02 am

        Hahaha! Oh I love that you spelled the word “disgusting” as disquesting, Blondie28! And then asking whether people know what that word means, hilarious! Come to think about it, what would it mean? Perhaps it would refer to an instance where someone cancels an order given to someone else to partake in a quest; i.e.”I am cancelling the order that you go on the quest, I am disquesting you!” Of course, even then, it’d only be applicable to medieval times, or perhaps in gaming or LARPing…I guess. Disquesting indeed! Your spelling and use of grammar is disquieting – look that one up because it’s actually a WORD!

      • Robert Harvey-Kinsey   February 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm

        We have spent decades trying to help ignorant people to understand. After so many years, I have come to a realization. Some people have chosen ignorance over reality. Choosing to remain ignorant in the face of the truth is the definition of stupidity. There is nothing I can say or do that will ever change such biased viewpoints. It would be foolhardy to keep trying. I am done with you, fall now to the annuals of history alongside your kin. It may not be over yet, but soon it will be and we can finally wash our hands of you.

  16. care   December 3, 2012 at 12:54 am

    may I add that any innocent baby brought into this, people should’nt attack the baby, it would’nt be the baby’s fault if something went wrong.>_< I dont like the thought of an innocent baby being put under the test.:(

  17. Care   December 3, 2012 at 12:44 am

    If future exotic deseases dont kill us off, woman will just disapear wont be needed anymore , the whole world will turn gay. 🙁 this sucks firstmy first bf turned gay, and now the whole world is going gay.This could lead to world wars too.

    • jpfeifer14   December 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      What makes you think your boyfriend “Turned” gay? Im going to take stab in the dark and guess that you were his first girlfriend as well. What makes you think that eliminating a woman as a requirement for birth would cause them to go extinct? By that logic, women are completely useless as human beings, except for their ability to reproduce. Please think before you talk.

      • crystal clear australia   January 26, 2013 at 7:17 pm

        Because men are NATURALLY the more DOMINANT physical species of the two so would ‘naturally’ wipe us out over the long term when our single most essential requirement for existence will have effectively been rubbed out.

        Don’t think for a moment women could be conned into thinking this would not happen, mark my words there would be war and great ones too at that and it will be your unnatural gender species that will be wiped out in the process.

        • crystal clear australia   January 26, 2013 at 7:35 pm

          Sweetheart, your ex-boyfriend ‘turned homosexual’ because he’s a lustful little toad with no sense of self discipline, self decency and no self respect, in other words he’s not man enough for a healthy female like you. He is a species to be used by other species of their kind where its survival of the fittest in their world. You must thank Jesus every day for saving your life from bonding with something not of your kind.

          Your ex-friend has a deep depression and death wish in fact by chasing self destruction through the many diseases he will acquire by having sex unnaturally.

          • Steven   May 3, 2014 at 2:43 am

            And as a Christian man who spent two years of my life doing nothing but studing the word and preaching salvation, you know nothing of Christ. What you have said here is hate. Sugar coat it in scripture all you want it is still hate. Christ is love. Hate is the opposite of love. Even if they were true, your words are of Satan. He will tell a thousand truths to get you to believe one lie, and the lie of hate disguised as being a good Christian is his favorite.

        • Steven   May 3, 2014 at 3:01 am

          Crystal, I’ve already replied to you once. And I really questioned if it was worth it to do so again. But I have just got to say you are way way way off base on everything. Even if the whole world was gay, why would men kill off all the women? Who would buy all the clothes and shoes designed by gay men? (Please see that for the satire it is). Maybe Australia is a very different place than the US (Which is very much considered more violent), but I can’t think of a single man gay enough to want to kill off women. Who would gay men drink appletinis with?

    • crystal clear australia   January 26, 2013 at 7:43 pm

      Sweetheart, your ex-boyfriend ‘turned homosexual’ because he’s a lustful little toad with no sense of self discipline, self decency and no self respect, in other words he’s not man enough for a healthy female like you. He is a species to be used by other species of their kind where its survival of the fittest in their world. You must thank Jesus every day for saving your life from bonding with something not of your kind.

      Your ex-friend has a deep depression and death wish in fact by chasing self destruction through the many diseases he will acquire by having sex unnaturally

      • Elec   June 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm

        Are you insane? Your comments are some of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. “He is a species to be used by other species of their kind where its survival of the fittest in their world. What does this even mean? “Your ex-friend has a deep depression and death wish in fact by chasing self destruction through the many diseases he will acquire by having sex unnaturally.” (I added the period in there for you.) I know many people who have ‘acquired’ STDs from having natural sex and many homosexuals who are not depressed and lead very respectful, decent, moral, and successful lives. “You must thank Jesus every day for saving your life from bonding with something not of your kind.” Not very Christ-like of you to say. Your argument wouldn’t stand if it had four legs.

  18. Jayne Doe   November 30, 2012 at 10:39 am

    This is just plain WRONG on so many levels, playing “G-d” with DNA. This is truly an abomination and you homos best start seeking forgiveness while you still CAN. These “miraculous” discoveries are a sign of the times… that the proverbial SHTF very soon. Can you not see that with all that’s going on now? It is not NATURAL for perverted same sex “couples” to have their own OFFSPRING anymore than it is natural for them to MARRY.

    The world is overpopulated as it IS, we don’t need new discoveries which will enable ANYONE to add to population- much LESS the AMORAL REPROBATES! You would be blind not to see that transhumanism and CLONING is knocking at the door. Do you really WANT to live in a futuristic society with that?! >:(

    • GM   November 30, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Boy oh boy, you got it bad. Have you ever heard the words love and tolerance. Guess not. Enjoy!

    • brenden2014   May 1, 2014 at 12:39 pm

      I can’t wait to see your face when I have my own children, and you won’t be able to do a thing about it 🙂

    • Truth Teller   May 1, 2014 at 5:02 pm

      The only thing that is unnatural is your willing ness to disregard the rights of other human beings because of a 2000 year old book about a guy who hung around with 12 other men all day every day… Re-structure your priorities, you sound like you belong in the Westboro Baptist Church…

    • Steven   May 3, 2014 at 2:38 am

      By such a definition of natural, is it natural that your able to type on a keyboard made of plastic into a machine made of metal that uses silicone and electricity (that is likely not naturally created) to send your message oh ignorance and hate to billions of people world wide in a matter of seconds.

      Yeah, super natural.

      BTW, we aren’t overpopulated, we’re just to selfish and stupid to stop fighting and start working together to build a world that can provide for all. It is possible, but people like you care more about hate and getting ahead/being better to put any effort towards it.

  19. londonlouis   November 23, 2012 at 5:12 am

    I am praying for the day that men will be able to carry their own babies and start their own families without the help of a woman. Lesbians and straight people get the opportunity to start a family the way they want to, why can’t we have the same right!

    I can’t wait for the day that I can give birth to my own child, I only hope it will happen in my lifetime.

  20. Rick Davis   November 19, 2012 at 3:38 am

    To allow this to happen will result in the destruction of human DNA as nature intended it. The changes in DNA resulting from using eggs from one individual will give viruses and exotic diseases new ways of exterminating the human race if the homo-ovans allowed to interbreed with hetero-ovans. There are simply too many unknown variables to account for. Use of stem cells in this fashion will eventually result in pogroms against homo-ovans as they cannot be allowed to interbreed breed with hetero-ovans.

    • blayzingdread   May 3, 2014 at 9:05 am

      I feel like you just googled a bunch of scientific-sounding words and put them in this comment *facepalm*

  21. Jake Bacchus Schneider   October 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Just a small nitpick, but “whispers of it’s use” should use the spelling “its”. In any case, this is exciting!

  22. Zhu   October 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    So where’s the original report?

  23. Dustin   October 10, 2012 at 4:41 am

    This is pretty awesome. If the Earth weren’t already overpopulated I would give this a shot.

  24. Tiera Worden-Byers   October 9, 2012 at 10:57 am

    I think this is nothing short of a miraculous advancement in science, that is going to bring joy and completeness to many peoples lives… but please don’t let this stop you from adopting.

    • john kemp   October 20, 2012 at 4:24 am

      I hope no tax dollars were spent on this nonsense .If tax dollars were spent ,we as a nation do not deserve anything less than total destruction then domination forever.

      • johnbrown   October 20, 2012 at 6:43 am

        John, This discovery was made by a team of researchers from the University of Kyoto Japan, which is not in the US. Did you not read the article? Or are you just Homophobic? I don’t get it. And your reference to total destruction then domination forever. What’s that about? Did you comment to the wrong article?

        • Unimpressed   November 30, 2012 at 7:05 pm

          This discovery was made in the pits of hell…. absolutely disgusting….

          • Truth Teller   May 1, 2014 at 5:06 pm

            You sir, are a moron.

  25. curious scientist   October 9, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    if you read the original published article by Mitinori, they never mentioned that they used male embryonic stems cells nor male induced pluripotent stem cells to create the egg. these were female cells used to create female gametes. as much as i support the idea of same sex couples being able to generate their own unique children from their shared DNA, i feel that there may have been a slight misunderstanding in the article (or perhaps there was another publication that stated these uses?) as far as i can tell from reading the original publication, there was no mention of male ESCs or iPSCs being used to generate female gametes. yes, there were male gametes generated to fertilize generated female gametes, but that is not the same thing as generating a female gamete from a male stem cell.

    sorry to burst bubbles 🙁

    here is the link for anyone who would like to read the original publication (and perhaps point out where i mis-read; i’ll own up to mistakes if they are legit).

    • GM   October 9, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Thank you for your comments. I think I am confused. The research team that developed the eggs from skin cells did so at Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. Why are you referring to a study from the University of Manitoba? They may have also done research into this stem cell accomplishment, but to refer to it in relationship to my article is not proper. If you are going to make reference to my article, please do it with reference to the team from Kyoto University Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences (iCeMS), and their findings please. Further, while the study did not indicate the use of a Male mouse for the creation of the egg, that does not mean it can’t be done, and lets remember, all men have mothers and some have sisters so finding the perfect skin cell donor wouldn’t be a stretch. However you do make a valid point, one that I will try and find out the answer to in the next few days. Stay tuned>

      • Curious Scientist   October 9, 2012 at 9:21 pm

        Hello again. The paper is from the Kyoto study. I accessed the paper from the University of Manitoba archives, so you probably just got re-directed to their main site. I checked over the paper again, and it does say U of Kyoto. They have an e-publication in Science, so I think looking at their web-page will do you better than the link i gave (my apologies for any confusion).

        [1Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. 2Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University, 53 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. 3JST, CREST/PRESTO, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. 4The Young Researcher Development Center, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Ushinomiya-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8302, Japan. 5JST, CREST/ERATO, Yoshida-Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. 6Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Sciences, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Ushinomiya-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
        *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: (M.S.); (K.H.)]

        i have copies and pasted the article origin for your benefit – i hope this remedies confusion.

        As far as I know, you can only de-differentiate stem cells as far back as the “original” embryonic state. I’m not saying that it’s not possible to create female gonads from made cells (as sex is not “pre-determined” per say in the early embryonic state, and chromosomal manipulations can probably induce gametic phenotypic changes, though that is only a guess at this point; and i have no idea if they are able to go that far back in the cell’s “history”), but what I am saying is that the article didn’t mention using male sources for female gametes.

        even though they may find a skin cell donor from a relative female, it’s still not a positive promotion of iPSCs from the males themselves. i just thought it may have been a tad bit misleading (again, no offense intended, just being honest).

        i hope my comments are not perceived as rude. that was not my intention. i was simply interested in the article and saw a couple points that made me ask a few questions.

        thank you for looking further into the issue, much appreciated!


        • GM   October 10, 2012 at 3:18 pm

          They didn’t mention using male mouse skin cells, but they also didn’t diScount it did they? they also didn’t mention what gender the stem cells for the sperm were derived from, did they. You ask self serving questions and only do half your homework. [EPIC FAIL]

          • disgustedatGM   October 10, 2012 at 9:17 pm

            Really, GM, this is your response to a valid scientific observation from curiousscientist? Not very professional, nor does it aid in the questions or the discussion.

          • curious scientist   October 13, 2012 at 11:57 pm

            actually, it’s stated in the paper that derived male gametes come from male mice. please read it.

            if you yourself have failed in realizing the extend of the initial research, then please refrain from acting like an immature jerk who needs to put others down in order to make themselves feel superior.

            if you were conducting a thesis defense, that sort of behaviour would not be tolerated.

            have a good day.

  26. Virginia Whitney   October 9, 2012 at 12:59 am

    What if they could create sperm? What if a women used her egg and her created sperm… she would have somebody with the same DNA… or very similar… whoa. Weird. And a little scary.

  27. XY?   October 9, 2012 at 3:00 am

    Just to be clear, gay men would only produce boys, and gay women would only produce girls using this procedure, right??

    • Sig   October 10, 2012 at 5:46 pm

      I think this article is jumping the gun — the research in question has not matured to the point that it seems to be suggesting. But in theory, two men can produce a male or female offspring (XY + XY = XX or XY, but two women could only produce a female offspring (XX + XX = XX).

  28. Gus Calvo   October 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    For some weird reason I can’t stop thinking of Attack of the Clones.

    • GM   October 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm

      I’m a little older than you Gus, all I could think about was Logan’s Run.LOL
      And yes Robert, adoption is a wonderful thing. I know, because I am an orphan, and never got the chance to be adopted

  29. Stacy   October 8, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    You’re not looking at the big picture! This will also help infertile couples and women who’ve had hysterectomies due to cancers etc to all have their own children.

  30. Naturally-Born Feminist   October 8, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Men: As soon as they figured out they had a part in babymaking, they take over society. Then they decide to find a way to eliminate women out of the process completely.

    I support and recognize what a discovery like this means for Gay men across the world but I also can’t help but look at the cultural implications for women from a feminist perspective… Like the article states: “If Scientists ever discover a way to create a viable womb that eliminates the need for a women’s uterus, it would be a shocking discovery, one that may lead us down a path of no return.”

    I can’t help but worry about what implications a discovery like this will have on women and the miracle of natural conception and birth in the future.

    • Shycolor   October 8, 2012 at 10:48 pm

      I think nothing, honestly, because men are already not needed for women to make children. I read that they were already doing stem cell sperm/ell creations for women long before this came to be. The creation of the egg was the problem, not the sperm and I don’t think people are rushing to replace men any time soon.

    • Tiera Worden-Byers   October 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm

      @Natural… If you were a true feminist, you wouldn’t be thinking of anything other than the aspect of increased equality (minus the possible scientific implications.)

  31. Robert Harvey-Kinsey   October 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I am gay and I think this is an amazing option. That being said, there are so many children in the world that need a home. While I would not begrudge a couple creating one child this way, please keep the adoption option in mind to complete your families.

    On a side note, why would the second man need to donate skin to create sperm?

    • GM   October 8, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      He wouldn’t need to Robert, only the egg would have superior dna, so why not the sperm? You wouldn’t mate an alley cat with a pure bred Siamese, would you?

  32. Annie   October 8, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    I’m so not ok with this! & I’m gay, but I think this type of thing is taking the miracle of life and changing it in ways that we can’t possibly understand. Sure there may be no ill effects in mice offspring… but can we predict the same in human beings? What are the chances of genetic problems? I hate to even say this, but when you try to maniplulate reproduction of human beings you can NEVER go back. You don’t get a second chance if you create a life that isn’t viable or a person that has reproductive or genetic defects. I just think its a scary road to be walking down. PERIOD.
    The next steps are even more frightening like the author mentioned… how far off is a child without a genetic mother? Do we really want to go that far? I know I am blessed to have 2 genetically “my” children, but I would be MUCH happier to adopt than “create” them in a lab (& no I’m not counting IVF). Isn’t anyone else a little scared of this??

    • Dan   October 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm

      Miracle???? It’s SCIENCE! There are no miracles in science. Go pray or something.

    • JM   October 8, 2012 at 11:06 pm

      “we can’t possibly understand”. Obviously someone understands it LOL. Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t mean no one can’t. This is all the same scared (I don’t like science) babble from 25 years ago when IVF was just getting big. I know you don’t think it’s natural but it is the natural progression of an intelligent species like ours. One day we will not be able to breed as easily due to evolution, and we will be glad we found the technology now. Evolution of our type of species will be our own, and that’s the natural progression for an advanced, intelligent, scientific people.

  33. Everleader   October 7, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Good article Jim.

  34. GM   October 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    The problem with these types of discoveries is not only what you mentioned, It also has to do with military applications.Just look what the military did with scientists discovery of splitting the atom. Now we have the threat of nuclear war everywhere. Enjoy!

  35. billywingartenson   October 6, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Stem cell research wiwll create all kinds of wonderful medical cures, eg make a reality of past efforts to create drugs that target specific kinds of cancers and choke off their blood supply

    Meanhwiwle here in the USA the catholic church puts the lives of a 150 cell zyglot ahead of the greatest advance in medical sicince since we dumpted the church’s bloodletting

    Why – because they need more minds to control, corrupt and children (male and female) to rape to satify the perversion created by their no sex policy re priests.

    • Ron Van Wegen   October 18, 2012 at 5:05 am

      You billywingartenson are simply a bigot.

      From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

      2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?” And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!”

      2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.”

      2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”

      2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.”168 “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.