There was some research done (paid for by the government), several years ago which looked into how men might be able to carry a baby (that was implanted). Nearly half a million of Federal funds were paid to fund this, with (time) donation from PhDs at (Berkley I think?).
The conclusion... it would kill the man, and there would be no way for the baby to come out... and no way to develop a placenta.
Are you shocked? I'm not... could have basically written this hypothesis without having done any study.
"Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity"
quote
Evidence from various sciences reveals that there are diverse ways of being male, female, or both. An anthropologist argues that embracing these truths will help humans flourish.
Read-o-Metering at a relatively compact five and a half minutes, this newly published op-ed addresses the modern gender space turbulence that gives rise to questions like "Can Men Really Have Babies?"
It's an article that I scrolled through earlier today (Thursday) and later realized that it has a logical home in this "Can Men Really Have Babies?" forum topic dujour.
quote
Agustín Fuentes is a professor of anthropology at Princeton University.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-13-2022).]
Men cannot have babies. Men have sperm, women have eggs. There has never been an asexual pregnancy ever. Surgical Frankensteins do not count as biological men. Ever. You can dress how you want and act like whichever gender floats your boat, but the gametes tell the tale.
Men cannot have babies. Men have sperm, women have eggs. There has never been an asexual pregnancy ever. Surgical "Frankensteins" do not count as biological men. Ever.
You can dress how you want and act like whichever gender floats your boat, but the gametes tell the tale.
Fair enough. Yet in December of 2007, science journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer had an article in Slate that started with this:
quote
During the holidays, Christians celebrate the birth of a human baby to his virginal mother. We know that female wasps, fish, birds, and lizards can produce healthy offspring without having sex, but what about people? Are natural human virgin births possible?
Yes, in theory. However, a number of rare events would have to occur in close succession, and the chances of these all happening in real life are virtually zero.
For a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA.
That’s the easy part: These two events occur in the eggs or egg precursor cells of one out of every few thousand women. But the egg would also need to be carrying at least two specific genetic deletions to produce a viable offspring.
The entire article weighs in at just under 4 minutes on the veritable (and venerable) "Read-o-Meter". Farther along in the article:
quote
By eliminating a pair of maternal genes, a Japanese team was able to create, via parthenogenesis, a viable baby mouse that was seemingly unaffected by its lack of paternal imprinting. Although the scientists engineered these changes in the lab, there’s at least a theoretical possibility that this could happen spontaneously [within a human female] via random gene deletions.
So, while it’s possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it’s very, very unlikely: These two genetic deletions might each have a one in 1 billion chance of occurring, and that’s not counting the calcium spike and division problem required to initiate parthenogenesis in the first place.
Moyer cites the case of a mother who give birth to a boy that was written up as a "human parthenogenetic chimaera." Not quite a "virgin birth", but something very atypical, indeed. That article, in a specialist's journal, is reminiscent of at least the title of John Steinbeck's 1937 novelistic epic "Of Mice and Men"; to wit:
quote
In mice, parthenogenetic embryos die at the early post implantation stage as a result of developmental requirements for paternally imprinted genes, particularly for formation of extraembryonic tissues. Chimaeric parthenogenetic↔normal mice are viable, however, due to non–random differences in distribution of their two cell types. Species differences in imprinting patterns in embryo and extra–embryonic tissues mean that there are uncertainties in extrapolating these experimental studies to humans.
Here, however, we demonstrate that parthenogenetic chimaerism can indeed result in viable human offspring, and suggest possible mechanisms of origin for this presumably rare event.
Originally posted by Fats: He's [rinselberg] just trying to change the conversation to something he thinks he has a chance of "winning". It's also not surprising that the same people that think men can give birth also abandoned God. Not surprising at all. I still blame Reagan for closing the Asylums.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: I'm pretty sure we all realize that females are capable of giving birth, even when conception is not in the normal manner (1 in 1,000,000,000).
Maybe you [rinselberg] should reread the thread title, instead of deflecting this thread with an off topic argument. Or is it the hypothetical lack of self control as discussed in another thread?
Two remarks, from two different forum members here, "Fats" and "olejoedad", and they are both mistaken in what they've said about me.
There's no "winning" or "losing" on an open discussion forum of this kind. Not in my mind. I'm never here to "win." Just to be here and participate. A recreation, and no more than that.
I certainly wasn't trying to imply that men can give birth, or to assert that the answer to "Can Men Really Have Babies?" is "Yes."
As far as human females giving birth, I wasn't talking about the obvious and well known alternatives to the natural way. I wasn't talking about In Vitro Fertilization followed by Implantation. I wasn't talking about anything involving Sperm Donors or Surrogate Mothers or "what have you." I was talking about the theoretical possibility of human parthenogenesis, and that is an idea that I think is not that well known, even among the rank and file (the "yeomen", as it were) of this truly august online discussion forum.
If someone were looking for a way to explain the virgin birth of Christianity's central human figure—the story of the son of the Virgin Mary—and explain it without invoking the supernatural intervention of Christianity's central non-human figure—this is what comes to mind: human parthenogenesis.
But that wasn't my motivation for bringing up that article in Slate.
I think it's an interesting report, in its own right. And not a long report for anyone to read or scroll through, if they wanted to do it. Why shouldn't it be referenced in this "Can Men Really Have Babies?" forum topic dujour? Especially, considering that he who posed this question to the forum by creating it as a new forum topic, did so without any explanation of his motives, or any explicit or obvious context.
Was that a reference to the moment when the soon to be Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define a "woman"..? A reference to some other current or recent moment or circumstance? Was it a way of trying to assert that humans are either male or female and there's nothing else to be said about that? That strict and 100 percent gender binary-ism is the beginning, middle and end of a story, and that there's nothing else to consider?
So, my references to the article about human parthenogenesis in Slate, and before that, the two articles that I referenced from Sapiens.
As far as a "hypothetical lack of self control", I don't know what "olejoedad" is talking about there. I don't think he does, either. But there is a "because" for that:
Because Ralf Fücks you, that's why! "With a name like 'Fücks', he has to be good."Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-13-2022).]
Can someone define having a baby for me. Hell can someone define what a woman is.
Just stop, if you want to pursue this foolishness can't you do it yourself? I do not what to hear it, I do not want to fund it and I most certainly do not what it injected into my life anymore.
There has only been one recorded case of a trans woman having a uterus transplant, Danish artist Lili Elbe in 1931, but she died months later from complications.
sure shots proper Q then put them in a approved crate take to the air port and pay the rate to go to where ever you want them to go then depends on their rules more shots Q ect
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Originally posted by Fats: Remember when the Left made fun of somebody for saying that frogs were gay, and changing sex? They canceled him for that IIRC.
I certainly do not remember that. But it piqued my curiosity, and I think this must be the answer:
Who is Alex Jones? (As if this were the Jeopardy game show.)
A California appeals court has ruled that four species of bees are now legally considered fish.
The issue was whether the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish – a division in the list of endangered species and threatened species in the California Endangered Species Act.
If you ask me, I wonder if sanity in Kalifornia is an endangered species.
So, while it’s possible for a human baby to be born of a virgin mother, it’s very, very unlikely: These two genetic deletions might each have a one in 1 billion chance of occurring, and that’s not counting the calcium spike and division problem required to initiate parthenogenesis in the first place.
So, like, it'd take a miracle?
[This message has been edited by Zeb (edited 06-12-2022).]
