If you're a male mouse, one of your main purposes in life has just been eliminated thanks to modern technology.
For the first time in mammals, an offspring has been created that has two genetic mothers and no father. To make this work, Japanese researchers created one of the female mice as a mutant whose DNA had been altered so it could act as the male contribution to the embryo. Embryos require paternal "imprinting" in order to properly develop. Creating embryos without a male contribution is referred to "parthenogenesis".
Lesbian couples shouldn't hope that this will provide them the opportunity to have a child genetically related to both of them as the single-gene DNA alteration for the mutant "male" mouse happened at the embryonic stage. However, this could theoretically be possible for human parents to alter the DNA of their female child so their DNA would offer paternal imprinting. This could practically guarantee that the child would be a lesbian or otherwise they very possibly could be unable to reproduce with a male.
Before you think me crazy, people have intentionally created children with genetically-based disabilities before. In a March 31, 2002 article, the Washington Post profiled Sharon Duchesneau and Candace McCullough, a lesbian deaf couple, who intentionally got sperm from a genetically-deaf sperm donor in order to have a genetically-deaf child. They were successful, so they did it again. The couple hinted that they would not pursue cochlear implants for the children which could potentially restore some hearing capacity.
If a deaf couple intentionally creates deaf children, limiting the child's choices and options for the rest of their life, what will stop such couples from intentionally creating daughters whose choices are limited to bearing children only with another woman? In my opinion, very little. There was little outcry in the deaf lesbian couple case. This would likely generate a greater outcry, but would it be enough to stop the practice? Given our history of not placing limits placed on people's reproductive "rights," and today's popularity of the gay and lesbian agenda, I have little faith in a reasonable solution.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
I will have to ponder the ramifications of this, but very important story. Thanks!
2 - boomcrashbaby
Given our history of not placing limits placed on people's reproductive "rights," and today's popularity of the gay and lesbian agenda, I have little faith in a reasonable solution.
If this is part of an agenda, my pamphlet got lost in the mail.
3 - boomcrashbaby
Men are going to be extinct in 125,000 years, as nature eliminates the Y chromosome in it's evolutionary process, according to many universities.
Doesn't sound very good to me! But Mother Nature can kill entire species, even entire planets if she needs to. I'm sure whatever the final goal of Life is, what we humans are, right now, is not it.
source