just wait til humanity has the artificial womb
scientists are developing them as we speak: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
you want to talk about panicked women when men can produce offspring of their own without any female input
'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'
gee, feminuts weren't all that upset when it was men that were to be annihilated! go figure...
You think that's weird check out this weblink about sperm cells being turned into eggs. http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060206_fish_story.html
Although this can only be done in fish presently, it's only a matter of time before scientists start moving this experiment up to humans. When I read an article a couple of months ago about male fish producing egg cells in their testicles after being exposed to certain chemicals, I already knew this was possible, and I warned my friends. They thought I was crazy, but when you think about it from a scientific standpoint, it makes perfect sense that with some altering, males could produce female gametes for the simple fact that males bear both the male and female chromosome. In fact, if cloning were permitted, males could make female clones of themselves by simply stopping the activation of the 46 chromosome -- the Y chromosome. The fetus would become a female. All males begin developing as female until the Y chromosome activates after eight weeks of conception. That's why we have nipples on our chests because that feature develops before our Y chromosome kicks in and begins the process of making us anatomically male.
I'm with Christine. If, in the future, men are able to procreate without women, I would still rather have plenty of women on the planet. I could see myself now, if men tried to rid the world of women, sneaking into a reproductive clinic and putting an X sperm cell to an egg cell grown from sperm so that I could introduce a female back into the human species. Forgive me, I have a wild imagination.
Psycho misandrists like Maureen Dowd think that future reproductive sciences will benefit women most, but they are sadly mistaken. On the surface, it appears that way. But when you scratch pass the surface, you realize men would have the upper hand.
Even if parthenogensis becomes possible for women to procreate without male input, it would result in many failures. Probably one or two out of five hundred attempts would work because of the surrogation of the missing sperm gamete with another egg cell. With men, sperm and eggs could be grown from them so there really wouldn't be much of a problem -- especially if artificial wombs were available. But for the sake of a good argument, let's say parthenogenesis worked perfectly for women. They would only be able to produce female children without male input, because they do not have a Y chromosome to give. This wouldn't matter to demoniacs like Maureen Dowd, because she probably wouldn't want male children anyway. Men, on the other hand, could still decide whether or not they want male or female children. One male could have his sperm converted to an egg cell, the other could decide whether to use his X sperm cell to create a female child or his Y sperm cell to create a male child.
This is shockingly frightful, but it's the horrors of reproductive science.
Men and women need to learn to settle their differences and learn to respect and love each other or we may end up living on opposite ends of the planet. Rats! I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas.