Babies with no biological mother - breakthrough for male same-sex couples, or further erasure of women?

[usernamealreadytaken]

I just read what I think is a very scary article regarding the process of mitomeiosis, where skin cells can be used to create an "egg" which can be fertilised by sperm. The skin can come from a man or woman, which enables the person to have a genetic relationship to a baby, where they have no egg. I can totally see the benefits for women who have no eggs, or are infertile due to medical issues such as cancer treatment, but am I the only one who fears this is just another way for male same-sex couples to have children, and the only need for a woman in the process will be to carry the pregnancy?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/30/babies-could-be-born-without-mothers/#:~:text=Babies%20could%20be%20born%20without%20a%20biological%20mother%20after%20scientists,sex%20cell%20ready%20for%20fertilisation.

Wow, what a world indeed.

My thoughts are that it is always questionable to create a child, have it carried inside a woman for months, then separate the two. Of course there are situations where this has to be the case, but back when we were doing all our studying for adoption there was so much about the trauma placed on children separated from their birth mothers. They've spent their entire existence hearing her voice, her heartbeat, and it can be harmful to remove them unless absolutely necessary. This is why I'm also kinda on the fence about surrogacy. It's more about the adults wants than the what's best for the child.

The hubristic part was running advertising campaigns to tell millions of women that formula was better than breast milk and pushing it in the third world. If they’d created formula but it had remained something that was only used when breastfeeding wasn’t working, it wouldn’t have been hubristic, it would have been addressing a medical need.

Brave New World eh? Ffs

I think things like this are terrible. Inevitably such a thing would take multiple attempts to perfect meaning a real live person has to live with the potential imperfections of such an experiment.

There are real children in care who could be adopted

A surrogate mother can also be the biological mother. This sometimes happens when a woman donates her eggs to another woman (often a sister or close friend/relative) and also carries the child to full gestation for her.

Because…..

Pharma is controlled, food is controlled and more so with loss of farmland and farming, water is controlled. In the future it will be easy to provide mass contraception, and then only the chosen ones will procreate. Sounds far fetched, but it’s where we’re heading, and most can’t see it.

A woman who "carries the baby" IS a biological mother. Duh.

But soon they won't need human women to incubate babies. Sorry but this is the truth and lots of women (not me) would welcome this.

Agree wholeheartedly

A horrific experiment.

A child should have the right to have a mother and a father, unless completely unavoidable (death/abuse).

It has been shown time and time again that this is what is best for a child, but as usual the selfish will seek to put their needs ahead of their child's. Any adult that would engage in surrogacy or this bad science experiment is not fit to be a parent, and perhaps biology had already figured that out.

This is rubbish.

The woman's body makes millions of micro adjustments to hormones/nutrients/blood flow during pregnancy, scientists don't even understand the majority of them yet. Women aren't just an incubator, cells from previous pregnancies pass through to subsequent ones.

They might succeed in getting a child to survive one day, but it will always be the inferior option, and I shudder to think of the complications that will show up through that child's life time.

There's a part of me that thinks this is utterly fascinating, what we can (potentially) do with science is amazing.

But I firmly believe that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And experimenting on babies like this is totally unethical. I dont actually think we should even be trying to do this. Maybe I would feel differently if I were infertile though.

I don’t see what’s wrong with this. If two men in a same sex couple want to both be genetically related to their baby, it’s great that the medical advancements now exist / will exist to allow them to do that.

The woman's body makes millions of micro adjustments to hormones/nutrients/blood flow during pregnancy, scientists don't even understand the majority of them yet.

Yes, if we were close to understanding how it all works there would vanishingly few miscarriages and IVF would be pretty much 100% successful.

It’s not so much creating a baby whose immediate genetic ancestors are two men that’s a problem, it’s claiming that this means the baby doesn’t have a mother.

The woman who carries the baby for 9 months is the only carer a new born has ever had. She’s the mother. In this case not the genetic parent, but the mother. The men might have given dna and paid for the procedures, but that doesn’t erase her role.

Just finished reading that. It's spot on

What is the woman whose egg the baby grew from? I suppose they both are, in different ways.

Just feel heartbroken for those poor babies 😔 is dreadful, I know a small minority of children don’t have the best mums but you wouldn’t wish it on any child

💯 the baby does have a mother in that scenario but is very sad she’s disassociated herself from what she is to that poor baby

Agree. That's why I said "a" biological mother. Though imo giving your body for 9 months is more motherly than giving your ova.

Could not agree more!!

Where did I say the baby wouldn’t have a mother? Every baby has at least one mother - the birth mother - regardless of genetics.

No one has the right to a child.

Violation of the rights of the child. It should never be allowed to happen, but unfortunately, we all know that human nature means some people will do anything for money. And if we don't do it, the Chinese will do it, and so on....