New Scientist happy to see mothers eliminated in future

[Teribus21]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2485396-mice-with-two-fathers-have-their-own-offspring-for-the-first-time/
New Scientist has reported that scientists in China have produced mice with two genetic fathers by putting two sperm into an “empty” egg (one in which the nucleus has been removed).The article points out it’s a long way off being possible for humans. So far, so typical of scientists who abrogate any sort of moral responsibility for their discoveries. We’ve seen it many times before, most notably the nuclear bomb.

What shocked me was the gleeful New Scientist leader which is clearly thrilled by this discovery and and justifies their delight by saying: “For some people, the thought of a child with two genetic fathers will never be acceptable, just as there are still those who decry gay adoption.”

It goes on to say:

“While IVF children are conceived via a process our ancestors could never imagine, they still continue a genetic lineage of every person having one male progenitor and one female. Does this matter? Quite possibly not, what was once front page news as with IVF could become run of the mill. But in an era when the US is seeking to curtail reproductive and transgender rights, having an open discussion will be the bigger challenge.”

So if you’re at all concerned about the potential elimination of women in reproduction and a human race entirely composed of male genetic material, you’re an anti abortion, homophobic, transphobic Trump supporter according to the women haters at New Scientist. We know who is seeking to prevent rational debate.

They will still need women for the wombs to gestate the fetus!

Where does this egg that they start with come from? The magic fairies? And where do they put the magic embryo they have created?

The magic invisible women who are still there but no one likes to talk about because they can put distance in there but they still exist.

FFS I'd cancel my subscription except that I did that years ago.....😡

New scientist is as it says on the tin a magazine about science.

they are likely to be happy about progress in science.

ivf was very controversial at first and is now almost routine and helps a lot of people.

i honestly don’t see this issue in this in humans creating a child with two genetically male parents.

ivf hasn’t destroyed the family (arguably other things have weakened it) and even if this was done in humans women wouldn’t vanish!

Probably not by the time this can be applied to human eggs. Artificial wombs are already being developed.

And would there be no differences between the offspring of two males reared in an artificial womb, and one born from a man and woman and gestated in the mother?
After a few generations of this?

I'm certain there will be negative effects for a baby grown exclusively in an artificial womb. A baby bonds with their mother long before they're born.

An artificial womb could only be a good thing when used for premature babies.

Maybe they had read Blue Genes by Val McDermid?

If there’s a female egg involved, it will still contain and pass on mitochondrial DNA so the baby will have three genetic parents. (tThe article may say this, haven’t read it)

My concern isn’t so much females being eliminated from the genetic line, as women being increasingly used for parts and sidelined in service of male-only parenting. (not saying only having male parents (genetic or otherwise) is always bad, but I do think taking a baby from its mother at birth when it needs the body it was birthed from is wrong, and there’s clear evidence some men will use any such option for purposes of pedophiia). And Presumably this science could also be used to make a baby mouse from any two parents that haven’t provided the egg so the implications could also be two women having a baby even if they’re infertile. But that’s not the big story…

I also cancellled my NS subscription years ago when they clearly refused to take a scientific line on gender ideology. But even long before that I noticed that they highly prioritise stories that have anything to do with sex, sexual attraction and sensationalist sci-fi-style futurism. They are not very sciency.

I read a story a few days ago from a 'science' website about research into the causes of morning sickness. No mention of women at all. It was all 'people'.

I think this is a hugely exciting line of research, I’m only sad that it won’t be available in time for my partner and I to have a child derived from both our genetics, and that we will have to use a sperm donor instead

Well the child would have 3 father's and 1 genetic mother (her mitochondrial dna is in tge shell of the egg needed for this travesty) plus a 2nd mother to estate the baby so 4 parents not 2
The fact that they can only do this in mice not humans, when it is already possible to create a baby with 2 mothers and 1 father, where the mother has a mitochondrial disease so a egg from 1 healthy woman has its genetic material from inside it removed and the genetic material from inside the woman's egg with the mitochondrial disease is injected into it and then fertilised by the fathers sperm (4+ such children have been born healthy in the uk with this process) and whilst trying to get the 2 mother 1 father babies to work they found that injecting the genetic material from inside 1 womens egg into another's created a healthy fertilised female embryo with a combination of both women's dna, says alot about how untenable this type of research is.
The irony of this bs research is that even when they try to erase women and mothers they still need us yet we could eradicate men and any need for them already and have a completely female species 😁

Plus Brave New World.

“Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted?

Skies are blue inside of you,
The weather's always fine;

For
There ain't no Bottle in all the world
Like that dear little Bottle of mine.”

(Before the reporters get all trigger happy - this is a quote from the book. The 'bottle' is the artificial womb.)

Dolly the sheep didn't have a father, did she? Donor enucleated egg from 1 female sheep, nucleus from body cell of 2nd female sheep, 3rd female sheep surrogate.
I think you can do without the male input more easily than you can do without the female.

It could also be fantastic news for women who can’t get pregnant due to few/low quality eggs.

This could solve the main fertility problem for women but some want to oppose it because some men might also use it.

Unless they're going to gestate those cells in a lab they still need women, unfortunately for these misogynist scientists and journalist.

They need an egg though.

Nope. The state can control all reproduction if necessary.

www.businesstoday.in/visualstories/news/no-mother-no-problem-inside-chinas-artificial-womb-experiment-256543-21-08-2025

Quite possibly not, what was once front page news as with IVF could become run of the mill.

IVF is not 'run of the mill'. It is very, very expensive, not accessible to all and only has limited success.

The foetus will presumably gestate in a box... 😉

Why would they use artificial wombs when it is so much cheaper to use women?

I think you’re reading a ‘glee’ in the article that simply isn’t there OP.
You’re ascribing sentiment to the article that doesn’t, in reality, exist outside your imagination.

I have a number of friends who successfully conceived using IVF (in their late 30s/early 40s)

No fear of an overly attached mother reluctant to give up the baby she’s been gestating?

I wonder if they gave the newborn baby mouse to its two dads to look after.

Also if a baby with (mostly) genetic material from two males through this process is always male? Don’t know enough about genetics to be sure.