Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-in-chickens dept.

Biotech 142

sciencehabit writes "Men typically produce working sperm as long as they live, but most textbooks say female mammals are born with all the egg cells, or oocytes, they will ever have. Since 2004, however, reproductive biologist Jonathan Tilly of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston has challenged that conventional wisdom, arguing that in mice—and perhaps also in humans—there must be an ongoing source of new eggs. Today, Tilly and his colleagues report isolating rare cells in ovarian tissue from adult women that can grow in lab dishes and form immature oocytes. The potential egg stem cells could help scientists devise new ways to help rescue the fertility of women who have to undergo cancer treatments or who suffer from premature menopause."

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

lololol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167601)

id like to see a stem cell make first posts

Re:lololol (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167647)

They do way better. Stem cells are indeterminent posts. They are any post you like.

Re:lololol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167661)

I'd like to see them make toast or bacon.

Re:lololol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167859)

jo_ham AKA bonch is a faggot.

Unpossible (3, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167623)

The science is settled. What's up with these finite-egg deniers?

Re:Unpossible (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167881)

Hey, if you were Al Gore, you'd be correct.

Re:Unpossible (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169013)

Hey, if you were Al Gore, you'd be correct.

Watch his amazing prior hoc ergo propter hoc demonstration.

Re:Unpossible (1)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168079)

Can't tell if humor?

Re:Unpossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168139)

The humor is settled.

"or who suffer from premature menopause." (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167643)

...or even regular menopause.

Re:"or who suffer from premature menopause." (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168545)

Not without serious advances in other areas of longevity research. Pregnancy in forty-five-year-old women is a dangerous proposition.

Re:"or who suffer from premature menopause." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168577)

You underestimate humans. Many older breeders will be all over this tech when it comes out, too.

Even more so for the infant (3, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169073)

Pregnancy in forty-five-year-old women is a dangerous proposition.

If it's dangerous for the mother, think of the child in the womb

Babies born by older mothers have much higher chances of having being born with many types of defects

Down syndrome is just one of them.

Re:Even more so for the infant (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169809)

It seems as if they do about as well as younger women that undergo induced pregnancies: http://www.livescience.com/18289-pregnant-women-age-50-complications.html [livescience.com]
But since those younger women are going for induced pregnancies they might not be that healthy either...

If those induced pregnancies weren't that much more dangerous than normal pregnancies, then it may not be so dangerous for older mothers and their babies if the eggs and sperm are good quality (whether donated or via some new-fangled stemcell thing) and the fertilization process is improved.

Re:"or who suffer from premature menopause." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169667)

...or even regular menopause.

Bingo. These are always touted as ways to help women who are affected by some medical condition, but soon it'll be just like other fertility treatments.... a method to set new records for being the oldest skank to have the most kids.

And now a use for science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167691)

Turn women into infinite baby-making machines. It'll be like Bees, but nobody will protect the queen!

Re:And now a use for science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167793)

Queens only provide Sperm cells, due to lacking Ovarian tissue... Oh, wait, different type of Queen.

Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167753)

All this research and money to keep women fertile for a few more years, but when one of doesn't want children, we get a big fat no from doctors when asking for a tubal. Same goes for you guys when wanting a vasectomy.

It's ridiculous.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167797)

One of these proceedures can be easily undone. One of them cannot. I'll let you figure out which is which.

Re:Hypocritical (2)

adonoman (624929) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168027)

It was easy enough for me at 25 in Canada. I walked in for a consultation. Came back a week later, 10 minutes later walked out with no future worries of more children. You just need to be able to convince the doctor that you're serious.

Re:Hypocritical (3, Insightful)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168495)

The research is expanding the knowledge of mankind and has enormous potential. We already know plenty of ways to make people sterile.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168537)

The problem I see is small children stuck with elderly parents. I think thirty or so should be the cutoff age. Children deserve parents who are young enough to get involved with their kids. I can say this as I'm 71 and I have a son who is 36 and another who is 24.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170179)

30 year old cut off? You had your first child at 35. Where is your experience at raising children while under 30?

Re:Hypocritical (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170767)

I think he's admitting he did it wrong...

Re:Hypocritical (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170595)

"Do as I say, don't do as I do"

Not safe (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167783)

Most women lose their fertility for a reason. Whether it's menopause or cancer, getting pregnant is not a good idea in either case.

Re:Not safe (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167809)

Trains and vehicles are unsafe. Humans do not move faster than they can run for a reason. How dare we either go against god or risk finding out why evolution made us this way!

Re:Not safe (1)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167871)

Have you actually looked into this?

In africa infertility used to be the second most common reason women went to the doctor. AIDS was number one. They will not do to the doctor if they are just old.

Obviously menopause is a common reason women can no longer have children but it is expected. Cancer is way, way down on the list.

Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem. If you go to the doctor, much of the time the honest answer is that "we just don't know"

Re:Not safe (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167957)

In africa infertility used to be the second most common reason women went to the doctor. AIDS was number one. They will not do to the doctor if they are just old.

The population growth of Africa is the highest of the continents. Africans have many problems but infertility isn't one of them.

Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem. If you go to the doctor, much of the time the honest answer is that "we just don't know"

And in most of those cases it is possible to use the woman's own eggs. When it's not feasible then there is some problem with the woman's body, which can make pregnancy a risk.

Re:Not safe (4, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167999)

Unexplained infertility is a huge medical problem.

Is it?
It seems like an out of control population is a much, much larger problem.

Re:Not safe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168519)

population control is inherently racist, and yours is a racist comment. the west is not growing out of control. countries like italy have a very low birthrate. the place where population growth is occuring (7 kids per woman) is in developing countries, i.e. brown and black people. so by saying we don't need more people, you're being racist. lest ye think this is not serious, i made the same argument as you before and was presented with this very thesis as proof that i was a racist genocidal freak. and it were some educated folk with doctorates who done told me this.

Re:Not safe (3, Interesting)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168947)

"population control is inherently racist,"

This must mean the chinese are racist? Or is it that they realize that a finite planet can only sustain a certain amount of people without doing long-term harm to their own interests as a nation?

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169597)

you can't be racist against your own race. for that matter, chinese is a nationality, not a race. try again to refute the thesis.

Re:Not safe (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170383)

so by saying we don't need more people, you're being racist.

Your argument sounds highly convincing and I wish to hear more about how saying things that are disadvantageous to people of a certain race automatically makes someone racist.

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169083)

Yes, I too agree with your comment. Forced sterilizations for all!

Of course we, as in humanity, does not have an over population problem. I just feel the same as you, that we should remove that choice from the individual and control it ourselves, since we know best.

More power to us brother, united in supremacy!

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39170555)

Of course we, as in humanity, does not have an over population problem.

The more people we have, the more resources that will be used. Popping out baby after baby simply isn't sustainable.

Re:Not safe (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170621)

I understand your sarcasm, but it fits really well with re-reading a very old SF book I read last night. "When they came from space", Mark Clifton (1961). He discusses the attitude of self-righteous people as the root cause of much slaughter. How true it is.

Re:Not safe (1)

Arterion (941661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168389)

Hold on, let me put on my tin foil hat.

Okay.

Obviously, it's a government plot to seed the clouds over Africa with chemicals to sterilize the population. It's one of the uses of chemtrails. We don't have the problems over here so much because drink water that's been treated, and most of us either drink bottled water or have a filter on the tap. The chemicals they use are not transdermal, so the little bit that's in our tap water doesn't affect most people from showering, laundry, brushing theeth, etc.

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168059)

Either way, women have become obsolite. Go figure.

Re:Not safe (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168851)

women have become obsolite

Really? You must have one fantastically talented hand....

Re:Not safe (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168065)

What about in vitro fertilization using a surrogate? This would allow a woman who is infertile to still have a child carrying hers and her husband's DNA. Not the most important thing, I'll admit, but for the rare couple in such a situation, it would be nice to have.

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168451)

"Lose their fertility for a reason"? That certainly is the folksiest way of being insultingly misinformed. Next you're going to tell me your last name is Santorum, or the U.S.A. deserved 9/11.

Re:Not safe (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170211)

Perhaps they mean a lack of eggs may not be the leading cause of infertility.

Re:Not safe (2)

ralphdaugherty (225648) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168493)

Along those lines, a quote in TFA on why women had all the eggs they will have in the beginning and don't make eggs:

"Then why would women have menopause?"

I found that less than compelling reasoning from scientists.

I was shocked to find that the biology I've been reading that says that a woman (and all female mammals) has all her eggs in the beginning is really just conjecture and that no one has ever seen the eggs stored. There's quite a lot of reasoning involved, about how important it is for integrity of DNA germ line in eggs to be produced in the beginning with a minimum of accumulated DNA damage, the opposite of male sperm being produced on an ongoing basis.

Appears to be more wishful thinking and rationalization than anything else.

Re:Not safe (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170655)

It's actually quite shocking what we don't know about female biology. There is still not a scientific consensus on whether the G-spot exists. The clitoris only made it into textbooks in the mid 20th century. A sort of scientific analogue of the Bechdel test, I suppose.

Re:Not safe (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168511)

Most women lose their fertility for a reason.

No. Evolution does not operate by reason or intelligence.

Re:Not safe (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169369)

Whoosh.

Re:Not safe (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169501)

Cause != Reason.

The word reason implies some mental process or justification, an explanation or rationale for an event.

The word cause is neutral, and is appropriate to describe factual relationships.

Re:Not safe (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170047)

If I say my car won't start and someone says "for what reason?" they aren't implying that the darn heap of junk has become sentient and made a conscious decision to go on strike.

Re:Not safe (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170297)

If I say my car won't start and someone says "for what reason?" they aren't implying that the darn heap of junk has become sentient and made a conscious decision to go on strike.

Correct. They are implying that you (a human being) can supply a logical explanation that will satisfy their curiosity.

Re:Not safe (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170249)

Yes, cause != reason.
Take this example:
The reason she is infertile, is ovarian cancer destroyed her ovaries.
The cause is defective cellular reproduction leading to a cancerous tumour.

A reason is the explanation of a situation or circumstance.

Re:Not safe (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170335)

I would replace the first example by "she is infertile because ovarian cancer destroyed her ovaries".

Re:Not safe (1)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168615)

It's not actually well established what the reason for menopause is. Not all mammals undergo menopause. Socio-economic status is a far better predictor of the ultimate health of the child than the age of the mother. The reason why women lose their fertility is merely because they run out of eggs. They run out of eggs because from an evolutionary perspective, there's no downside to running out of eggs 20-30 years after the onset of menarche. Evolutionary adaptations don't have to be advantages per se; they merely must not be deleterious. This is why we still carry around vestigial organs like the appendix. By and large, it's not a problem, but it no longer confers any advantage.

Don't anthropomorphise evolution. It has no purpose or direction. Creatures end up where they end up because of the context of the selection pressures. That's it.

Re:Not safe (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169341)

Survival of the species doesn't count as a purpose? Hard to see how more genetically similar and increasingly defective babies born to decrepit mothers wouldn't be deleterious.

Re:Not safe (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169387)

I don't think that "running out of eggs" is anything more than a bedtime story told to kids, or even flatly a lie. At 45 years old, one has lived around 16 thousand days. Even if someone ovulated once a day, running out of 16,000 cells is good as a joke. If you think otherwise, educate us, please. Show where someone counted those eggs, and has shown that they have ran out.

Re:Not safe (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170293)

There is a benefit of menopause. Grandparents are free baby sitters. Before the niceties of modern civilisation, a mother was dependant on others to help her care for her children. Human infants are physically and mentally under developed and completely useless, the only reason they're born after 9 months is so their head doesn't get stuck on the way out.

Re:Not safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169023)

For what reason? Because 'god' said so? Put yourself in their shoes. If you were infertile but wanted children, and science said you might have a chance, wouldn't you take it? Does someone not deserve the opportunity to breed because they were unlucky enough to catch a disease? You sir, are a jerk.

Re:Not safe (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169123)

His point isn't strictly a selfish one. The egg is the first step in a very complex process, and women who have general health problems (cancer, early-onset menopause) aren't likely to produce the healthiest babies.

Re:Not safe (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169427)

Are you also opposed to therapies for lost eyesight, lost mobility, lost hearing, and so on? All of those happen for reasons.

MOD STORY DOWN.... (3, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167791)

This is Slashdot... do we care about the inner workings of a woman's body?

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167877)

Maybe you don't but this should freeze your balls:

Tilly holds a patent on the human egg stem cells

(and is starting a company to help alleviate human suffering and cash out on his find).

Hopefully, no public funds were used in this endeavor, otherwise I smell an ethical rat...

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (3, Informative)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168793)

holds a patent on the human egg stem cells

Public funds or not... in my opinion that is the rat I'm smelling.

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169755)

This sounds like he has a patented method for screening for these cells. If it's a fancy microscope or artificial chemical that he developed, good for him. More likely it is a method of culturing cells using generic culture methods, and he is just going to try to prevent anyone else from doing anything with those cells. If that's the case, there are bigger ethical problems than funding.

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168035)

Of course we do... With a bowl o hot grits.

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168113)

only if there's a .jpg of it
combined with a nerd joke that disregards the female component of the picture

Re:MOD STORY DOWN.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168299)

Then do we care about reproduction? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.

Anti-science Analogy (0)

bekslash (830004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167795)

Anybody opposed to atomic bombs is anti-science.

Eggstra! Eggstra! Read all about it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167823)

This is eggstraordinary news and eggactly why I come to slashdot in the first place!

I always did say you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

etc. etc. Is that good enough for the pun quota?

Re:Eggstra! Eggstra! Read all about it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169417)

Sir, I do believe you mean "egg cetera".

Re:Eggstra! Eggstra! Read all about it! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170061)

Ei'll be glad when you switch oeuf your computer and all these bad puns will be ova.

Much more important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167953)

They could be an excellent source of medical stem cells without the whole is a fertilized egg the same as a bouncing baby argument.

E4! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168047)

Re:E4! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169445)

I love this one!

If this is true.... (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168109)

How did the medical community miss this? Is this another 'we didn't bother checking with actual women' thing that seems to be plaguing them?
What is with that? I thought one of the benefits of being an MD was access to lots of women....

Re:If this is true.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168387)

Because no doubt some researchers decades ago did a study with a p-value 0.05. Because most researchers--like everybody else--are statistical idiots, they presumed either the null hypothesis wrong and/or the the alternative hypothesis true and moved on. When what should have happened instead was generation and testing of a new hypothesis, preferably one which sheds light on both previous hypotheses.

Consider that with a p-value of 0.05 one out of twenty experiments, on average, will see "improbable" results. But that's worse case. Imagine studying an area with poorly known and highly variable behaviors. A priori you have no idea what the universe of possible results are. Every study you do could end up seeing "improbable" results, even though the null hypothesis is absolutely correct. You have no idea how to size your samples, etc, without making completely arbitrary guesstimates.

We're still in the stone ages of science, people, especially when it comes to biology.

Re:If this is true.... (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169393)

Someone mod this up. An insightful comment if I ever saw one.

Are the human oocytes functional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168369)

They showed that the mouse stem cell-derived oocytes can be fertilized by sperm. It would have been nice if they did this for the human-derived cells too so we'd know they really work.

Found in women? You don't say (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168457)

Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women

So, as opposed to the egg cells found in men?

Re:Found in women? You don't say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168589)

If "In Women" wasn't stated, some pedant (probably you) would have asked "where? In mice? Guinea pigs?"

Re:Found in women? You don't say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169137)

Stem Cells That May Make Eggs Found In Women

So, as opposed to the egg cells found in men?

You say that as though it's ridiculous. Men and women start out the same and diverge as the fetus develops, it is perfectly plausible for men to have egg stem cells floating about somewhere but the cells simply don't express themselves in any meaningful way due to the lack of relevant physiology.

Ah yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168643)

So my 30-year infatuation with Betty White may no be in vein after all?

Well, yeah. (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168699)

"Men typically produce working sperm as long as they live..."

Well, yeah. Men typically op-test the sperm banks as often as possible.

Maintenance is important ....

seriously you guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39168717)

"rescue the fertility of women who have to undergo cancer treatments or who suffer from premature menopause."

They already have a solution for that. It's called adoption. Until we figure out how to sufficiently take care of the children there are on this planet we shouldn't be going out of our way to make new ones.

Re:seriously you guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169169)

We would need to find a cure for narcissism in order for more people to adopt.

Re:seriously you guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169229)

What if we just stop developing fertility treatments so they have to chose between adoption and not having children?

humans reproduce plenty (4, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39168725)

While interesting from a scientific point of view, why are we obsessed with fertility when some people have more children than they can take care of? Perhaps we can address fertility issues caused by rare events like cancer, or the fertility of women as they get older as a solution to a shortage of orphans.

Re:humans reproduce plenty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169021)

Because having a child is widely considered to be a great gift, and most folks want it to be theirs.

It makes perfect sense.

Re:humans reproduce plenty (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170257)

It doesn't to me. Why do they have to make a new one? What exactly is wrong with adoption?

You can't live through your genes. You don't become immortal by having children. What exactly is the obsession with having biological children?

Re:humans reproduce plenty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169067)

While interesting from a scientific point of view, why are we obsessed with fertility when some people have more children than they can take care of?

Wir mussen wissen
Wir werden wissen
            -- Hilbert

Re:humans reproduce plenty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169131)

Perhaps because fertility is what perpetuates the human race. Issues about morality and overpopulation are obviously concerns to us all, but without new humans we cease to exist.

Re:humans reproduce plenty (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170267)

Perhaps because fertility is what perpetuates the human race.

Believe me, we're in no danger of going extinct.

are obviously concerns to us all

Are you sure? Many people don't seem to care at all.

Re:humans reproduce plenty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169251)

Although fertility is clearly an interesting application here, in general better understanding of the female reproductive system is likely to lead to better medicine for all women, not just those trying to have children.

Genetics and birth environment (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169583)

Also, when you have your own child, then hopefully you have (some) idea of what might be in store for you genetics/environment wise. You know the family history (if it's bad, then maybe adoption *IS* a better option).

You also know that you aren't going to run into that possibly difficult moment where the child you've raised decides to look for the genetic parents. Knowing some people that have been adopted, the whole birth-parent-genetic-parent can be hard on a kid and on a family.

One fear of mine would be not knowing the parent of your child, and the circumstances of birth. Was the parent an alcoholic or drug user? Did the child get enough nourishment, etc while in the womb? Many children are given up because of a bad home environment, which often might have adverse factors later affecting said child's health.

That being said, I have in previous relationships discussed the possibilities of adoption. In one case it was with a partner who was somewhat older than me, and past child-bearing prime. In another case I was with somebody who did have some fertility issues and was concerned whether that might affect our relationship later on.

For me, adoption was a viable option but generally secondary to having our own child. For some others, adoption is a way to avoid personal genetic flaws or the pains of childbirth. For yet others, it's a way to give a chance to a child who may otherwise have been left behind by society, but people doing so had better be sure they're ready to face all the aspects of adoption, both good and bad.

Re:Genetics and birth environment (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170305)

My grandfather was raised in an orphanage.

Momy issues (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169275)

Yeah, I don't think this is going to work...unless the Batman cape and cowl really does get your juices flowing.

*sucks thumb*

Eggs Found In Women... lol (1)

XPecto (1869968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39169367)

What an archaeological Discovery!

Over easy, or unfertilized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39169459)

Wouldn't it be cheaper to go to an orphanage, and adopt a child?

Or get a cat?

Eggs found (3, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170075)

So it's now acceptable to refer to them as chicks?

Just to be annoying (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39170635)

Occasionally there are news about how sperm can become redundant and some unpleasant banter about men becoming extinct comes along. Can we conclude from these news that the opposite could happen, ie: stem cells from a man being set up to generate his own egg?

Slashdotters would then be able to reproduce asexually, which would be clear progress :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>