What's Your Definition?

So despite the silliness raised in this article (which is about the fact that apparently men are redundant now that scientists can produce sperm in the lab from female stem cells), there's something to be said in the defense of the idea. But what it comes down to is one's definition of parthenogenesis.

Some people seem to think that, if a man isn't involved, a pregnancy is parthenogenesis. Well, by one definition, that's true. Princeton seems to feel that one definition is "human conception without fertilization by a man." Of course, by that definition, a "virgin birth" would be parthenogenetic, but so would cloning, even if (and this is the tricky part) the cloned person was a man, because there was no fertilization by a man involved. The clone was simply created.

At issue is the comment: "This is really parthenogenesis, or procreation by one sex alone. This might be good for amoebas, but it is not good for human beings, and certainly not good for the children who come about by such a process." Because if you define parthenogenesis as asexual, as several dictionaries do, then this makes sense, because asexual reproduction doesn't offer the benefits of diversity (which, despite what anyone else might say, is the reason we have sex). And for amoebas, that's fine, but not for humans.

But the problem is, generating sperm from stem-cells isn't asexual at all. If you still use sperm and egg to produce fetus, no matter where you get the sperm from, you're doing sexual reproduction. These people are worried about cloning, which is asexual, or true parthenogenesis, where a female can give birth without sex to what is, essentially, a clone of the mother. Turkeys do it, supposedly. It's a little more complicated than simply dividing in two down the middle, as some asexual reproduction does, but it's still asexual.

Is creating sperm from female tissue really parthenogenesis? It depends on your definition. But would it be a concern (for the above-stated reason) if it were parthenogenesis? No, no more than our current ability to have sex. Because the only problem with asexual reproduction is insufficient genetic diversity, and the only way that's going to happen is if you either fertilize yourself, or someone closely related to you. And except for the self-fertilization which was, up until now, impossible, there are laws and taboos against incest which pretty much take care of it (no, I'm not interested in debating the morality of this, or whether incest is really so bad. From a diversity standpoint, it's not as diverse).

The other thing is that, even self-fertilizing, you're not going to get a clone. For one thing, while a woman self-fertilizing would be guaranteed a woman, a man would not be guaranteed a man (barring some genetic-engineering intervention, anyway, and despite the fact that, currently, only women can do it). Study Mendel and you'll see that, in a situation where an individual has a dominant and recessive gene, self-pollenization means that the offspring will not necessarily be a copy of the parent. I'm not going to get into that here. Suffice to say that, if you're looking to clone yourself, self-fertilization is not the most efficient way to do it, and you'd have to do considerably genetic tinkering to make sure.

Be that as it may, the long and the short of it is that two women being able to conceive is no more dangerous, from a genetic-diversity standpoint, than a man and a woman. Are men obsolete? Dunno. Would the elimination of men (or at least the reduction of their numbers) cause problems beyond genetic diversity? Dunno. Is that quote about parthenogenesis fear-mongering? Possibly. Is it incorrect? Probably. Are people scared about lesbians being able to have children? Probably. Are you bored now? Definitely.