MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (12/16/86)
In article <889@husc6.UUCP>, gallagher@husc4.harvard.edu (paul gallagher) says: >However, although males need females, females don't neccessarily need >males. Under laboratory conditions, the ovum of the female of some species >can be artificially induced to begin development, without need of sperm. >I read one author who, noting that many women have given birth without >ever apparently having had sex, thinks that virgin birth is possible in >humans. I've heard about these experiments too. The most advanced animal its worked with so far (as far as I know) is rabbits. The stimulation took the form of placing the female in water & applying a small electric current. I don't think it would explain "virgin births" in humans, though. I agree with the poster who suggested that the "apparently" virgin women probably weren't so. One way to test this would be via the sex of the baby. If the baby were male (thus having a Y-chromosome), then it's pretty certain that the mother was impregnated in the standard manner. A female baby would leave the question open. ------- --------------------------- James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE FOR RENT | The Pennsylvania State University | Call 555-2317 | --------------------------- Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (12/18/86)
In article <9088MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET writes: > ... > > I don't think it would explain "virgin births" in humans, though. > I agree with the poster who suggested that the "apparently" virgin women > probably weren't so. I did read about one woman who was a virgin and got pregnant (and I don't mean Mary). She was gay and had sex with her bi-sexual lover who had just had intercourse with a male. Boy was she surprised!