The modern-day virgin birth

[Jazzy]

Emmimarie Jones knew her daughter had been conceived without a father; in 1956, she almost convinced the world she was right.



On November 6 1955, a story appeared on the front page of the Sunday Pictorial that was to double the newspaper’s circulation in a single day. Sporting the headline, “Doctors now say it doesn’t always need a man to make a baby”, the tabloid shouted that virgin births were no myth, and that there was a scientist who could prove it. The rare biological process which would enable this to happen was known as parthenogenesis, the paper informed its readers.



But the Pictorial’s editors didn’t stop there. Halfway down the page appeared three words, in bold block capitals: “Find The Case”. Sensationally, the paper was inviting women to come forward if they believed their daughters were the result of a virgin birth. If any woman’s case was proved correct, by a panel of leading doctors, she and her daughter were set to make medical – indeed, human – history. For the next year, the search for a virgin mother would grip the nation, and the world. The paper’s circulation figures, meanwhile, grew to an unprecedented six million.

Read full article here



Fascinating story. I tend to agree with this comment:

The story about the “partial parthenogenesis”, sounds most likely to be a case of the offspring (labeled as FD) being the product of an absorbed or vanishing twin (aka chimera) which results in a single person with 2 different DNA profiles among different tissues/organs. One such case is fully documented in the New England Journal of Medicine.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Evil Eye]

Weird for sure, but if that partial thing can indeed happen, it seems perfectly explainable.

Guess we'll never know for sure though.

 

[Jazzy]

I found it weird but very fascinating at the same time. You are correct, EE, that unfortunately we will never know for sure.

 

[Evil Eye]

I found it weird but very fascinating at the same time.

That it certainly is.