Getting naturally pregnant without the participation of a man is unimaginable for many of us. For this reason, the re-discovery of parthenogenesis - commonly known as "immaculate conception" or "self-fertilization” - not only in animals, but also in human women, is a sensation. The pioneer Marianne Wex has been doing comprehensive and in-depth research in this field for over thirty years. Ursula Fournier had this interesting conversation with Marianne Wex, gaining many lost perspectives on the female capacity to give birth.
Mrs. Wex, you have been dealing with the "parthenogenesis" for many decades, an area of female fertility which can be described as "secret knowledge". Parthenogenesis means the conception of a child without the involvement of a man. Obviously this is not only possible in animals but also in women. How did you discover it?
To my own surprise my interest in parthenogenesis arose in the early 80s when I was living in New Zealand for about five years. The possibilities of self-healing and regeneration were the core issues in my life. At that time I came into contact with human parthenogenesis through various letters and oral reports. What did all this information have to do with me? I did not know but decided to keep the most important news. After my return to Europe I was invited to various lectures and exhibitions that dealt with "feminine" and "masculine" body languages. On these occasions I talked from time to time about the information I had gained about parthenogenesis. As a result I was asked frequently to publish this knowledge in a book. The main stimulus for my further investigation came from numerous reports about the hardly known suffering of many women concerning the fact that they and their environment, including the medical, seem to know virtually nothing about parthenogenetic childbearing. Against this background I developed an overall image of parthenogenesis in terms of medical, biological, anthropological and historical aspects, which I first published in book form in 1992.
When searching the current state of research you inevitably come across the name of the renowned molecular biologist Prof. Dr. Rudolf Jaenisch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is said to have scientifically confirmed human parthenogenesis. Could we say that this re-discovery of the parthenogenetic pregnancy of women is a side effect of stem cell research which, however, is largely kept secret?
The various experiments to develop human offspring mechanically in devices, that is outside the mother’s warmth and her feeling, thinking, physical presence, finally seems to have revealed parthenogenesis. Obviously this was an unplanned side effect. However, in “mainstream research" (the official biological-medical research) parthenogenesis associated with women is still ignored as scientifically unprovable up to the present day.
A parthenogenetic conception seems to mainly create female births. Although I have found the information that in rare cases a male baby could evolve. What’s true? Is the male Y chromosome, which makes a man a man, actually a female X chromosome lacking one end?
According to my information, human embryos develop in our current geological era in the first three months in general independently of gender in a manner that we call "female." We can see this mode of being also as "unisexual". Chromosomes appear to unfold continuously in x-form-like structures. In the nucleus, called the genome, chromosomes unite perfectly with the genetic being. The term "genome" refers to the totality of the genetic, chromosomal life of a cell nucleus. Because the genome is liquid (which is mentioned only very rarely), this chromosomal-genetic unit is particularly flexible and adaptable. The Sino-British scientist Mae-Wan Ho says in her book "Genetic Engineering - Dream or Nightmare", "genes and genomes have to be fluid and adaptable in order to preserve their stability and to respond to environmental challenges." According to Mae-Wan Ho there are actually no single genes, there is no constant, definite single genetic being, but concepts according to which sections on chromosome forms are theoretically determined and graphically designed. These are no natural chromosome forms but also exemplary representations, also referred to as "ideograms".
In addition to simple cell division during evolution, parthenogenesis represents the only form of reproduction for the greatest part of time. "Males" have not been existing for a long time. Are they the "exception" in nature?
From my perspective, we cannot really know that. The diversity of life is often painfully standardized. I have detected for example in my studies with aphids how wonderfully mother earth can respond to our questions (see my article in the “Matriaval” magazine).
During my research I found a question of a man who asked if you could make a maternity test in case of a female birth. If the male sperm had only touched the ovocyte of the woman and stimulated it to split (as it has not merged with it), the child actually would have been created by parthenogenesis. In this case the child would have no genes of the man. The question was probably intended to preclude a paternity. How can you prove a parthenogenetic pregnancy with safety?
On the proof of paternity: For the proof of paternity no biological, medical and scientific proof has been developed up to the present day, so up to the 21st century, Alternatively the so-called
DNA tests are used. The Roche Medical Dictionary states concerning the "paternity exclusion test” that the paternity proof of a man can be seen only as a statistical probability. On the maternity
proof: I would have never considered it possible that anyone comes up with the idea to call for a maternity proof of a mother, even if childbirth has been witnessed in a medical institution,
until I found in "Wikipedia" the story of Lydia Fairchild and her three children. Also the American documentary "The Twin Inside Me" deals with her. "Lydia is a rare case of a human
"chimera”. This is a person who did not descend from a fertilized ovocyte, but from a combination of several cell lines with different sets of chromosomes. The other cell line probably originates
from another zygote (fertilized ovocyte), which then combined with the embryo. Lydia’s genome corresponds to the genome to be expected of her children’s grandmother. It was also found that the
genotype of her skin cells did not match with her children, however samples of her cervix.” The New England Journal of Medicine reports a similar case. “In 1998 the 52-years-old Boston teacher
Karen Keegan was in need of a donor liver. When her three adult sons were tested as potential donors, it was discovered that two of them could not be her children. Further tests eventually
revealed that Karen is a "chimera"."
Maternity and paternity were reduced to biological concepts and statistical, mathematical measurements instead of further scientifically researching them. These concepts are used up to the present day as a basis for evaluation and practically for prejudice. To avoid the term "proof", for example in court one speaks of the "paternity test" or the "paternity exclusion chance". With reference to respective statistics and the so-called "statistical secrecy", the suggested scientific provability is completely absurd. According to Wikipedia “statistical secrecy” means "the duty of secrecy of the staff of statistical offices. From the strict application of statistical secrecy follows that nobody gains knowledge which individual data were collected for the statistics except the employees of the statistical offices."
Parthenogenesis is actually a political issue. For example, if you consider that according to recent law, every man can pursue a woman who gave birth to a child after a one-night-stand. If it were an accepted fact that children can be conceived naturally in the womb of their mother without a father, would the current family law be turned upside down?
Certainly, and not only family law! Maybe the human consciousness would be changed so fundamentally that all of us would get more familiar with the creativity of nature in us and in our environment - and therefore we would be much happier.
In the laboratory it is allegedly not difficult to artificially induce parthenogenesis. As a laboratory situation is based on processes in nature, it seems logical that under "laboratory-like circumstances" a natural, spontaneous parthenogenesis may occur in women, too. But we find only very vague information about that. As a trigger of cell division only a stimulus is said to be necessary which takes over the normal task of the sperm during fertilization. Until today the reproduction of men known to us works very well. Considering the over-population, even too good. Women and men are also quite happy to conceive a child by means of sex. But if a woman considers a parthenogenetic pregnancy for herself, where does she get really solid information?
It is not available.