The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,696 times Debate No: 59856
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (2)





This is an interesting debate topic, is it not? In any case the Spirit of the Motion is that there is a scientific possibility, or that science proves that a virgin birth could have occurred, even though it is improbable. My opponent would have to show that there is no scientific possibility that such a birth could occur. S/he could either provide medical/scientific evidence to the contrary or argue that the evidence I provide is irrelevant. In both cases my opponent must provide scientific evidence.

My opponent should start immediately, and would have to leave the last round, where s/he can only engage in pleasantries and/or write 'no round as agreed upon'.

The virgin birth refers to the natural birth of a child without any use of medicines, or any treatments. I need only show that it is possible, while my opponent will show that there is no scientific possibility.

This debate is impossible to accept, message me or submit your name in the comments to be considered. I want a serious debate.


Thanks to my opponent for offering to debate this interesting topic as well as providing the clarifications on the concept of “Virgin Birth”.

I was concerned this debate would go down the road of someone who has never had sex getting pregnant through artificial insemination, or that the debate would descend into obscure semantics. Thus when the baby was born this would be a Virgin Birth, but as my opponent has clarified this is an all natural process and so these ideas/arguments have all been put to rest. As simple as this topic may seem, I think its best to clarify the processes involved in conception and birthing to explicitly remove any doubt that a Virgin Birth is possible. A virgin is “a person who has not had sexual intercourse”. Birth is the “the time when a baby comes out from the body of its mother”.(2) As such at this point we have determined that the baby must come out of the mother, so the question arises how does the baby get into the mother?

We have ascertained so far that it is not through artificial insemination, and as this includes any “medical process in which semen is used to make a woman or female animal pregnant without sexual intercourse”(3). So how are we to inseminate a women if it is not artificial, well it seems only logical that sexual intercourse has to take place can be inserted into the vagina thereby introducing semen into the vagina. This is achieved through copulation which means that the female and the male have to engage in sexual intercourse.(4) However, if sexual intercourse has to occur for pregnancy to occur then said parties involved in this process can no longer claim to be virgins. As such the concept of a “Virgin Birth” is absurd in the highest as how can a women get inseminated if there is not sexual intercourse thereby losing her virginity.

Now, unless I am missing something as I have laid out above, it seems to me that my opponent has to prove that semen can be introduced into the vagina of a women thereby causing pregnancy. I do not believe this is possible or even probable, unless there is some obscure case reported somewhere in some medical journal that I have not heard about.

With this short introduction over. I now hand the debate back over to my opponent and wish him luck in his arguments.

And the video was included last moment for its sheer brilliance.



Debate Round No. 1



All right then allow me to start with some basic burden of proof analysis. I accept that I have the burden of proof and it is my burden to show that in fact there is a scientific possibility, even if improbability, that a virgin birth could occur naturally without any injections or medical procedures. I will do this first by informing the readers of the process, and then will provide two examples both of which have immense testimony, and one of which has been recorded in modern medical journals of great repute such as ´Nature´. The process which I will try and prove is known as ´Parthenogenesis´, and the examples are the first of the Christian Christ, and the second of a boy who was born in 1995 and is recorded in the renowned medical journal ´Nature´.

Now I do note that the title says a virgin birth, not the virgin birth. I need not show the example of Jesus was one such instance as long as I can prove the science, and prove the example of the 1995 parthenogenisized human chimera. It is here then that I begin to explain the process of parthenogenesis. I should note that this happens in animals greatly, and can happen in fertility clinics and research centers easily.[1][2] So this shows that it can be induced medically and that it does happen in nature naturally. So it is very much possible, I need only now show that it can happen in humans naturally. Now while I admit that the probability of this happening is one in twelve billion if these conditions are met naturally (something which can happen) then I have won this debate.

Now let me begin with what Parthenogenesis is: it is the process of natural reproduction without a male sperm. It is: ´is a form of asexual reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization.´ Here is the a photo which explains how Miosis II occurs and causes a sexual reproduction. The process outlined here is of automixis.
File:Central fusion and terminal fusion automixis.svg
I do not think I need to go into the details and confuse my readers with complex biological terms which took me myself a very long time to understand. I have linked the respective essays which use these complex terms and explain and prove how this would happen. I believe I need only write in an easier way of what I wish to show. I shall then explain in general terms of what needs to happen. In simple words for a virgin to get pregnant, one of her eggs would have to produce, on its own, the biochemical changes indicative of fertilization, and then divide abnormally to compensate for the lack of sperm DNA. This happens fairly commonly in one in one hundred thousand of pregnancies. It is the next steps which make the statistics so low. For these eggs to go into reproductive mode they would have to detect an immense rise in cellular calcium. This can be done medically but it can also happen naturally if the mother has osteocalcimia and/or has consumed great amounts of calcium through milk, or if she has a genetic disorder which forces her to make more calcium than necessary. If the egg happens to experience a spontaneous calcium spike, it will start reacting as if it's been fertilized. This faux fetilisation or fake fertilisation allows a cell to move into the final parts and does a cell division known as Meiosis II. This will give rise to a ´tumor´ which then grows a liver, stomach, teeth and eventually a nervuous system which would then automatically start taking energy from the host and develop into an embryo. This would in an additional few months (so the pregnancy would take ten or eleven months) lead to the birth of a fully functional human child. This child may be male or female though while it may be anatomically male the extension of genetic phenotypes will be female.

I have then beyond doubt I believe shown that the process is very sound. It is very possible for something such as this to occur. Now I will mention of a case like this. In 1995 a woman who constantly stood her ground that she was a virgin gave birth of a child. This child in the following weeks had some health conditions and the mother brought her back to the physicians. The physicians analysed the anatomically male child's genetics and found something spectacular. The child lacked the DNA signature of a father. The childs blood and genetics were also those of a female, though he had a lingering genotype of a male in his piss. This child the doctors found was not born due to any semen, but rather was born throgh the asexual reproduction via miosis ii of the mother. I have as Source 7 cited Nature the renowned medical journal confirming all of the above.

Now the second case may have been of Jesus. We know that Jesus never married and the children born of virgins would also not have that evolutionary feel to reproduce. So this fits in also it is mentioned in that people testified that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is said: ´When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus,for he will save his people from their sins."22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.´Mathew.

Therefore I propose the resolution.



While my opponent has presented an interesting case about the boy who was born through parthenogenesis means. I feel I need to point out that this case is completely misleading, and what my opponent is saying is complete hogwash. To do this I am going to address this case point by point and then get to the Jesus question later.

The Nature Genetics case

My opponent states that the “child the doctors found was not born due to any semen, but rather was born throgh the asexual reproduction via miosis ii of the mother.” This is a fabrication as in the article cited the doctors in fact say the following, “From these studies, FD (the child's acronym) appeared to be a 46, XY/46, XX mosica, but with extreme segregation of the two lines between different tissues." In fact the authors go on to say that this child was born from a (sperm fertilized) zygote that somehow underwent a separation in the blastomere, where the blastomere that formed contained the different paternal DNA in one part and the maternal DNA in the other part. Or in the authors words, they “suggest that in FD's mother, parthenogenetic activation of the oocyte was followed by second body polar extrusion.....and production at first cleavage of one blastomere containing a female pronucleus and one containing male and female pronuclei”.

What my opponent also fails to report is that in the manuscript the data claiming parthenogenesis is all based solely on the white blood cells. However, when the authors tested other tissue cells they found that this boy had the fathers Y gene present. So this verifies that the Y gene was present, and the only way the Y gene could have got there was by fertilization which means a non-virgin birth.

Importantly, the situation where a child gets all of one chromosome from one parent is not uncommon at all. In fact its is called uniparental disomy and it is very well documented. (1,2) Interestingly this boy displayed characteristics of a chromosomal deformity such as learning difficulties and intermittent aggressive behavior. This chormosomal deformity (uniparental disomy) could be the reason that the authors thought they had discovered a partial type of parthenogenesis when in fact the answer was far more simple.

Lastly, as cited in the manuscript, and other sources, parthenogenic embryos in mice never get to the birthing stage, as the embryo dies post implantation as it needs paternal genes. That is it needs the dads DNA, it cannot survive with only one parents DNA.

In my opinion, my opponent really needs to present a better case. So far what has been presented shows that parthenogenesis is in fact not possible.

The Jesus Case

The Jesus Case is one that I think should get dismissed purely on the grounds that my opponent said they are going to show virgin birth is scientifically sound. The facts are that the Bible is highly unreliable, so how are we to trust the bible when there are so many inaccuracies that lead to questions such as, did Jesus actually exist?(3)

In this round I have shown my opponents arguments to be misleading and absurd. As such I believe my opponent has yet to even prove the possibility of a virgin birth and as such I hand the debate back to my opponent.



Debate Round No. 2


I thank iamanatheistandthisiswhy for his response. I do apologize for the confusion, when I discussed the 1995 case it was a parthenogenesis birth, though upon further inspection I learn that it is half parthenogenesis. This and the Jesus case aside though, my argument was not based one bit on these examples. My opponent completely missed my analysis of science, and how my argument was based on the scientific analysis. As that scientific analysis was never tackled, I extend all contentions. You see showing my examples are wrong means nothing, because the motion reads that it is scientifically possible, and the procedure I pointed out earlier is naturally possible, even if extremely improbable. I myself admit that it is only one in a twelve billion chance. So while it may never have been recorded my medicine is sound. Secondly the case I mentioned is a parthenogenesis birth for the genetic material of the boy is all female.

To quote the essay: 'According to a 1995 report in the journal Nature Genetics, a mother brought her infant boy to the doctor after noticing that his head was developing abnormally. When doctors analyzed his blood, they found something truly bizarre: Despite his anatomically male features, the boy's blood cells were entirely female, consisting only of genetic material from his mother. Some of his other cells"such as those found in his urine"were normal, consisting of a combination of both maternal and paternal DNA. No one knows exactly how this occurred, but the best guess is that immediately after being fertilized, one of his mother's eggs fused with a neighboring unfertilized egg that was dividing parthogenetically. This gave rise to a boy who was considered half-parthenogenetic, since approximately half of his cells were derived from a "faux" conception, containing no remnants of his father's DNA.' Now the only reason I showed this is because this shows that if a half parthenogenesis can occur, then a full one can too. In any case a faux fertilisation did occur, if the mother had not had sex and had a genetic disorder, or had taken a large amount of calcium this would have been a full parthenogenesis birth.

Some vertebrates use parthenogenesis to produces diploid zygotes. In any case my defense of my example was unneeded because the real thing was the science, and that is provided in my original argument. That aside this paragraph shows that a faux fertilization can occue (the hard part), the only other thing needed is a rise in calcium something which can be done as easily as eating large amounts of Kale. Another way is to have parmesan everyday for four months before and during a faux fertilization. When the faux fertilization will occur, the body will take the extra calcium and insert it there. This will, as I have previously mentioned, allow miosis and will then create different tissue which will eventually grow a liver, heart et cetera. This tissue will start sucking energy and eventually will grow a heartbeat and will then become a proper child.

As for Jesus I have shown that there is evidence that he could have been a parthenogenesis case.


Thanks to Ajabi for a fun debate.

My opponent says I did not tackle the scientific analysis. This is a fallacy, as the problematic “scientific analysis” presented by my opponent comes from a false interpretation of the cases presented which I have debunked. As such the scientific analysis my opponent has presented has been debunked, as have the cases my opponent presents. To further clarify this point, my opponent cannot claim the science is valid when the cases presented show the claimed “scientific analysis” is bunk . If the cases are debunked, it means the science you were using to misinterpret the data has been debunked.

My opponent says the medicine is sound, yet has presented zero evidence for this. As I have pointed out this has never been seen to occur in any mammals where separate male and female are needed to produce offspring. I showed that even in mice the eggs do not make it to the birthing stage and die just after implantation. This means it is impossible, and not even remotely probable as claimed by my opponent.

Again my opponent claims I have not successfully refuted the Nature Genetics claim. If my opponent cares to read my argument from the previous round he will see that it has been successfully refuted and in fact he has presented zero counter evidence for any of my refutations except to say I am wrong. In contrast my first round argument showing how birth must proceed stands uncontested.

Lastly my opponent claims the following “Some vertebrates use parthenogenesis to produces diploid zygotes.” This is a unsupported claim as already pointed out multiple times in this debate. In fact the only evidence for parthenogenesis is that presented for plants which are not even part of the animal kingdom.

Unchallenged contentions in this debate are as follows:

1) No evidence for parthenogenesis has been presented. In counter evidence, I have shown that it is impossible using the sources cited by my opponent.

2) False interpretation of the Nature Genetics manuscript in both round 2 and 3. My opponent refuses to acknowledge that he is knowingly misinterpreting the data to fit his claim.

3) Refusal to engage the uniparental disomy argument which can clarify the so called parthenogenesis.

4) Claiming the Jesus case is scientific evidence with zero validated proof. I should add my opponent is doing this even after the Bible has been shown to have claims that are dubious.

I now hand the debate back to my opponent for final arguments.

Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for this debate. I want to clarify some things. My opponent may have swayed you, but give me a chance. Realize that my science is completely sound. If you go back to my original argument you will notice that the two cases take up only 1/8th of my argument. Also my purpose for mentioning Nature was to show that a faux fertilization can occur. Even my opponent concedes that a faux fertilization did occur. Had the woman in this case not been impregnated with sperm, and had taken large amount of calcium it would have been a complete parthenogenesis birth.

You will notice that I used the article from slate a lot, and I read a few articles from Harvard which were made easy. I also quoted all these articles so anyone can go and see it for themselves. My opponent on the other hand has not quoted any journal entry or any article in relation to his position. I stand by it, that since my opponent only attempted to tackle the examples and not the science itself, I should win this debate.

Now go back and read my original presentation on what needs to happen, then go and read a bit from my sources. The hard part was to create a faux fertilization, and that as my opponent concedes has happened and was recorded in Nature. That is why the birth of that chimera child is called a half-parthenogenesis.

My opponent did not show why any of the conditions I outlined in my original argument cannot happen at all. Remember the resolution is: This House Believes That A Virgin Birth Is Scientifically Possible, Even If Improbable! Which means I just have to show that it is possible, that it could be. I do not have to show that has been.

So even if there is only one in a twelve billion chance, my reasoning was never tackled, as such I should win this debate.

My opponent accuses me of misrepresentation of data, I tell the readers to go and read my sources. Whatever I have argued, especially in round three has been taken from respected journals.

So again I need not present an example, for the resolution does not beg for one. My original reasoning stands, and my opponent actually dropped the point about calcium where I wrote how eating vegetables could cause that rise, or a genetic symptom. I concede that you would need a lot of random, coincidental events to happen for a parthenogenesis birth to occur, but it is nonetheless scientifically possible. I have therefore fulfilled my burden.

With that I beg to propose.


Thanks for a fun debate Ajabi.

Good luck in the voting stage.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
Rant/rage :)
Sorry Envisage I didn't realize there was an ELO restriction.
Posted by Envisage 7 years ago
Oh come on, I dont have the ELO?! WTF.

Posted by Envisage 7 years ago
This debate was aweful considering the two debaters who were involved. Which is a shame really because the topic was an interesting one. Pro presents the theory (which was the only relevant point of the debate to establish possibility) yet cites 3 junk sources which are not properly referenced. I am not sure whether to accept this as a fulfilment of BoP or not.... He then cites 1 dubious case and Jesus which was.... a laughable proposal given the nature of the evidence for the latter, and was rightly dropped very quickly. IAAA only really addresses the case-studies and doesn't attack the theory. Also retarded format of making Con go first when pro has the BoP... it pretty much gives Pro and extra round as Con is shooting in the dark for 1 round. He successfully debunks the dubious case and Ajab rightly points out that IAAA's lack of response to the theory. Pro's best point was summarised "Some vertebrates use parthenogenesis to produces diploid zygotes.", WHAT vertebrates and how well does it support the possibility of it to occur in Humans??

I am voting here separating prima facie epistemic possibility here (which it seems to be) from objective possibility. I don't believe Pro has done anywhere near enough to show it is objectively possible for a human to give a virgin birth. Con showed that there are still barriers in place even if Pro's hypothesis on calcium influx potentially causing the formation of diploid zygotes to which Pro has not shown to be realistically surmountable.

To be honest if Pro used better sources and substantiates his claims more thoroughly he would have easily won this, and vice versa if Con has been tidier on rebuttals and ignored the case studies he would have won by a much larger margin. Bad debating form by both. Bad bad.

/rant /rage
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Conduct and spelling were tied, as both debaters practiced proper conduct towards one another and made little to no spelling errors. Sources are tied because while quality is given to Pro, accuracy cost him. You cannot promote evidence for virgin births when the article itself isn't providing proof.

I am awarding the win to Con because I believe Con presented a challenge in the debate that Pro failed to address. First off, I tossed out the examples. Jesus stories from a Bible prove nothing, as the Bible itself has yet to maintain it's own burden when placed under scientific scrutiny. The 2nd case also did little to strengthen Pro's case which I've already pointed out above. What Pro did was prove that a virgin conception is scientifically possible. This, however, is not what the resolution is. The challenge that won this for Con was with the mice point in relation to the possibility of conception vs. the possibility of birth.

Pro said it himself, "the Spirit of the Motion is that there is a scientific possibility, or that science proves that a virgin birth could have occurred, even though it is improbable. There were no examples given by Pro that shows science proving that a virgin birth could have occurred. The only thing Pro had going for him was the photo that explains how Miosis II works in a sexual reproduction. This still does not uphold the burden of showing that a virgin birth is possible, it is merely a hypothesis which has no weight aside from a half-case which Con debunked with extreme ease.

I feel that Pro should have explained, as clearly as possible, the biological process instead of relying on linked sources to do that for him. By failing to do so, the evidence provided in the actual debate simply fell short. Teaching myself complex biological terms and processes is not something I should have to do from an external link when the debaters should be the ones convincing me.

For these reasons, Con takes arguments and thus, the win.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
On humans attempts to create a virgin birth via Parthenogenesis.
Though even the Bible discounts Parthenogenesis.
This article says it all.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Jesus Christ could not have been the result of a Virgin birth is the correct answer.

While virgin births can occur via Parthenogenesis in many species, it cannot occur in mammals due to imprinting. It is possible for an embryo to form, but it will either die or become a cancer known as a teratoma.

Even if it could survive, it can only ever be a Female, as there is no source of Y chromosomes to produce a male.
Nor can it be a Female with male characteristics, because male characteristics require at least some Y Chromosome influence during the fetal formation.
Posted by schachdame 7 years ago
@Ajabi - I think you are right: you showed briefly the basic theory that you promoted. But the problem with the mice was as following:

The mice-incident shows that the first part of the theory has not only it's own theory but that this theories first part can be re-created in a relevant mammal group, meaning that something that can be created scientifically is to some extend hypothetically possible in nature or at least strengthens the probability of asexual reproduction.

However is right to point out that the mice have never been born, meaning that under the resolution that is not "virgin conception is possible" but "virgin birth is possible" it's really necessary to determine WHY they did not survive. You both did not put effort into this but considering how the BOP was, pointing out that a virgin conception is not enough to prove virgin birth is a valid claim that was not properly refuted.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
Thanks for the comments schachdame, I think I can take a lot from them. Now I just actually have to listen which is not my greatest talent. :(
Posted by Ajabi 7 years ago
Thank you schach but I do feel you missed the point a bit. I proved the science with the citations, I did outline what would have to happen. A faux fertilisation, and a calcium spike. Since Con only attempted to argue the calcium spike and the examples it was all I had to answer.

In any case I thank you for your vote.
Posted by schachdame 7 years ago
Extended RFD to the Vote in favour of Con. Structured into five parts for each round (and two for round 2).

Round 1:

To have Con start the debate was a very poor choice for a debate with a BOP on Pro. Because there was nothing to refute or attack in the first round, Con could only step into the dark. I don't know who supported this structure but if Pro demanded it, I would consider it as poor conduct. If Con did not point out the problem or even offered to start, I'd say that Con created himself a disadvantage he could have easily foreseen.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by schachdame 7 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: for RFD: see comment section

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.