Can we make "new matter" by giving birth?
99802
new matter is not created to make a baby, but is is possible to make new matter.  Einstein showed the matter energy equivalance where E=mc^2.  This means that if you have alot of energy (and I mean a whole lot), you can make a little mass. An example of this would be a very high energy photon ( light ray) which can spontaneously give up some of its energy to create a particle and an anti- particle (or create new mass).\n\nIt is even "easier" to destroy mass.  This occurs in the sun all the time and is the process that releases so much energy.
39620
No one possesses the wisdom to know what is best in the long run.  We might succeed in making our lives more comfortable but cause unbearable suffering to some future generation.  Or we might change the forces that caused us to be born at all.  In which case we would not be born to make the change and cause a paradox.  \nWhich might be cool.
1099754
This is not easier said than this.\n\nGod like a human had a mother and father in another dimension. If youo humans were created in its image then why do you not know this.
606596
Its based on production. The more babies you produce, the more you make.
885318
No absolutely not! I think what makes your baby special is the fact that he is your Unique baby with your features. A gift sent by God. Why would anyone want to change a gift that someone got them. This special gift is from God.
138494
I WISH TO answer this question, a little technically or scientifically.\nJust like the fmous theory of conservation, even the actions, facts like responsibilities too can not be created nor distroyed.\nAs per this, Say,  I borrow some money from Mr.A, say ($100).  Now to nullify this action, I have to pay back $100 to Mr.A. Now let us assume, after borrowing $100 from Mr.A I dead. Note that the fact is not dead. Therefore to nullyfy the action I have to take birth/ re-born (What I made goes to 'sin' account as I failed to py back).  On the other hand, If Mr. A too dead, Now he has to born again to take it back from me.(Mr. A made a 'good' OR Punya, He will born to enjoy the  'Good'). Both do not enjoy the 'freedom' (Deliverence, or Moksha) of selection of their birth, as they are tied or bond by their Karma or the action).\n   \nWhat is the solution, when is the freedom ?.\nNow assume I am the Manager of a Bank and the Bank borrows about $ 100 billion from another Bank and I signed BUT for, The Bank. Now asume I dead. I need not re-born to give it back because I worked for the Bank, Next manager will pay.\n\nMeaning: If you dedicate all your works, and actions, here in this world, to the God and work for the universe, (i,e, Selfless actions), You are freed from your previous actions (Karmas) and the nature of your next birth is not bond by the previous action (karma), and it (re-birth) is in your hand. It is called the Freedom (Deliverence or Moksha). It means thereafter you are free to decide the nature of your birth. It is called atternal freedom, the 'Moksha'. After so many activties you would like to have a deep sleep(This is called 'Sushupti' in sanskrit). Similarly in this vast universe, if you are tired of repeating births and re-births, you can attain this (Sushupti) at your will as long as you wish,  with a total awarness of the ' DEEPSLEEP BLISS'  MURGING WITH the universal conciousness, called 'THURIIYA'   \nThis type of action (Karma) is called 'Nishkaama Karma' in hindu holy book, 'The Bhagavadgeetha'.
101970
Nope. Completely impossible. You have no uterus so even if an egg became fertilized it would have nothing to implant itself in to grow into a baby. The egg would just be expelled from the body. But on the upside: No more periods!
297896
Ok, let's think things positive.  There's always something new and unexpected that you can discover when you start new things!
601239
NO. There's nothing that she can do "naturally". But in time it might happen as she grows. But again, it depends on your own body. We all differ in one sense or the other. There is no exercise or food which makes you grow your breasts. But sometimes after you have a baby the shape of the breast might change. So if you are not considering that, then there's nothing else.
306348
no there are  other ways too you need to have a sperm doner so that you can borrow his and fertilize in you \n\nthen you will have a baby\n\nneed a doner contact \n\nsilicon16@gmail.com
368850
Potency and a possibility for creating children.\n\nBTW, when you ask an open-ended question, don't provide the answers in advance!  You'll get more honest, creative responses that way.
146134
lol no\n\nit's still sexually made in terms of combining sperm from a man and egg from a woman. it produces identicle looking baby but will have completely different mind\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&q=wiki+cloning
930711
No, it's simple, something can;t come from nothing. It's like pointing to nothing and saying that eventually a monkey is going to appear. They say that we came from a giant piece of matter exploding or a monkey , but where did that come from? They tell you nothing, but something can't come from nothing!
426527
Natural birth is better for both the mother and the child.
504958
Lets see, Adoption, and In Vitro are two ways women become Moms without having sex.\n\nCute thought, but No. And any woman who has been through labor will tell you it was a whole hell of alot more than just sex that got here that title.
867247
I have found that with God, all things are possible. Don't let your earthly mind get caught up in earthly thoughts. Explain how a mother can lift a car with her baby under it. Or spontaneous combustion.
172030
Yes.  Even John Kerry, who supported abortion, stated that life begins at conception.  And as medical technology advances, we are finding that an infant can live outside the womb at earlier ages than before thought.\n\nTo FromMontana:  You speak of science, yet your response is quite unscientific. If life does not begin at conception, then there is no life at all in the fertilized egg.  If there is no life in the fertilized egg, that it is unable to divide and multiply.  If it is unable to multiply and divide, there would never be an eventual baby.  Living matter does not suddenly derive from non-living matter.  If I recall correctly, the Law of Biogenisis (life begets life), disproved spontaneous generation in the 1700's.  Yet to make the claim that the fetus is not alive implies the ridiculous conclusion that life (the born baby), suddenly sprang from dead matter.  Please, give me a break.