He Denisis,
I read your blog, and I must commend you - you have a very natural and easy writing style, rich with examples for many cultures, periods, and subjects.
However, I cannot help but notice that you contradicted yourself a few times. The most glarlingly obvious one to me was when you mentioned that humans born from immaculate birth were clearly to be female, since they are the preferred sex. However, in your first few paragraphs you mention that "Leonardo Divinci, Joan of Ark, Moses, one of our Saint Catherine's, Moses, (floating down a river in a basket?) Zoroaster" and Jesus were all born from immaculate conception. Now forgive me because I am not completely familiar with all of these historical figures but the ones that I am familiar with are male.
Your first article that was posted about the light or energy that is given off during conception I found interesting, as it is something I haven't heard of before. I am a fourth-year biology student at university, and definitely don't claim to have unsurpassed knowledge of all things scientific.
However, I was troubled when you mentioned or eluded to the fact that all humans are conceived female, it is just that some become male over time. It is true that the testicles and ovaries are made from the same material, and that the clitoris and penis are indeed the same organ, one just larger than the other. And again, it is true that the placement during early fetal development would place these organs in a position that is relatively where the female counterparts would be found. However, this does not mean that all beings are conceived female. As soon as sperm and egg fuse, the sex of that zygote are immediately determined. The presence of a Y chromosome dictates male progeny.
The fact that testes and ovaries, and clitoris and penis are derived from the same material make a huge amount of sense to me. Stem cells needed to produce eggs and sperm are exactly the same - it is merely the presence of particular cytokines that dictates whether a sperm or an egg is made. Nerve endings on the clitoris and the penis that denote sexual arousal and pleasure have the same trip to make up to the brain, and since the body can only have one or the other it makes sense to have the same origin for both organs. Nature is inherently lazy and will take the path of least resistance.

I have two side-notes to make before I finish my particularly winded post:
Firstly, I visited your website with your wall murals, and they were gorgeous. I particularly liked the penguin whose beak hid the door handle.
Secondly, I've noticed that you mentioned Darwin a few times. Darwin was an amazingly brilliant scientist whose ideas shaped evolution as we see it today. However, his views on genetics and inheritance have been proven to be factually incorrect. (I haven't seen you reference his genetic ideas, I just wanted to let you know that those parts of his research are not particularly accurate)

Hi Katie, thanks once again for your input. I can see some common ground we might be establishing regarding testes and ovaries etc. I wish I knew enough to hash over with you all the biology involved but I don't. Hence, my presence on this website, to try and gather facts and theories, to try and nail down the butterfly of parthenogenesis which may not be possible at this time.
Did you read part 2 of my blog, The Story of Laurie? This matters to me, and our subject, more than anything. What Laurie experienced on her long fast and her conception, birth and loss of her child defies science. I would love more than anything to pave a path of science that makes sense alongside her experiences but there is no way I can do this alone.
My latest moment of eureka came a few weeks ago when I was almost done writing my blog that I stumbled on Marguerite Gigogliosio's interview on GnosticMedia.com. Like I said earlier we became email buddies. I felt a huge burden lifted off my shoulders to learn that Marguerte's scholarship regarding the divne birth cult of the ancient Greeks shed much light upon the subject. I shed lots of carthartic tears as I wrote to her over and over again. She assured me I was no longer alone with this story of stories and that she would include The Story of Laurie in her next book which will be a collection of virgin birth stories from around the world.
Yes, my blog is full of contradictions. My ignorance is plain to see. Most scientists would flee from the subject. I'm not a scientist, I'm just a simple layman, but I cannot flee from it all no matter what I do. Parthenogenesis and what happened to my friend Laurie will not go away and I accept it as being part of my life, part of my destiny.
Please stay in touch. Sincerely, Denisis.

Jesus birth is in no way related to parthogenesis because a sperm is required to produce a male baby. That is one more reason that it's miraculous and supernatural.
Any kind of parthogenesis, artificial insimenation or in vitro fertilisation is also impossible especially without the presence of medical breakthrough at that age.
Even today, parthogenesis cannot be achieved naturally and even with intervension, the results aren't how the way we would want it.