|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In normal human reproduction, men depend on females to have boys. And to have already discussed the topic with a feminist, I can tell you that women are very proud of this : they give birth to both sexes.
But with this amazing breakthrough, the trend will be totally reversed in favor of men ! We are going to be able to make boys and girls, but women won't be able to produce both sexes anymore....unless men accept to give them sperm with a Y chromosome.
So in the future, with artificial wombs, men will reproduce easily all the human race, while women will reproduce only their own gender, if men don't want to accept them as their equals.
What a great day for men.
What an horrible day for feminist freaks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No doubt the feminutz will come back with something like "who would want to make a man anyway". I can see them heading off on their own to create a female only society of "super women". I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that place, maybe it'd give them just the kind of "attitude adjustment" they need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @11:38AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists have long known about these developments. They also know it will lead to comlete dis-empowerment of women. This is why they are desperate to ban embryonic research. They say they are concerned about the "ethics" of such research. Funny, isn't it? The same feminists who eagerly support the murder of fully formed unborn children, are now so concerned about the welfare of gamete cells and invisible embryos! The revolution in reproductive technology will be the single most important factor causing the collapse of the feminazi empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @12:29PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Um...if they can create artificial wombs, what is to say that they can't tweak a girl gene into a boy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @12:57PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a "girl gene" or a "boy gene". There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes. To change an X chromosome into a Y chromosome would take a level of scientific advancement we have not achieved, especially since science only *very recently* discoverd that X and Y sperm have different weights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @05:32PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Um, as much as I love the thought of being able to have a child without adopting the mother too...
It is true that there are several (and the extent of which isn't entirely known) genes involved in determining the sex of a child. It is also known that most of the genes on the Y chromosome are not used - noise or garbage...and not all "male" genes are on the Y.. it is believed by some that the Y chormosome will evolve away (including me).. this was the basis of the book mentioned in this thread somewhere that said men were destin to evolve out...
but the fact is we have shown this is not the case.. life simply needs a method, any method, of distinguishing male from female and the XY chromosome is the method used now..
it is known that the reason the Y chromosome is disappearing is that the genes on the Y have had their functions taken over by genes on the X.. and that will continue to happen as we evolve...
the Y chromosome will disappear... but males will NOT disappear because the genes that control male-ness on the Y will be taken over by genes on the X...
this actually happens in the short term to prove the point - there are males that are XX!! (albeit a small percentage)
This must mean it is probably possible to coax these genes on an X chromosome to take over the gene functions for creating a man with some future technology... and therefore women would also be able to have men...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @08:45AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
The Y chromosone isn't disappearing. Only a woman would believe that. It's stupid propaganda like 1 in 3 women are victims of domestic violence. It's made up rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @04:42PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking. Just MORE feminist propaganda.
Hmmm, It'll probably be just a matter of time before they start "measureing faces".
Thundercloud.
"HOKA HEY!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @01:16PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well I would certainly never want to see the world rid of women, I love women, although I do hate liars, such as feminidiots, and wouldn't be at all sadened if they burned in hell for all eternity.
This breakthrough, to me, is more an advancement for men in terms of combating any radical feminazi ideas that the world doesn't need men, just the ideas really, thats whats more important to me. I don't know if you've ever read the book Y: The Descent of Man, but I think this breakthrough basically turns that book into rubbish, which of course I always knew it was skimming through it at the bookstore. If you haven't read it, basically it was trying to say that the destiny of the human race was to be rid of males, and that males are the second sex. Well, obviously now we can see this is not the case.
It is our intelligence that seperates us from the rest of the animals, and now that, even though it's far from perfection, we have created a technology where MALES will be capable without the need of a mother (artificial wombs) to create an offspring of any sex they choose, well, if natural selection is going to weed out one of the genders, I submit to you that it won't be the male one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @01:58PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
((("the world doesn't need men.")))
When you stop and think about it, Does the world really NEED either Men OR Women?
It seemed to do just fine before we human types came along...,
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you stop and think about it, Does the world really NEED either Men OR Women?
It seemed to do just fine before we human types came along.
True, but there weren't any Monster Car Demolition Derbies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you stop and think about it, Does the world really NEED either Men OR Women?
On a serious note: No, the world doesn't need either. But I don't think we're facing the elimination of men or women or both.
A few decades ago, when women gained tremendous reproductive power, the balance between men and women seemed to have been destroyed. Since then, with cloning, ovular merging, and other technologies, the possibility of eliminating men seemed to become a reality. In response to these developments, a number of women became drunk with the delusion of absolute reproductive power. For them the possibility of eliminating men was a prospect, a hope. Those feminists are deranged with their hatred of males, and they have garnered a near stranglehold on the conscience of our society.
"Near" is the operative word in that last sentence. The hate-mongers are being overthrown. There is no doubt in my mind about that (and those who contribute to this site are a small but important guiding force in that necessary, though turbulent, overthrow).
I don't believe that the current developments in reproductive technology will lead to the elimination of either sex. I don't believe most men or most women want that. Those developments are, however, doing two things. They are changing on a fundamental level the biological basis for the relationship between men and women, and they are restoring a balance of power between men and women.
There is no denying that we live in a time of great social upheaval. But I believe that, after several dark decades, this is also a time of great hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @12:46AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Two words;
Wayne Newton!!!!!
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @10:10AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
On MND website today, there is a report from the Washington Post on successful transformation of mouse sperms into mouse eggs without the need for embryonic tissue. The implications of this research are staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't walk down to the local hospital, hand them $50,000, jizz into a tube, and come back in nine months. When I can, the technology will have "arrived."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @01:10PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
It's going to be awhile before this technology is perfected. I think everyone is aware of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dramatic and irreversible transformation of male-female relations began when medical abortions became readily accessible, relatively inexpensive, and extremely safe, and birth control became highly effective, easily reversed, inexpensive, and largely placed in the hands of women. Those technological advances are what freed women from their biology and made it possible for them to continue to enjoy the sex that most humans crave while avoiding repeatedly giving birth. It made it possible for women to fully enter the work force.
The currently developing technologies are a furtherance of that revolution, not the beginning, and they are reestablishing a balance of power. They continue to radically alter the biological foundation of male-female relations.
We are, indeed, living future shock, and though it continues to evolve we have been living it for several decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @01:49PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope I am not too old, when this technology is finaly avalable.
I would really LOVE to be a father.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Won't women who use these gizmos be "fathers" as well, technically?
As for the women who want to give birth to their own clones, I say they can go fuck themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to California, find a surrogate mother (I guess it's legal there) and you can be a father, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @12:51AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Go to California, find a surrogate mother (I guess it's legal there) and you can be a father, my friend.")))
Rage,
I have given that some thought.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not happening anytime soon.
(1) Artificial wombs don't exist and there's no reason to think they will anytime soon;
(2) If they did exist their use with humans would be banned faster than you can say "human cloning";
(3) The most politically likely use of the gametes-from-embryo technology is to abolish the need for sperm donors.
Actually artificial wombs are unnecessary to men's reproductive freedom. There are millions of wombs in the world which would be available for hire at reasonable rates if it weren't for politics. If they wont let you get out from under the feminarchy by paying a Bangladeshi woman $5,000 to gestate for you, what makes you think they'll let you do it by paying a local hospital $50,000?
And if the thought of your child's body being contaminated by contact with a woman bothers you, well, they've already successfully carried-out cross-species gestations. There's plenty of room inside a cow.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not happening anytime soon.
(1) Artificial wombs don't exist and there's no reason to think they will anytime soon
Wrong.
As I've pointed out before on this board (with links that I don't have the time to dig up right now), researchers in the US (at Cornell and other universities and research centers), Japan, the United Kingdom and other countries expect to have fully functional artificial wombs in less than a decade and most likely within three or four years. There is a strong prospect of artificial wombs being used on a large scale within a generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As I've pointed out before on this board (with links that I don't have the time to dig up right now), researchers in the US (at Cornell and other universities and research centers), Japan, the United Kingdom and other countries expect to have fully functional artificial wombs in less than a decade and most likely within three or four years. There is a strong prospect of artificial wombs being used on a large scale within a generation."
These will probably be reserved only for premature births, and will be banned for full-term gestation for the simple reason of the threat it will pose to abortion "rights."
In legal debate, I was always the first to pose the hypothetical analogy-scenario of a fetus in an artificial womb-- in which it was grown from conception-- and asked the point at which it would be ethical to "terminate" its development, comparing this to the identical question regarding a woman's right to do the same.
At this point, the abortion-proponents would break into a rousing chorus of the same old song "It's my body, and I'll kill who I want to," since the answer, my friend, was blowing in the wind-- and they thought it blew even more, when I would bring up the fact that artificial wombs have owners, too.
For this reason, I think feminists will definitely to put the kabosh on robo-mom, if only to avoid losing their monopoly on motherhood, in addition to their one on "get out of pregnancy free" tickets via unilateral carte blanche infanticide known as abortion, in having it revealed as the double-O-X license to kill that it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @01:01AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Tulkas,
Yeah, I can definitely see where feminists and a good number of women would find "robo-mom" as a very real threat to their social and political power positions.
Which makes the whole idea TWICE as SWEET!
The last thing they want is, men with the same rights and privliges they have. ESPECIALY when it comes to reproduction!
-Thundercloud.
"HOKA HEY!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas> As I've pointed out before on this board (with links that I don't have the time to dig up right now), researchers in the US (at Cornell and other universities and research centers), Japan, the United Kingdom and other countries expect to have fully functional artificial wombs in less than a decade and most likely within three or four years.
I must have missed it because I haven't seen any academic references posted here, only pointers to the popular press. According to popular articles I've read over the decades we should have run out of oil, colonized mars and be choosing babies from the freezer cabinet at the supermarket by now.
What you and other posters refer to as artificial wombs only provide for the fetus or embryo during part of its development (the last part, in the Japanese case, and the first part, in Cornells case). To my knowledge no mammal has ever been successfully grown from zygote to neonate entirely by artificial means.
I'm sure artificial wombs that do completely substitute for the female gestator will be developed. I doubt anyone will be artificially gestating humans in the sense I have specified within 3 or 4 years. Would you bet on it?
Whatever happens on the technical front I do not believe that any of the western nations will tolerate solo men creating babies using artificial wombs before the success of the masculist revolution.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong on either of these points.
cheers,
Tim
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @06:38AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
On a lighter note, Tim, the duck billed platybus (I hope I spelled that right) is a mammal that develops from zygote to neonate without ever having a placental attachment to it's mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must have missed it because I haven't seen any academic references posted here, only pointers to the popular press. According to popular articles I've read over the decades we should have run out of oil, colonized mars and be I must have missed it because I haven't seen any academic references posted here, only pointers to the popular press. According to popular articles I've read over the decades we should have run out of oil, colonized mars and be choosing babies from the freezer cabinet at the supermarket by now.
I must have missed it, do you have a citation for when and where the popular press said that we would be be "choosing babies from the freezer cabinet at the supermarket by now." Some publications tell stories of what might be wildly possible in the near future, but I haven't seen the likes of the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal asking scientists for their best guesses of when something might be achieved and then stating that we'd be "choosing babies from the freezer cabinet at the supermarket" by now.
As for the lack of links to academic publications, it's often necessary to pay online science journals for access to their articles. (Take a look at nature.com, for instance, and www.prl.aps.org.)
What you and other posters refer to as artificial wombs only provide for the fetus or embryo during part of its development (the last part, in the Japanese case, and the first part, in Cornells case).
What I refer to as a "fully functional artificial womb" provides for the embryo from immediately after insemination until the baby is viable away from the womb.
To my knowledge no mammal has ever been successfully grown from zygote to neonate entirely by artificial means.
Perhaps you should have just placed this statement in a separate paragraph, rather than next to a reference to Japanese and Cornell research, which makes it seem as though you are contradicting a statement made by me. (I brought up research by Japanese and Cornell groups.) I have neither stated nor implied that any "mammal has ever been successfully grown from zygote to neonate entirely by artificial means."
I doubt anyone will be artificially gestating humans in the sense I have specified within 3 or 4 years.
I haven't just read about such matters in the popular press. In September 1997 I spoke with a scientist who was part of the team that created Dolly, the first cloned sheep. I asked him how long it would take, if researchers put their minds to it, to develop fully functional artificial wombs that would care for complete gestation of humans. He thought about it for a while and said "15 years." A number of researchers are now putting their minds to it.
I doubt anyone will be artificially gestating humans in the sense I have specified within 3 or 4 years. Would you bet on it?
A number of researchers believe it's possible. If you want to bet that they'll fail, I suggest you bet one of the researchers who believe they're going to do it. I know some believe they can do it, whether or not they will is, of course, another matter. It will probably happen soon, however.
I do not believe that any of the western nations will tolerate solo men creating babies using artificial wombs before the success of the masculist revolution.
This depends on what you mean by the "success of the masculist revolution." We have already had a number of important successes. If you mean a time when all feminists are in prison, or no one dares to call themselves feminists, or something else, I don't know. In any case, this isn't just going to depend just on masculist successes, or at least not just on the defeat of feminism. For one thing, aside from obvious technical hurdles, some of the greatest opposition will come from religious conservatives.
What's important now is that men will soon be able to mate using mass produced eggs, and they will, at the very least, be able to hire females to gestate the embryos and fetuses for them. When that happens, there will be no female parents of the children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And if the thought of your child's body being contaminated by contact with a woman bothers you, well, they've already successfully carried-out cross-species gestations. There's plenty of room inside a cow."
There's also plenty of cow-placenta and bovine amniotic fluid, which has unproven effects on human fetal development due to the effects on gene regulation; it's not as simple as it sounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 02, @07:54PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Artificial wombs are not a "dream". They already exist. The test tubes in which embryos develop ("test tube babies") are artificial wombs in which embryos appear to develop quite happily. They don't survive beyond a couple of weeks because researchers are legally obliged to kill them at this age. The obstacles are legal rather than scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally right.
I saw on French TV a few weeks ago that premature births are already being handled this way. Some babies are gestated in their mothers' wombs for only 21 weeks before being put in artificial wombs.
Today there are children born "normal" who have spent less than 4.5 months in the mother's womb, less than half the usual gestation time. And since last year, we know that the first two weeks of pregnancy can be achieved in an incubator. And as you say these test tube babies must be terminated after 14 days on legal reasons, and not on scientific ones.
If not for legal reasons, artificial wombs could already exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> If they wont let you get out from under the feminarchy by paying a Bangladeshi woman $5,000 to gestate for you, what makes you think they'll let you do it by paying a local hospital $50,000?
I guess it is legal in California to hire a surrogate mother to gestate your baby for you.
That's what I saw on French TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @10:57AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if we'll now see gloating editorials and features in all newspapers and men's magazines which taunt women about their uselessness and their redundnancy now that we don't need their wombs any more??
No? Oh, that's just every time a study has shown women able to procreate without men?
I hope plenty of feminists choked on their cornflakes this morning when they read this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 03, @06:42PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
My face lit up from ear to ear when I read that. Choke they will my friend.
Indeed, I've been looking around fem sites and they're all very quiet about this one. I guess they're still reeling from the shock.
Sit back fella's and have a big smug grin about it all. Gloat and never let them forget it because this news has just broken the back of gender imbalance. Its ramifications are vast and extremely antifeminist.
I'm still smiling.
Have a good day chaps - it doesn't get better than this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this was a fun read on all this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
