|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @09:30AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I believe "rage" to be correct in his analysis. Control of reproduction is the cornerstone of feminism. The feminists react like stung mustangs if anyone tries to weaken this control. I would disagree, however, on the best way to break this control; I feel "in vitro" fetal development will prove more feasible than transplanting uterine tissue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I feel "in vitro" fetal development will prove more feasible than transplanting uterine tissue
Probably. But I think ex utero fetal developments will be legally banned sooner or later. Because it will be the end of the priviledged role of women in reproduction, and lots of people, including men, don't want that to happen. They want men to remain dependant on women. But giving men the ability to give birth like women do isn't likely to be outlawed as it will be "natural".
And as far as dittoh's comments are concerned, I think many men wish to experience pregnancy, especially gay men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think many men wish to experience pregnancy, especially gay men.
This is remarkable. Do you know many gay men who would want to experience pregnancy? (I hope you realize that I ask this in earnest.) If this comes about, and there is in fact a genetic aspect to homosexuality, it would lead to an interesting turn in human evolution. Males and females could be on their way to evolving into different species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay men are actually either super-masculine or effeminate. Problem is : in the mainstream media, homosexual men are depicted as sensitive, kind and nurturing persons, therefore being superior to straight men, who are said to be macho in their very nature. That's why gay men are often and unfortunately viewed by masculists as enemies.
Because masculine gay men are not shown on TV or in the movies, although they exist for real in high numbers.
A certain number of effeminate gay men would like to get pregnant to give a child to their masculine male lovers, exactly like in a traditional straight couple. In a way, it's not surprising as effeminate gay men want to replace women besides masculine men.
> Males and females could be on their way to evolving into different species.
I don't think so. Genetically speaking, men and women do share 99.9% of genetic background in common, so even if all men became gay and all women became lesbian and didn't mix their genes anymore, they would still share these 99.9% in common. Genetically speaking, men and women are forever alike.
Furthermore I would like to add that a man might give life through pregnancy, but it would require to give him estrogen intakes during nine months, thus transsexualizing him. But nine months on hormone therapy is not very long and feminizing effects could be easily reversed once the baby had been delivered.
This hormonal issue is why I would prefer ectogenesis over male pregnancy. But the latter must not be neglected as it seems much more easy to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 06, @05:57PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men and pregnant!?9 months with feamale hormons.
WE ARE MEN!We can`t born kids.Our future is ectogenesis!This is not for men`s activism making men more like a woman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider such notions as men bearing children via womb transplants to be--at least for now--"junk science." I find the idea that one could simply drop a womb into a man, pump him up on estrogen, and you have all of the makings of a baby factory to be patently ridiculous.
Whatever bad-tempered things I may say about women, I consider it clear fact that the female body has evolved into (among other things) an intricate reproduction machine. To claim that a transplant and a few hormones can achieve the same effect in a man... well, I find it laughable. It's like trying to build a motor by carefully taking an engine block from another car and then noticing that there is some gas involved and so tossing some of that in for good measure. Without fuel injectors, manifolds, pistons, valves, and a crankshaft, all you're going to get is a burning engine block.
The process of reproduction strikes me as a whole lot more complicated than a womb and a few hormones. (This is also why I have a good chuckle at those claiming that growing ex-vitro babies is "just around the corner".)
Maybe it's my long involvement with the computer sciences and the claim of "artificial intelligence" types that an intelligent machine is "just around the corner"... for thirty years, now, but I'm not buying it. We need to know far, far more about how the human body works to pull off something like this.
And, as one poster noted, why bother when you can just pay someone who is already capable to do it for you?
Call me a cynic, but there you have it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 07, @05:27PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
In vitro embryonic development routinely occurs TO-DAY. It is not science fiction. The miracle of reproduction is achieved by the fertilised ovum. All it needs is a suitable medium in which it will be allowed to develop. We have long progressed beyond believing that the uterus is the only place where gestation can occur. The uterus is just a bag of muscle. It has no "magical properties" necessary for embryonic and fetal development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks ever so much for trivializing my point of view as being belief in "magic." Oh well, I'm used to sneering disrespect: I'm married, after all.
I have long heard of in vitro fertilization. I have never heard of in vitro gestation, except for very short periods for an (obviously) unemplanted embryo. So far as I know, the embryo must implant and there must be a placenta in order for the fetus to develop.
"Just a bag of muscle"? Implantation, placental development, environmental regulation.... The placenta is a marvel of engineering in and of itself, passing blood (and thus food) across between two genetically distinct organisms while at the same time blocking most disease and other foreign substances.
So we can do all of this in a glass jar now? I've never heard of that.
You, however, make it sound like old hat. So: do educate me. How many fetuses, of any warm-blooded species, have grown to term in vitro? Oh, and please include references this time. It's easy to rate someone else's opinion in the same category as belief in astrology and witchcraft without providing any references. Even I can do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @04:32AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
To Buster B,
Thanks for reply to my post. I feel you misinterpreted my post if you feel I was showing sneering disrespect to your point of view.Will post a reply to the points you made.
Regards,
Anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @11:44AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to Buster B,
The "complex machinery" needed for embryonic/fetal development is produced by the embryo and not the uterus. The embryo itself produces the umbilical cord,the placenta, the amniotic fluid(in which the embryo and fetus "float" during development)and the coverings of the amniotic cavity. The placenta so formed embeds in the wall of the uterus and extracts nutrients from it. The embryo can develop in other tissue apart from the uterus. Recently, a full gestation was completed after the embryo implanted in the liver.
In vitro gestation ,as distinct from in vitro fertilisation, is a reality to-day. Embryos routinely develop to two weeks in an in-vitro setting. At that stage , researchers are legally obliged to kill the embryos. Theoretically, there is no reason why they couldn't continue to develop in vitro, if given the chance to do so. An atificial uterus does not involve making artificial placentas and artificial umbilical cords-as I have mentioned, these are produced by the embryo. Rather it involves placing the embryo in a medium from which the placenta can extract the nutrients necessary for the embryo to develop. The fact that researchers are legally obliged to kill embryos at two weeks is surely a strong indication that development beyond two weeks is feasible. I can hardly give you an example of a full in vitro gestation since researchers are legally debarred from allowing gestation to proceed beyond two weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is still a lot of work to be done before artificial wombs are used on a large scale, and that work may never be performed because of ethical objections to artificial wombs. However, a team of Japanese scientists recently brought a goat to the end of its gestation in an artificial womb. As the article states, "The artificial womb is a rectangular clear plastic box filled with amniotic fluid at body temperature and connected to an array of devices for vital functions. The fetus lies submerged in the tank womb which replaces oxygen and cleans the fetus' blood with a dialysis machine connected to the umbilical cord."
I'm certainly no expert on this subject, but about a half-dozen years ago I spoke with a biologist who worked on the team that successfully cloned Dolly the sheep. I asked him how long it would take us to develop an artificial human womb that would work for full gestation, if we truly devoted ourselves to the project. (I was thinking of Kennedy's promise to get to the moon by the end of the 1960s.) He considered the question for a while before saying, "About 15 years." For better or worse, we're still about as far away from developing artificial wombs as we were 6 years ago, because we haven't devoted a lot of resources to the project. However, artificial wombs are not junk science. They are in their development stage.
Whether or not artificial wombs will ever be used by men to protect themselves from the legal kidnapping of their children, the devices, warts and all, already exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a brief article on the subject from the McGraw-Hill Higher Education site. Note that the article states, "The scientists who developed it say they are working on a model that can be used for human fetuses, but that the technology is ten or more years away."
So far scientists are skirting the subject of creating artificial wombs to replace women as gestators ("Scientists... envision how the artificial womb would benefit women with frequent miscarriages or problems with pregnancy and/or infertility"), but the fact is we are moving in that direction. It may well soon be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @01:15PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"...scientists are skirting the subject of creating artificial wombs..."
I feel this is the key point. The feminazis see it as something that would dis-empower women;hence resources will not be directed to research in this area. If the feminazis saw it as a women-empowering, we would probably have artificial wombs in 6 months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well hot damn. I learn something new every day. Thank you.
Mind you, the whole thing is going to give me nightmares, but I did ask, and I received.
For my part I'm a traditionalist. I agree with Mark Shea, who said,
All of human history can be summarized in two sentences
"What could it hurt?" followed sometime later by "How was I supposed to know?"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
