|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:25AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I forget exactly how to spell his name, but one of the the best computer researchers (Kurzweil, I think is how you spell it) believes that humans are but a way-station to the evolution of intelligent machine lifeforms. These sentiments were picked up by the great physicist Steven Hawking last year, when he said that machine intelligence posed grave dangers to humanity.
Actually , humans pose the greatest dangers to themselves as any radical manhating lesbian group would show. These people actually are convinced that a world without males would be a better world. So they advocate cloning technology as a form of female only reproduction, where the evil, stupid males wouldn't be necessary, and so their society could remain pure.
Of course an all male society could be constructed along the same lines. I suppose the biggest disadvantage to us men would be the lack of "feminine favors", esp. since I am not sure you could condition the average guy to be a happy homosexual. On the other hand no PMS , no nagging, no genfem victimologists -- sounds good. Guess we could always make some female "love androids" like they do in many sci-fi books and shows.
But I still think we'd be missing something. Maybe the yin to our yang, maybe the ties to our shared humanity, maybe just our loving sisters, aunts, mothers, grandmothers. I have no doubts that in a physical war between men and womyn societies -- given anywhere near equivalent technological level -- the men would win. Of course , I am equally sure that both sides would lose.
And perhaps, when or if there is ever machine intelligences they will look at this silly sexual warfare, and put us humans out of our misery.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This may well be the greatest piece of news that I have ever heard.
Artificial wombs will put men and women on an even playing field. Just as many feminists have said since the advent of cloning, "Men are no longer necessary," now women will no longer be necessary. Women and men will be in the same situation. Equality!
Note, however, the feminist attitude as expressed in this article. The artificial womb, they (some feminists) argue, becomes the quintessential expression of male dominance, a way to create a mechanical substitute of the female womb. Armed with the artificial womb, asexual cloning technology and stem cells to produce all the extra body parts they need, men could free themselves, once and for all, from their dependency on women.
So, if men aren't dependent on women we automatically have male-dominance. What a bunch of whackoid crap. Their idea of a perfect world is one in which women are independent of men but men are dependent on women. With new reproductive technologies, men and women will no longer be dependent on each other, just as women today are no longer dependent on men. Live with it, sistas.
Humans will have to work out bugs in the technology and society, but this is the technology that will finally liberate men. Hooray!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to add that we humans can pull ourselves out of the social mess that has developed since women came to hold almost all of the weapons in the war between the sexes. Men and women can learn to live well together. I just don't think that will be possible until men and women have equal reproductive power. The technology of artificial wombs may well give men and women equal power.
We have to realize, though, that society and male-female relations, while developing into something good, may well end up bearing little resemblance to what we've know in the past. With our mutual independence, they may end up far better than anything we've ever known. At least it's possible if men and women have the equal power that this technology promises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @11:11AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Not likely, Thomas.
As you've seen (heck, your a physicist, right?) people who are far from whackoid think machines might very well do us in. You've also seen how the present system with its interlocking interest groups represents a machine. Do you really believe this societal "machine" is going to go away simply because technology might mean there is no use for it? Do any Gov't agencies or programs ever truly go away?
Of course they are a tyrant's dream. Reproductive technology, particularily cloning has been a staple of sci-fi meditations for over a hundred years now. People have thought of this stuff very seriously for a long time now, making these technologies some of the few to have been really "foreseen". I recommend you check the sci-fi, and not just "Brave New World", and tell me if your views are sanguine then.
In my opinion, these new reproductive technologies will only farther underscore our societies emerging view of man as a machine/commidity. They'd only be useful to the mens movement IF they were employed on a mass scale by men who were willing to just totally walk away from females, and farthermore if we had a list of "demands", so to speak. Individually, they are just one more means of separating men, women, and children.
Our species just keeps burning itsself with new fires.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to science fiction and the "uterine replicator," there are better and more thoughtful works than Brave New World.
One of these is Ethan of Athos, by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Athos is a planet of men, women are illegal. But this and the replicator that makes it possible are just background to the story -- which is a ripping good read.
The point of this comment is that it is possible to conceive (so to speak) a society where the uterine replicator is another choice, among many. This particular book is part of Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan series that has genetic engineering as an element-- some of the extreme possibilities are described; the good as well as the bad.
The moral: Humans can adapt -- but it's never easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:25PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to science fiction and the "uterine replicator," there are better and more thoughtful works than Brave New World.
One of these is Ethan of Athos, by Lois McMaster Bujold.
Hey Chuck, thank you for the great reading suggestion :) If I get a chance, I'll check em out:) I have a hankerin for new sci-fikarin
Remorhymesrapsrocks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.
Do you really believe this societal "machine" is going to go away simply because technology might mean there is no use for it
I never said that these machines will go away, nor did I mention any technology that would make them redundant. They will stay, and they will allow men and women to live as equals. In addition, if child bearing and birthing is anywhere near as painful as many women claim, women will welcome the new technology at least as much as men.
As for science fiction... It's fiction. A number of people could write books in which this technology leads to a hell on earth. A number of other people could write books in which this technology leads to utopia. Neither set of books would determine the eventuality. The fact is, there is little hope for men and women if women have complete reproductive power and are independent of men, while men are dependent upon women. This technology offers great hope for us all by giving women and men equal power.
Society can adapt. Technology won't necessarily lead to disaster, though it can and often does lead to dramatic changes in social structures and human relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @01:47PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
.................................................
The fact is, there is little hope for men and women if women have complete reproductive power and are independent of men, while men are dependent upon women. This technology offers great hope for us all by giving women and men equal power.
..................................................
I agree with this statement, Thomas. But you could just as easily give men equal power under the law. Indeed, if this new technology is so great, why don't we just give up being mens activists altogether, and wait for the technological demigod to save us? Is it because you suspect that the larger context of politics and capital in this society will determine to whom the benefits flow, perhaps?
Sure, I see individual choice at first. Then the law will get involved -- should someone who was accused of violence of any sort be allowed to have a child? What about racists? Convicted sex-offenders? Don't worry-- by passing enough laws (and keeping the price artificially high if need be) we can assure that only women benefit from this technology. Actually, we can assure that only the State benefits from this technology, but thats another can of worms.
As for the rest :
Society can adapt. Technology won't necessarily lead to disaster, though it can and often does lead to dramatic changes in social structures and human relations.
This is your opinion. It is probably not fact in the long term, even if it is so in this single case. For two reasons:
A. Human behaviour is partly genetically determined. And we don't even know to what extent. Making humans "infinately adaptable", as your view seems to imply basically says that biology plays no role, and any one can be socialized to be anything. Isn't it great to know that gender is a myth, Thomas?
B. NO human society in history has ever gone through 1/1000 the change ours has went through in the last hundred years alone. The incredible number of Americans in jail, the existence of the (mostly) minority underclass in the inner cities, the perversion of family law - all of these things should tell you something is dreadfully wrong. Not to mention all the special protections for various groups that have been thrown willy-nilly into the workplace and government.
Now you want to believe that totally seperating women from men and from reproduction will go off without a hitch. Perhaps, but more likely perhaps not.
Given a world where men and women are totally interchangable cogs,easily made by chemical processes and with no ties to each other short of momentary passions I see no hope for humanity at all. Lets all say it now, it'll be the World-Nation anthem tomorrow: "Welcome to the Machine"!
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There you go again, Remo. You love to attribute statements to people that they haven't made and beliefs to people that they do not hold.
Making humans "infinately adaptable", as your view seems to imply basically says that biology plays no role, and any one can be socialized to be anything. Isn't it great to know that gender is a myth, Thomas? I never said anything about infinite adaptability. I said society can adapt. It can. I never stated or implied that anyone can be socialized to be anything and I never said or implied anything about gender being a myth. These are all figments of your over active imagination.
Now you want to believe that totally seperating women from men and from reproduction will go off without a hitch. My statements were, quite clearly, in contradistinction to this. I stated, "they (new reproductive technologies) will allow men and women to live as equals." That is hardly separating women from men. In addition, I stated, "Humans will have to work out bugs in the technology and society." This quite clearly is the opposite of the statement that seperating women from men and from reproduction will go off without a hitch
You really need to work on not attributing statements to people that they have never made and beliefs to people that they clearly do not hold.
Given the fact that you continue to do these things. I'm not, at the moment at least, going to waste my time responding to the rest of your post. Rest assured however, that if you continue to attribute statements and beliefs to me that I do not hold and that I have not made, I will not let you get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Claire, this quote is just for you:
"Women's Lib is, in fact, a movement born of an identity crisis whose activities only deepen and intensify this crisis. In the 1960s the thinking public became more acutely aware of the dangers of overpopulation. With slogans like "Come Back Malthus -- All Is Forgiven" and "Babies Are Pollution," society's attitude to what had historically been women's primary rolecould hardly remain the same - the maternal role was devalued, and this had spillover effects for all aspects of femaleness."
Arianna Stassinopoulos, _The Female Woman_, 1973;
New York: Random House; London: Davis-Poynter, Ltd.
page 154.
Good quote isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @05:49PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
..................................................
I said society can adapt. It can.
..................................................
Society: The totality of social relationships among humans. B. A group of humans broadly distinguished from others by common culture and shared relationships.
Now society is made up of humans, isn't it? And by claiming that society can adapt, you are claiming that humans can adapt, aren't you?
Com'on, Thomas. This is a legitimate argument and I'd appreciate it if you would address it rather than claiming that I'm putting words in your mouth. You made a claim, but apparently you don't understand just what your claim implies. Or perhaps you don't understand how to follow and respond to a logical argument. If thats the case, then you must not be a physicist. Physicists deal with logic all the time, and have to recognize, for instance, bad use of statistical techniques.
I shouldn't have to explain to someone like you, who is supposed to be more educated then I am, what metaphors are. Also, I would have thought that someone who had been in this movement for any length of time would know that genfems equate socialization with destiny, and disregard biology totally. Thus, they believe if they can just change society in the correct way that heaven (for women at least) will arrive. How you can hold the sanguine views you do about the adaptability of society to this technology WITHOUT holding that socialization is far more important then biology is a puzzle. I'd sure like for you to explain it.
As for this :" Now you want to believe that totally seperating women from men and from reproduction will go off without a hitch".
I apologize! For the first time I actually did misrepresented your views. I was typing fast, and a bit upset at Claire,and thus thinking of her post, but even so, you were a victim. I meant to say that you want to believe that totally seperating women and men from reproduction will go off without a hitch. And even that was a SLIGHT misstatment of you for you did mention "bugs" that were to be worked out. And so, for the first time, I made a mistake and imputed something to you you do not state. For that, I am sorry.
I sincerely HOPE you have no problem with this post, as I am getting quite sick of you calling me a liar all the time, and doubting my motives, and etc. ad. nauseum. In the past we probably would have had a duel with pistols over this, and that would have been sad. Quite frankly, I have nothing against you. Yet you seem to think I do, for don't I try to twist your words and put words in your mouth? I must surely have it in for you, and only you, as I don't seem to do the same to anyone else on these boards. And I must be pretty stupid, for after all, someone could just read your original posts, not very far in front of mine, and see what a horrible liar I am, thus ruining my credibility forever!
I guess I better go get a brain implant, so I can stop doing such stupid things.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting quote, Adam. If and when we get past our current problems, it would be interesting to see how historians view the utter wackiness of contemporary feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers Tom. I don't think historians will look too kindly at the man hating and poor excuses for logic we've had to put up with.
I know we'll rock the world :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: This is pretty tiring, I suspect, for both of us. What say we try to drop it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I will respond, briefly, to your statements about adaptability. Let's see if we can stay on track here.
We humans have a way of making a mess of things, but we also have a way of adjusting and surviving. Dealing with all of the new, reproductive technologies will be difficult. But, as we seem to agree, they ain't gonna just go away. We're gonna have to deal with them.
The reason I like this new technology is because other technologies (abortion, contraception, cloning, ovular merging) have given women nearly absolute reproductive power. We are already in a state of turmoil as a result. I believe, in fact, that these technologies made it possible for feminism to become the monstrous evil that it is today.
The new technology of artificial wombs can make men close to equal to women in terms of control of reproduction. It can mean that we won't have a situation in which women are independent of men but men are dependent upon women. This equality in reproductive power will, I believe, prove to be a good thing. It's obviously a very bad thing for women to have tremendous power over men.
Actually, it may help bring women and men back together, because women won't be able to view men as unnecessary and, therefore, inferior creatures without recognizing the fact that they are equally unnecessary. We will all be better off if many, many women stop viewing men as uniquely disposable, inferior life-forms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @07:52PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
All of what you say is true Thomas, except that the feminists also may have an inequitibly large vote in whether or not this research gets further funding. They may lobby to see that it is stopped, in which case, things will again, be one-sided.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @11:23PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
Nice post. Just a few comments:
The reason I like this new technology is because other technologies (abortion, contraception, cloning, ovular merging) have given women nearly absolute reproductive power. We are already in a state of turmoil as a result. I believe, in fact, that these technologies made it possible for feminism to become the monstrous evil that it is today.
Ok, so we both agree that technology sometimes can lead to turmoil and unexpected consequences.
I agree with the rest of what you say with one caveat: In my opinion, it would be better to have a male birth-control pill. Why? Well artificial wombs make both parents redundent. After all, why not just use a sperm bank to create a bunch of clones, and artificial wombs in which to birth them? Thats what I'm talking about when I mention "commodification" of people.
In short, once you have an initial stockpile of sperm and eggs ( and eventually both might not be necessary), a cloning process for humans, and artificial wombs -- well , whoever owns that technology has utter control to producing humans at will. And the way things are going I think it will be more in the State's power over the long run. Everybody else can be sterilized, or hormonally modified, or what have you.
Thats why I'm not sanguine about this technology. It doesn't rely on individual choice as much as a male birth control pill would.
Anyway, I'm tired. Goodnight everyone.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo, thanks for your response.
To a large extent, I just think that this technology is here and won't go away. It levels the playing field for men and women, and beyond that we have to struggle to make the best of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @01:56PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
On a related topic...
since this technology is still a few years away and since it will not make men and women truly equal in reproductive freedom (men will finally be able to have children without women but still won't be able to abort their unwanted children the way women can today!), I was wondering what the latest is on the male birth control pill.
Does anyone know?
That will be true equality. If every man took that then men would only have the children that they wanted and wouldn't be labeled "dead beat dads".
btw, are women who choose to have abortions "dead beat moms"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are two versions of the male birth control pill/injection in clinical testing. I think the Brazillians, who had the third, have given up due to an unacceptably high rate of nurse-cell death, (the nurse cells, in the testicles, are required for sperm production).
Creating a male birth control pill/injection in comparison to a female is like comparing a late model steam engine to a jet-fighter. The complexity of the project is orders of magnitude harder.
Think of it for women as finding the switch to control a stop/start process. For males, you have a process which has an on switch and no off switch: Leaving you with the difficult job of creating an off switch.
That is one of the two reasons the project is taking so much longer. The other reason being money. The drug companies do not think the market will be as big as that for women and so are not willing to put the big-bucks into the research.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @02:29PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Until they can figure out how to use a primate egg to make a copy of you, you'll still have to get hold of an egg from a female human to produce a clone or normal offspring. Men and women will no longer bother with interpersonal relationships, but they will still have business associations where they sell gametes to each other.
WOOOWEEE! Claire, I just can't wait! Just think, no more tears or lonely nights or broken hearts or sappy love songs. And no more love poetry from star-struck underclassmen, or silly romance novels. Wow. Paradise on Earth.
Not. No more serious novels of philosophy -- indeed, considering that half classical philosophy (and some of modern thought) is concerned with eros, we won't even be able to understand it anymore. No more hot romantic nights of passion at the local "lovers lane", we'll just go and get a nice little procedure done to have a child. I suppose there won't be any more porn, either. After all, if men and women have no relationships, and if they don't need each other to reproduce, why should they even have sex? For fun? But thats DIRTY, they will be told. And that will be the end of it.
..................................................
Of course, those of us who are childfree are together because we want to be, not because we want to use the other person to manufacture a DNA trophy. You are right; relationships built around the manufacture of DNA trophies will disintigrate into business associations. Childfree relationships, built on far more, will survive. Long told that we "hate" families, in the end we will be the only ones who keep our version of family together, while other men and women go live on separate continents.
There is a gleeful irony in that.
.................................................
Wow. I wasn't aware that "child-free" relationships were problem free! You sure are lucky to be child-free Claire, and oh-so-smart. I am in awe. Alas, your only human, and not a Goddess, else I would worship you.
As for your "relationship" surviving, I wouldn't bet on it. The same "group-think-human-as-commodity" forces are already at work preparing for you now.
I really wish everyone could "choose" to be childfree, Claire, but increasingly that choice is being made for us. Your snide remarks don't help any. I'm sorry if someone was attacking you for your choice, but I didn't do it.
In normal animal populations a catastrophic crash in the birthrate (below replacement level) would be cause for concern. Leave it to a self-professed Libertarian to dance as the race spirals even more into group and sex warfare. Or maybe you should just remove yourself (and all the superior non-breeding people) into a shelter, then launch the nukes and get rid of all those useless "breeders". It is sad to know that your relationships, being child-free, can't possibly survive past your lifetimes, and thus you can't pass the superior genes along.
It will be nice to know that the last couple of the human race was child-free -- by choice. Heartwarming, really.
There's alot of sarcasm in this post, but quite frankly anyone who can celebrate the demise of normal heterosexual relationships, gets on my nerves in a big kind of way. It smacks to me of a hatred of the mass of our fellow human beings.
I just won't respond to any post by Claire where she uses the term "breeder", from now on.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No more hot romantic nights of passion at the local "lovers lane"
No more 18 to 20 years of supporting the unwanted children that result from these booze-soaked but largely contraception-challenged acts.
we'll just go and get a nice little procedure done to have a child.
At least then 56% of all pregnancies will no longer be unwanted. No more accidents. No more mistakes. No more deadbeat dads. No more child support at all. No more "mothers" dumping their progeny off at hospitals because they don't want them.
Leave it to a self-professed Libertarian to dance as the race spirals even more into group and sex warfare.
For once I appear to be in agreement with both the feminists and the anti-feminists. I appear to be, but I'm not. I actually find all this as disgusting as you do, but apparently we are both part of a very tiny minority. If gender separatism is what the majority of humans want, you better believe I will celebrate all these losers destroying each other. Maybe after they've all Darwinized themselves, a better world will emerge.
I just won't respond to any post by Claire where she uses the term "breeder", from now on.
What do you call women who are stupid enough to forget to take their pills, or who just lie about it, and then give birth to these unwanted mistakes against the wishes of their husbands and boyfriends? You better believe I am calling these people as I see them. They are NOT mothers. They are breeders, and their selfishness heavily contributes to the kinds of attitudes we're seeing on this board.
Picture this. You don't want a kid, or you don't want any more kids. Your wife does. She lies about being on the pill and gets pregnant. You beg her to have an abortion. She refuses. Is she a mother or a breeder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:50PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Claire:
No more 18 to 20 years of supporting the unwanted children that result from these booze-soaked but largely contraception-challenged acts.
Gotta admit I love your ability to play at words. "Contraception challenged"? Sounds politically correct to me :)
And yeah, some unwanted tykes come about that way, but not most tykes.
..........................................
At least then 56% of all pregnancies will no longer be unwanted.
..........................................
I know you say you get this from the choice4men website, correct? In any case, I don't accept it. And even if true, I bet the percentage is less over time. Babies may wreck a lot of plans, but (often, though by no means not always) the lil buggers grow on ya in a positive way.
................................................
If gender separatism is what the majority of humans want, you better believe I will celebrate all these losers destroying each other. Maybe after they've all Darwinized themselves, a better world will emerge.
...............................................
Actually agree with you here, sadly. But I'm not even certain it will be humans who inherit the world. I think it will be a new race of genetically modified humans, or maybe even machines if worse comes to worse.
..................................................
What do you call women who are stupid enough to forget to take their pills
.................................................
I call them women-who-made-a-big-mistake
.................................................
or who just lie about it, and then give birth to these unwanted mistakes against the wishes of their husbands and boyfriends?
..................................................
First, I refuse to call a baby human a "mistake" even if its birth was by mistake! Second, I call women who LIE , "Liers", "bitches","witches", and a whole host of unprintable names. They deserve my scorn.
As for your last question she is a MOTHER to her child, though not a good woman. After all one can be a biological mother without being a good person, or a good parent. As for me, I am an unwilling father-slave in that situation. However, its the fault of the mother and the laws, not the baby.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know you say you get this [56% figure] from the choice4men website, correct? In any case, I don't accept it.
I do, for the simple reason that only women have the choice to abort unwanted pregnancies. Men have less choices, therefore it's logical that men get screwed more often.
And even if true, I bet the percentage is less over time. Babies may wreck a lot of plans, but (often, though by no means not always) the lil buggers grow on ya in a positive way.
This kind of thinking is very dangerous, and I strongly disagree with it. This is precisely why so many women see no problem with lying about being on the Pill, because they have the attitude of, "He'll just looooovvvee this baybee after it's born!" No he won't. In fact, he'll resent it even more after it gets here, because that's when the bills are really going to start piling up. Forget about the new car. Forget about the nice vacations. Forget about quitting your job to take up woodworking or reading for awhile. Forget about all your hopes, dreams and aspirations, because the birth of that kid will destroy every one of them...And the guy won't get anything back in return. "The love of a child"? He can get love from a dog, and the dog doesn't cost thousands of dollars a year in food, clothing, medical expenses and so on.
What do you call women who are stupid enough to forget to take their pills...I call them women-who-made-a-big-mistake
How hard is it really to remember to take a pill every day? I bought a $20 watch with an alarm. It beeps every night, telling me its time take my pill. Very cheap and very simple. Not only that, but in order for the pill to fail you have to stop taking it for a couple of days. Missing just one day every now and then doesn't matter, if you make it up the next day. How dumb do you have to be to forget your pill for days on end? How far did these women get in school, the 3rd grade????
As for your last question she is a MOTHER to her child, though not a good woman. After all one can be a biological mother without being a good person, or a good parent.
To me that perverts the definition of the word "mother." That's why I call them breeders, moos, etc. They don't deserve to be called mothers. Any moron can "forget" her pill and pop one out. A MOTHER is someone who has a child only after very careful, meticulous planning with her partner directly involved. A MOTHER only has a child when her husband/boyfriend agrees to it, and only if they can afford to support it without either one of them working 90 hours a week.
Calling women who have kids when their boyfriends/husbands want them to abort "mothers" is just wrong.
I refuse to call a baby human a "mistake" even if its birth was by mistake!
That sounds nice, but in reality they are mistakes. Most people agree that if the father doesn't want the kid, the mother should abort it. The logic is that the kid isn't supposed to be born. If it is born, it is a tragic mistake. It is an accident, unwanted even by its own parent. That's just the way it is, and that's why I refuse to call women who don't abort in these situations "mothers."
As for me, I am an unwilling father-slave in that situation. However, its the fault of the mother and the laws, not the baby.
If you are the slave, the baby is the slavemaster, because the baby is the one who needs diapers, clothing, formula, doctor visits, etc. If the kid weren't born, you wouldn't have to waste all your money on kiddie crap. You wouldn't be a slave to them. You would be able to do what you want, without being tied to some brat.
Also, if you consider yourself a slave, it proves my point that unwanted children do not grow on their parents. The only thing that grows is the resentment towards the unwanted mistake that ruined the father's life, destroying everything he hoped and planned for.
I'm not blaming the father. I'm not even blaming the kid. I'm blaming the so-called "mother" who was too selfish to do the right thing and have an abortion. Years later, that kid will ask, "Mommy, why doesn't Daddy love me?" Then he'll be told it's because he was an accident and a mistake that shouldn't have been born. He'll have to live with that, not the selfish woman who wouldn't have an abortion.
If I had my way, unwanted kids would be able to sue their mothers for not aborting them. I have nothing but contempt for some biatch who has a kid she knows the father doesn't want. Because she brought the kid here knowing that the father hated it, she deserves to be hated by the kid in her own right. She deserves to be sued and made to pay reparations for the evil act she committed by having the kid instead of aborting it.
Perhaps if we held these women accountable for not aborting, more of them would do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 22, @07:22PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Clair,
I spoketh thusly:
And even if true, I bet the percentage is less over time. Babies may wreck a lot of plans, but (often, though by no means not always) the lil buggers grow on ya in a positive way.
To which, you replied:
This kind of thinking is very dangerous, and I strongly disagree with it. This is precisely why so many women see no problem with lying about being on the Pill, because they have the attitude of, "He'll just looooovvvee this baybee after it's born!" No he won't. In fact, he'll resent it even more after it gets here, because that's when the bills are really going to start piling up. Forget about the new car. Forget about the nice vacations. Forget about quitting your job to take up woodworking or reading for awhile. Forget about all your hopes, dreams and aspirations, because the birth of that kid will destroy every one of them...And the guy won't get anything back in return. "The love of a child"? He can get love from a dog, and the dog doesn't cost thousands of dollars a year in food, clothing, medical expenses and so on.
Well, well, nice to know that my THINKING is dangerous. However, what I stated dues happen to be a fact. Sometimes, perhaps the majority of the time, perhaps not, a baby becomes more valued by its parents. And sometimes not. However, it does happen.
In any case you are confusing an unplanned pregnancy (possibly due to a failure of birth control)with a pregnancy which is the result of an act of deliberate deception. I bet it IS harder to love the child then, for the lying partners deceit hurts deeply.
Then, incredibly, you compare the love of a human child to the love of a dog as if the human child is not capable of loving in far more expressive and substantial ways. For after all, if the love of a human and the love of a dog are of the exact same kind, why not just dump your partner and get a dog? What would I want a girlfriend or wife for, anyway, if all I needed was dumb companionship?
In the next part of your response you talk about the act of forgetting to use birth control, and you call the lady involved stupid. I would agree with you -- because I did NOT know how birth control pills work in practice. I figured anyone could forget to take one or forget to take them for a day. However forgetting over multiple days does indicate either deceit or stupidity.
As for your definition of "mother". Wow. You have just taken that title away from the majority of female parents who ever lived. Why? Because you forget the rule of culture and religion in your definition. Thus, someone who has an unplanned pregnancy because her husband insists on it in a REAL patriarchal society can't be a mother. For the decision wasn't hers, and thus she is obviously, irresponsible.
Lets also not mention that many, many , MANY people have problems with abortion.
I could be cruel and pick on your "so many hours worked per week" definition of motherhood, but I won't. I know you meant that economics should play some rule. However, biologically, people only count costs in terms of psychic and bodily needs, not $ -- because in the distant past money didn't exist.
Then you farther claim that if a man doesn't want a child the mother should abort-- because its PARENT doesn't want it. I would hope you meant because its PARENTS don't want it -- yet obviously the mother does. I'd simply let her have the kid, then SHE could take care of the child.
You say :
If you are the slave, the baby is the slavemaster, because the baby is the one who needs diapers, clothing, formula, doctor visits, etc.
Wow! Your really confusing the issues here. The baby has biological needs that it can neither control, nor deny. Its not a "slavemaster" for insisting on those needs -- for food, shelter, medical care ( if necessary) and maybe a little love. Heck, the baby doesn't even have WANTS as its not intelligent enough to desire more than what its body tells it is needed. Diapers, formula, bassinet, little bunny slippers, toys -- these things aren't absolutely necessary and really are just societal expectations. In the past, many things for the baby were homemade, e.g. clothes. What couldn't be made at home, or wasn't considered absolutely necessary, baby didn't have. As for formula, MOST women can breastfeed, and most of the consensus is that breastmilk is better for a baby anyway.
My point is, that babies, by themselves as biological entities do NOT demand that they be raised in a "middle class" standard of living. They NEED the basics and love. As they grow, they need moral and intellectual education and love. EVERYTHING else is icing on the cake. It's terrible that our current child-support regime doesn't realize this.
As for the rest of your comments, I agree with them. My only caveats are that I would require either abortion OR adoption and that I wish you would remember that we are talking about the moral choices of an "adult" human female (aka a spoiled bitch)and the stupidity of our society that allows them to get away with it.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you farther claim that if a man doesn't want a child the mother should abort-- because its PARENT doesn't want it. I would hope you meant because its PARENTS don't want it -- yet obviously the mother does. I'd simply let her have the kid, then SHE could take care of the child.
That's all fine and good, until the day comes when the kid asks, "Mommy, why don't I have a Daddy?" and Mommy explains that Daddy didn't want him, doesn't even want to talk to him. Then the kid spends its life wondering why it wasn't pretty/handsome enough, smart enough, funny enough, and overall good enough to be worthy of its father's love. It figures that if it isn't good enough to be worthy of love from its father, it isn't good enough to be loved by anyone. That is an exceptionally cruel thing to do to a child. Yes, I do think the woman should have an abortion if the husband/boyfriend does not want the kid.
Plus, all this is assuming the mother can afford the kid on her own. Most people, man or woman, cannot afford to support a kid on their own. Even if you don't raise a kid via middle-class standards, it still needs food, clothing, diapers, shelter and medical care. There are very few people today who even know how to begin making clothes for someone, nor would most people even have time. Making clothes takes hours and hours, and for a child they would have to be made constantly. When would the parent work?
It used to be that parents wanted their kids to have more than they did when they were young. It seems to me like a lot of parents want their kids to have less. If the parent grew up in a relatively safe middle-class suburb, in a house with a yard, he or she wants the kid to sleep on the floor (next to their parents and three siblings) in a one-room apartment located in a neighborhood replete with drug dealers, gangbangers and bullet holes in building walls. A yard? Yeah right. The kid can't even go outside without risking catching an errant bullet.
Kids need love. They also need a safe place to go outside and play. It is not healthy for them to be confined in a one-room apartment, afraid to step out the door. They also need books to read and toys to play with, so that their minds are stimulated. That doesn't mean they should have a toy collection worth more than a DeLorean, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say a child should have toys, even if only a couple of stuffed bears and a bike to ride. Even ancient people made toys for their children. Books and other reading materials at home help the child to succeed educationally. I began reading before I was in Kindergarten because I had books, and because we always always always had newspapers in the house.
I could be cruel and pick on your "so many hours worked per week" definition of motherhood, but I won't. I know you meant that economics should play some rule. However, biologically, people only count costs in terms of psychic and bodily needs, not $ -- because in the distant past money didn't exist.
I do not know anyone who is a SAHM. No one I know can afford that luxury. I am basing my opinions on the stories I've heard on the Net about wives who sit on the couch eating bon-bons all day while their husbands work 90 hours a week at rotten jobs they hate so much, part of them wishes they'd die just so they'd never have to go back to work again. The men who tell these stories do not think their wives contribute anything, because in their eyes being a SAHM is not work in any sense of the word. That's why they say things like, "Women have the option not to work."
I guess some women do, but not all. I for one will be working until the day I drop dead at my desk. If I don't work, the rent doesn't get paid, and I get evicted. I don't have a money tree in the backyard, like all those SAHMs apparently do.
In any event, I am open to anyone explaining to me exactly what it is a SAHP does all day. Since I don't know any, and am basing my opinions only on what others have told me, I am open to hearing an alternate view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 23, @09:56AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
That's all fine and good, until the day comes when the kid asks, "Mommy, why don't I have a Daddy?" and Mommy explains that Daddy didn't want him, doesn't even want to talk to him.
Oh bunkus! All that animosity is because in todays society daddy is forced to take care of a child he doesn't want! If he's not forced to take care of it, or even see it, just why would he hate the kid? That would be pathological, esp carrying that grudge around for 18 years. Such a "father" is not worthy of ones worry.
Then theres the rather dubius assertion that mommy wouldn't lie to spare Junior/Missy's feelings anyway: "Daddy died in a traffic accident",etc. Geez.
Then theres the way you misunderstand my point about clothes and other things that were made at home. I was pointing up historical fact, not prescribing anything-- Though I would proscribe the Dollar Store to any parent who needs cheap clothes, not to mention hand-me-downs.
Your point about idiots who get addicted to drugs, stupidly have kids, and irresponsibly keep on with their "lifestyle" of said choice is well taken. But not every parent is on drugs-- many who are doing something like that to the sprats really DON'T care about them.
Nonetheless, your point about "expectations" is rather ridiculous, when you think about it. People in the middle-ages didn't have such expectations of their children. People in ancient societies all over the world had no such expectations, tribal loyalties and other things being more important. Only in late-state capitalism was the rise in living expectations per every generation even feasible. And even THAT depends on how the economy as a whole is doing.
I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna get on all those parents who had a baby doing the Great Depression. Nor, am I gonna expect the child of a solidly middle-class child to "rise" above the middle class. The middle class (for now at least) is the norm. As a personal note, if a kid of mine was happy as a starving artist, I'd be happy. Its the happiness I worry about.
"Stuffed bears and a bike"? How much does that cost? Unless you are utterly poor, those things are affordable to everyone. Its the expectation of the Delorean that gets people in trouble.
Anyway, the rest of your comments are well-founded. I know the economic stress your under, heck I don't even earn 30k myself, and never really have come all that close. I can't speak for SAHM mothers except to say that those who have that option have a luxery, and that in the past (say the frontier) a SAHM worked like a dog. It is advanced industry that has given the ones who can afford to be SAHM any free time they possess.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All that animosity is because in todays society daddy is forced to take care of a child he doesn't want!
What about the bunkus about "the baby will grow on him"? Sure doesn't sound like it to me. If he doesn't want the brat before it pops out, he certainly won't want it after it pops out.
If he's not forced to take care of it, or even see it, just why would he hate the kid?
Probably because he also hates the woman who had the kid against his wishes. He hates the fact that this fugly THING made with his DNA is walking around.
That would be pathological, esp carrying that grudge around for 18 years. Such a "father" is not worthy of ones worry.
I'm guessing that you grew up with two parents, even if those parents were divorced. Those of us who were abandoned by our parents often see this quite differently. It is perfectly natural for a child to crave its father (or mother). If the mother or father isn't around, the kid wonders why. If they're told it's because the parent didn't want them, the kid naturally wonders if it's because of something he or she did. The kid wonders why they weren't good enough for the parent to love them.
What this proves to me is that it is insanely easy for a parent to simply walk away from an unwanted kid and never think about it again, ever. It proves to me that parents do not bond with their children. That is why they can't understand why their children WANT to bond with them. Children are kind of like dogs. They want to love their parents. Dogs will often continue to love masters who beat and starve them. Likewise children will continue to love parents who beat, starve and/or abandon them.
It is possible to resign yourself to the fact that your parent or parents are pieces of shit, but it is impossible to smile and accept it.
I'm not gonna get on all those parents who had a baby doing the Great Depression.
I am. Those selfish people brought kids into this world when they couldn't even feed themselves. The kid was brought into a situation where it was doomed to die of starvation or untreated disease. Even better are the people who bred their own little indentured slaves, the thought being that another worker in the house would benefit them. Many Depression childrens' parents forced them to quit school in the third grade and go work in sweatshops. Oh yeah, those parents really loved their kids and cared about their welfare.
The expectations I place on parents are that they make enough money to feed, clothe, educate and provide medical care for their kid. A kid should not end up being rushed to the ER, gasping for breath and his lips blue, his lungs ravaged by double pneumonia, because there was no $$ to take him to the doctor when it was still simple bronchitis that could have been treated with antibiotics. A kid should not be half deaf by age 12 because of untreated ear infections. A kid should not develop scurvy, rickets or other nutritional disorders because his parents can't afford to feed him anything but rice.
This is all especially important in light of the fact that minors are not permitted to work. A kid under age 16 is completely dependent on the whims of its parents to provide for him, and that is wrong. There was a guy in my neighborhood who regularly hired 12- and 13-year-olds with false documents to work in his store. Some people say that's exploitative. I don't. Most of these kids had only one parent at home, usually the mother, who couldn't even afford to buy them basic necessities. For many of them, being able to do menial work for wages meant the difference between them eating three meals a day, or only one meal a day.
I found out about him when I was 16. I sorely wish I'd known about him when I was 12. If we don't make parents feed and clothe their kids, we need to eliminate these absurd child labor laws and give them the chance to provide for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this article on a childfree board yesterday. Needless to say, it was not well-received by the regs, due to mega-disgusting comments such as this:
Other feminists view the artificial womb as the final marginalisation of women, robbing them of their primary role as progenitor of the species.
Womens' primary role is to whelp litters? Gee, I thought feminism was supposed to be about women being free to make their own choices, which might or might not fall in line with "traditional" gender roles.
How will the elimination of pregnancy affect the concept of parental responsibility? Will parents feel less attached to their offspring? Will it undermine the sense of generational continuity that is so essential for reproducing and maintaining historical continuity and civilised life?
The version of this that ran in today's Los Angeles Times was even better. It asked whether parents would start seeing their kids as objects rather than "extentions of themselves." LIKE THAT'S NOT HAPPENING ALREADY???? A full 56% of all pregnancies are unplanned--unwanted.
I see a couple of highlights to this. Artificial wombs will prevent accidents from being born. No more accidents resulting from MOOmie being too stupid to remember to take a pill, or her partner being naive enough to trust her when she claims birth control or sterility. Not only will breeder stupidity be mitigated, but those of us who are actually responsible enough to want to sterilize ourselves will finally be free to do so. All we'll have to do is harvest our gametes, agree to store them, then simply stop paying the fee after a month and let them be destroyed, circumventing the breeder-centric system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is less earth-shattering than the other posters.
(1) Arguments about men being unnecessary are vaporous: the world is not suffering from a child shortage it is suffering from a wealth shortage. Men are the primary producers of wealth, women the primary producers of children.
(2) There is no shortage of human wombs in the world. Most first world men (the only ones likely to "benefit" from this proposed technology) could afford to rent one. The main obstacle would be first world legal restrictions, not a shortage of willing sellers.
(3) Men's primary dependence on women is sexual not reproductive.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find this whole debate to be intellectually stimulating. I write SF, and lucky for me one of my classes next sem is Creative Writing. This will prove to be quite the subject for fiction.
My personal opinion about the whole thing is this will be a lasting contribution to human reproduction. Maybe we will have sex just for fun, and maybe there will be an institutionalized class of prostitutes and/or sex-droids to satisfy our needs.
I'm probably going to write about a future all-male society in Creative Writing...boy, are my profs going to get mad...
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm probably going to write about a future all-male society in Creative Writing...boy, are my profs going to get mad...
Once you're graded, put the story on the Web so we may all read it. Submit the link to MANN here.
If you enjoy writing, I'm certain you'll enjoy that class. Creative Writing was by far my favorite class under my English major. I actually started out not writing news and commentary, but fiction. Of course, news/commentary is a steady income stream (as is IT work). :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @10:57PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Just a little question LadyRivka?
Who is it that writes all that hot and steamy female-female stuff? Men?
And if men write girl-girl, and gals write guy-guy, then who writes all that heterosexual sex stuff between males and females? Martians? I mean, man, thats perverted!
Grinning,
Remo the Rake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROFL
Uhhh... both genders do. You're not limited to just one genre! LOL
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
