Creating Babies Without Men

[The Misconception]

Sure, a handful of babies won't be a major problem, but once scaled up to ~7 billion, our genetic pool would be very, very small, and the implications of a very small genetic pool are obvious.

Though, I will expect feminists to say this is "propaganda made by a patriarchal society to advance its misogynistic agenda".

Feminazis, not feminists. A feminist is an egalitarian.

Indeed

[Esternial]

Imo developing ways to reproduce without either gender is something very useful to our species, especially when combined with genetic engineering to improve our genome as a whole.
The only thing we need to prevent are patents on the human genome and patents on improvements thereof. This is too important for the development of our species to let it be corroded and corrupted by economic interests.

As for the reactionaries that are currently against it, and pushing anti-cloning laws, they will be on the losing side of history, as will be any nation that does not eventually abolish these laws.

Last but not least these technologies are vital for space colonies - we do not need to worry about genetic damage and sterility from cosmic radiation when we simply store the genetic information on more durable means, and clone new colonists upon arrival.

Your genome can't be patented. I think that has been determined some time ago. Your genetic code is your 'property'.

Don't see why researchers shouldn't patent certain techniques that modify the genome. Frankly it isn't that much more important than other vital research that gets patented. People may just not care about it because it's not 'hip and cool' like cloning.

Which I find kinda stupid, the entire 'hip and cool' aspect. People are all "wow cool" about fluorescent monkeys and don't bat an eye when you mention immunotherapy.

[Striton]

-

[Alvecia]

Fuck this we already have overpopualation. Go and adopt someone instead of making someone else just so they look like you.

While I agree that we could do with more people adopting, I don't think preventing people from having their own kids will put you in anyone's good books.

[Tekeristan]

Fuck this we already have overpopualation. Go and adopt someone instead of making someone else just so they look like you.

We can counter overpopulation by improving the standard of living for everybody. Makes it all better for us in the long run.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fuck this we already have overpopualation. Go and adopt someone instead of making someone else just so they look like you.

Not in western countries, we don't.

[Ximea]

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

Let's do it.

Just to see if we can.

[Traxedin]

Men can make children without women by using science and a artificial womb too. So can women who don't want to go through a pregnancy. Scientists and my textbooks say this is possible anyway.

Science equality?

[The Black Forrest]

You understood all that?

"If science goes too far then trans people will, with sufficient science up in their junk, be able to conceive and (where applicable) gestate a babby post SRS." Apparently this is bad because it will make anti-trans ideologies obsolete.

Thank you for the translation.

[Striton]

-

[Nordrgard]

So, uhh, NS, while in a friend's house someone sparked a debate about homosexuality and LGBT marriage and told me that we can now create babies without men.

Searching for it, I have found this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tists.html

It says of the implications about doing so. With the female baby being genetically identical to the mother, one can only think of the genetic consequences about this; "My fear is that, as with cloning, there will be horrific developmental abnormalities and accelerated aging of these embryos. One dreads to think what they may suffer in the name of science." said the article.

More, the article also says that at the extreme end it "could lead to the science fiction nightmare of a female-dominated society where men have little or no role."

What do you think, NS?

This sounds somewhat like cloning but I don't see the problem with it though. If gay couples or even heterosexual couples who are sterile wishes to reproduce it is only fair that they get the same chance to have a child that is genetically close to them as opposed to adoption. I hope Christian fanatics doesn't get the chance to stop this. Progress comes first, religion comes last.

[Imperializt Russia]

We can counter overpopulation by improving the standard of living for everybody. Makes it all better for us in the long run.

That makes no sense. Overpopulation reduces the standard of living for everybody. The standard of living is dependent on population, not the other way around, if that's what you're suggesting.

Countries with high standards of living have lower birth rates than countries with low standards.

Immigrants from countries with high birth rates and low living standards, to countries with high living standards, soon have fewer children through progressive generations.

[Nordrgard]

Fuck this we already have overpopualation. Go and adopt someone instead of making someone else just so they look like you.

Speak for your own country, ours barely have sustainability.

[Striton]

-

[Nordrgard]

This sounds somewhat like cloning but I don't see the problem with it though. If gay couples or even heterosexual couples who are sterile wishes to reproduce it is only fair that they get the same chance to have a child that is genetically close to them as opposed to adoption. I hope Christian fanatics doesn't get the chance to stop this. Progress comes first, religion comes last.

I'm curious as to why people do this. Why not take care of the ones who need help as your own rather than making your own just because they are a look-alike. Adoption is a win-win, procreation is not, until we empty out the foster homes.

Just because of that you want to prevent homosexual couples from having a child that is genetically related to them if that is their wish? I say let people choose for themselves, there will always be people who choose adoption even if those who prefer a child of their own DNA gets the choice. Or are you just saying this to hide your religious reasons for being against it?

[Alvecia]

This sounds somewhat like cloning but I don't see the problem with it though. If gay couples or even heterosexual couples who are sterile wishes to reproduce it is only fair that they get the same chance to have a child that is genetically close to them as opposed to adoption. I hope Christian fanatics doesn't get the chance to stop this. Progress comes first, religion comes last.

I'm curious as to why people do this. Why not take care of the ones who need help as your own rather than making your own just because they are a look-alike. Adoption is a win-win, procreation is not, until we empty out the foster homes.

Because they....want....to?

[Nordrgard]

I'm curious as to why people do this. Why not take care of the ones who need help as your own rather than making your own just because they are a look-alike. Adoption is a win-win, procreation is not, until we empty out the foster homes.

Because they....want....to?

Yes, there that little thing called freedom of choice that a lot of people seem to not care about.

[Blackwing Coast]

I'm curious as to why people do this. Why not take care of the ones who need help as your own rather than making your own just because they are a look-alike. Adoption is a win-win, procreation is not, until we empty out the foster homes.

Biological instincts - we are progammed to spread our genes. Adoption usually is only considered by those who can have no children of their own.

[Gauthier]

Shouldn't be long before someone seriously calls it a feminist conspiracy to make men obsolete and thus safe to exterminate.

[Mefpan]

Shouldn't be long before someone seriously calls it a feminist conspiracy to make men obsolete and thus safe to exterminate.

I have this feeling that you're several days too late for that suspicion.

[Blitze]

Yay, the population problem continues to get worse

[Gurori]

I've read the actual article.

What they could do is take the dna out of the male's sperm, put it into the cocktail of chemicals that acts as an artificial sperm and then insert it into the embryo.