And the terrorists will use such technology to produce a large army.

Fiction 101

jmoore:
And the terrorists will use such technology to produce a large army.

Fiction 101

Not far fetched

pickabeau1:


Not gay

Normal guys who want to be on their own but have a woman to just give them kids

Okay maybe I didn't state my point clearly, of course there are dudes who would rather not marry but do so just to have kids.

My point is, this development does not cancel out the desire to have sex with women entirely - it only serves the reproductive aspect of having sex, which is why it will serve the gay community best.

A straight guy will continue having sex with countless women because that's what straight guys do - have sex with women, not for reproduction but for the fun of it.
Now if this straight guy is one of those who can't tolerate the suffocation that comes with marriage, he can always sleep with a woman, get her pregnant, and pay her off for her troubles.

I mean why the hell would I want female eggs harvested from my own skin cells when I'm neither gay nor suffering an erectile dysfunction - I would rather have a fine woman carry my baby full term, then pay her off if I can't stand her...and still get the added bonus of actually having some mind-blowing sex to make it happen.

cococandy:
Don't call me weird but I think this is wonderful in its own way.

If it ever comes to fruition

How? why??

cococandy:
it is simple really. Let the men who feel they do not need women have kids their way. Kids that are totally theirs without any contribution of gametes from a woman.
At least we will be spared the touching stories that come out of loveless marriages.
And they don't have to deal with 'unpleasantness' that comes with associating daily with a woman.
They are happy, we are happy, everyone is happy. Win win win
#in my dreams in know.

...how is this a win for the kids? Dream well 0!

TV

crackhaus:

Okay maybe I didn't state my point clearly, of course there are dudes who would rather not marry but do so just to have kids.

My point is, this development does not entirely cancel out the desire to have sex with women entirely - it only serves the reproductive aspect of having sex, which is why it will serve the gay community best.

A straight guy will continue having sex with countless women because that's what straight guys do - have sex with women, not for reproduction but for the fun of it.
Now if this straight guy is one of those who can't tolerate the suffocation that comes with marriage, he can always sleep with a woman, get her pregnant, and pay her off for her troubles.

I mean why the hell would I want female eggs harvested from my own skin cells when I'm neither gay nor suffering an erectile dysfunction - I would rather have a fine woman carry my baby full term, then pay her off if I can't stand her...and still get the added bonus of actually having some mind-blowing sex to make it happen.

Now I get you perfectly

Plus. this is already in effect in a sense - normalising homosexuality and legalising their "having" children, mean that women are used as carriers/surrogates - disposable wombs, with no rights to or responsibility for the child. Effectively making women mere breeders and more worringly, children mere commodities.

Who in their right minds would think that's a good thing?

Hmmm...


TV

cococandy:
of course.

Don't you know there are men who if not for child bearing reasons won't marry at all?
Those kind of men you you will see waiting until the last possible moment to settle down and won't hesitate to terminate the marriage or get another wife if the first one doesn't have kids in quick succession.

Many men marry for that reason alone. Their salvation has come

See my reply to Pickabeau.

However, don't get too excited - that men need women for sex does not mean we should tolerate their excesses and bullshiit.
That's why there are lots of women to choose from...and this number doesn't change too drastically as we age, unlike it does with females.

jmoore:
And the terrorists will use such technology to produce a large army.

Fiction 101

Wow, that actually sounds like a legit sci-fi flick brought to life - using a combination of technology, and the right DNA to build a formidable army from the ground up.

crackhaus:

Okay maybe I didn't state my point clearly, of course there are dudes who would rather not marry but do so just to have kids.

My point is, this development does not entirely cancel out the desire to have sex with women entirely - it only serves the reproductive aspect of having sex, which is why it will serve the gay community best.

A straight guy will continue having sex with countless women because that's what straight guys do - have sex with women, not for reproduction but for the fun of it.
Now if this straight guy is one of those who can't tolerate the suffocation that comes with marriage, he can always sleep with a woman, get her pregnant, and pay her off for her troubles.

I mean why the hell would I want female eggs harvested from my own skin cells when I'm neither gay nor suffering an erectile dysfunction - I would rather have a fine woman carry my baby full term, then pay her off if I can't stand her...and still get the added bonus of actually having some mind-blowing sex to make it happen.

If that's a third-party arrangement you're speaking of, they already exist - they're called "Surrogates". Now if it's a second-party, I believe that particular phenom is popularly referred to as the "BabyMomma/BabyDaddy" relationship.

EnlightenedSoul:


If that's a third-party arrangement you're speaking of, they already exist - they're called "Surrogates". Now if it's a second-party, I believe that particular phenom is popularly referred to as the "BabyMomma/BabyDaddy" relationship.

Right.

I assume you got the point I was passing across though.

cococandy:
it is simple really. Let the men who feel they do not need women have kids their way. Kids that are totally theirs without any contribution of gametes from a woman.

At least we will be spared the touching stories that come out of loveless marriages.
And they don't have to deal with 'unpleasantness' that comes with associating daily with a woman.

They are happy, we are happy, everyone is happy. Win win win

#in my dreams in know.

I am with you on this

crackhaus:

Right.

I assume you got the point I was passing across though.

Yes.

What I meant was, those options already exist. This is yet another option, and it doesn't exempt him from having the aforementioned mind-blowing sex with fine individuals. Not in any way. It only changes the concept of conception w/o involving any sort of 'payoff' scenario(s).

crackhaus:

See my reply to Pickabeau.

However, don't get too excited - that men need women for sex does not mean we should tolerate their excesses and bullshiit. ]

I didn't imply that. Pls Explain how it relates
So I don't get you wrong.

That's why there are lots of women to choose from...and this number doesn't change too drastically as we age, unlike it does with females.

Actually it does. It is only when you have money that you can achieve that. That's not to say the old manhood is not a cause for concern. It is but the lure of money is stronger hence the money can be married while the manhood is managed.

But we are veering off topic sha

TV01:

How? why??


...how is this a win for the kids? Dream well 0!

TV

not an actual win.
Ideally kids should have parents of different sexes yea. I agree.

The lesser of two evils of for them to have parents who don't hate each other at least even if same sex or single parent.

I understand your concern because it turns the wild upside down as we know it not to mention how unethical it is.

EnlightenedSoul:


Yes.

What I meant was, those options already exist. This is yet another option, and it doesn't exempt him from having the aforementioned mind-blowing sex with fine individuals. Not in any way. It only changes the concept of conception w/o involving any sort of 'payoff' scenario(s).

Which is why I said in my very first comment, this option is totally unnecessary for straight men.

No normal straight-as-a-needle dude is going to be bio-manufacturing female eggs from his skin when he's got at least two chics on speed-dial...but then again, who knows what would be considered normal in the future.

cococandy:
not an actual win.
Ideally kids should have parents of different sexes yea. I agree.

Not just opposite sex, but also their exact biological progenitors. And I appreciate some instances deviate from the ideal, but I feel that in our use of technology and in our policy forming we should act aspirationally => towards the ideal

cococandy:

The lesser of two evils of for them to have parents who don't hate each other at least even if same sex or single parent.

I see that as something of a false dichotomy, as if the choices are two hating parents or any other combination. The outcomes for same-sex or single parenting are simply not as good and are a denial of a childs rights. And one thing many do not realise, is that the outcomes are better for the child even if the parents relationship could be characterised as low-conflict.

cococandy:

I understand your concern because it turns the wild upside down as we know it not to mention how unethical it is.

The Gospel was reported to have turned the world upside down - as long as it's real quantifiable progress, I have no problem. I see it as a descent into madness.


TV

crackhaus:

Which is why I said in my very first comment, this option is totally unnecessary for straight men.

No normal straight-as-a-needle dude is going to be bio-manufacturing female eggs from his skin when he's got at least two chics on speed-dial...but then again, who knows what would be considered normal in the future.

Agree with your train of thought. With marriage, sex and children all essentially "divorced", why would this appeal to normal men? Especially those that understand raising children is not beanz, the skills women bring to it, and want the best outcome for their kids.

All it does is further muddle the perception of human sexuality and procreation, and serve to legitimise what many consider to be illegitimate/immoral expressions of it.

TV

TV01:

Agree with your train of thought. With marriage, sex and children all essentially "divorced", why would this appeal to normal men? Especially those that understand raising children is not beanz, the skills women bring to it, and want the best outcome for their kids.

All it does is further muddle the perception of human sexuality and procreation, and serve to legitimise what many consider to be illegitimate/immoral expressions of it.

TV

The free and liberal world at this rate will be a victim of itself sooner than later if things like these are lauded and hailed on as positive scientific breakthroughs.

I mean come on, eggs from male skin cells?

What next!

Seen.

Agreed in principle.

But won't hold a placard to protest against it if that were an option.
Would love to see the results of the success or failure of it though

TV01:

Ideally kids should have parents of different sexes yea. I agree.
Not just opposite sex, but also their exact biological progenitors. And I appreciate some instances deviate from the ideal, but I feeling that in our use of technology and in our policy forming we should act aspirationally => towards the ideal


I see that as something of a false dichotomy, as if the choices are two hating parents or any other combination. The outcomes for same-sex or single parenting are simply not as good and are a denial of a childs rights. And one thing many do not realise, is that the outcomes are better for the child even if the parents relationship could be characterised as low-conflict.


The Gospel was reported to have turn the world upside down - as long as it's real quantifiable progress, I have no problem. I see it as a descent into madness.


TV

cococandy:
I didn't imply that. Pls Explain how it relates
So I don't get you wrong.

Since you didn't imply that, never mind then.

Hey doofus, I see you viewing...

You'll never contribute meaningfully to a thought-provoking topic as this, all you're good for is looking for guys to pick fights with so you can show your expertise in trading caustic words

Too some extent its cool,but still yet men cannot be totally independent, at least its a woman that is still going to breast feed the baby.

crackhaus:

Which is why I said in my very first comment, this option is totally unnecessary for straight men.

No normal straight-as-a-needle dude is going to be bio-manufacturing female eggs from his skin when he's got at least two chics on speed-dial...but then again, who knows what would be considered normal in the future.

It hasn't anything to do with being straight-as-a-needle bc it has nothing to do with his sex-life, or who he has on speed-dial. It smells like the polar opposite of the phenomenon of established women who outrightly prefer to replace the idea of having a two-parent household in favor of anonymous 'prime' insemination, and raising the child alone. The immediately visible 'perks' of either situation are:

1) removing the right/claim to custody, and the often unattractive/vicious fallout battle associated with it ('custodial')
2) eliminating personal payoff and all association (financial)
3) it's always been miles easier to consentingly separate sperm & man vs. mother & baby due to obvious progression reasons, and bonding hormones. Now this age-old 'issue' is completely done off with ('custodial' and financial)

It's still very sci-fiesque to my mind, but intriguing nonetheless. I'm more interested in the genetic science, and it's implications.

I once read a book called Future Shock, this and other concepts of what the future may bring were the subject of the book. It really shouldn't surprise anyone where these technological advances are taking us, they are "logical" conclusions/transitions, however how desirable they are is up for grabs. For me the ability to do it is sufficient, we really don't need to. Normal female enabled birth has been ok for centuries so if ain't broke don't fix it, enhance it maybe.

Cococandy I agree with you. I am so looking forward to the day when this will become reality not just an idea

Aside gay men and infertile couples who wish to have their own "genetic" children rather than using surrogates, this theory is unnecessary... we can keep the moral aspect aside, afterall, equally unpleasant things have been/ would be legalised...

There's no reason why a straight dude who wants kids without any ties with a woman would pick "making babies out of his skin cells" over hiring a surrogate and having good sex, he is afterall, not gay.. You don't need marriage or a wife to become a father... Besides, there's no telling how effective this procedure might be or its effect, be it biological, genetic, emotional or psychological, on the child... I mean, who wants to go through that grueling, creepy and uncertain procedure...

EnlightenedSoul:


It hasn't anything to do with being straight-as-a-needle bc it has nothing to do with his sex-life, or who he has on speed-dial. It smells like the polar opposite of the phenomenon of established women who outrightly prefer to replace the idea of having a two-parent household in favor of anonymous 'prime' insemination, and raising the child alone.

Ahh but you see, you're wrong on two-counts here.

First off: it has everything to do with being straight and subsequently, sex-life, because according to the article, this development basically seeks to eliminate any and all need for women in the God-designed biological process of reproduction.
I maintain that this will serve the gay community best, straight dudes with healthy sex lives don't need it.

Secondly: it cannot smell, scent, or even remotely seem like the polar opposite of women who favour anonymous insemination over two-parent households.

Here's why:
Even in situations with these women, they still need the anonymous sperm from a man to carry out this anonymous artificial insemination.
So until sperm cells start being cultivated from the skin of females, only then will your theory of polar opposites hold loud and true.

This is more a biologically-skewed gender imbalance than it is a polar opposite of anything.

The immediately visible 'perks' of either situation are:

1) removing the right/claim to custody, and the often unattractive/vicious fallout battle associated with it ('custodial')
2) eliminating personal payoff and all association (financial)
3) it's always been miles easier to consentingly separate sperm & man vs. mother & baby due to obvious progression reasons, and bonding hormones. Now this age-old 'issue' is completely done off with ('custodial' and financial)

1) Like all business deals, there's a possibility that it comes around to bite you in the azz if loose ends are left 'loose'.
The right/claim to custody can always be mitigated by signing and dotting a few lines on paper.

2) This will not and has never been a problem to those who can afford it.

3) This particular scientific development which seeks to separate mother & baby is no progression, but an absolute regression - unless of course we're talking about gay couples.

Your three points are not 'perks' - the first two already exist and can have no fallouts if all parties are at an accord (preferably legal, for authenticity of course), while the last is totally unnecessary.

It's still very sci-fiesque to my mind, but intriguing nonetheless. I'm more interested in the genetic science, and it's implications.

Exactly, it's better fit for the camera lenses in front of a Hollywood director's chair...at least for now, and many more years to come.

DeejayTafari:
Do not tamper with what God has already arranged to suit us.

See painment.

abanicool:
nd some clueless pple will believe dis thrash.........white men,one day d anger of D Maker of Heaven nd Earth will surely come on u pple........who are u to challenge God!?

Challenge kor! Challenge ni.
Your God should show face.

jnrbayano:
God doesn't make mistakes.

Up till now science hasn't made robots breathe in and out oxygen, have their own brains and senses etc despite many years of inventing robots.

Op, they can only try in this.

Atleast there's a proof that science really made robots.

Where's the proof that your God created human.

P.S- Your God didn't create me.

Superleo:

Atleast there's a proof that science really made robots.

Where's the proof that your God created human.

P.S- Your God didn't create me.

Nice to know

crackhaus:

Ahh but you see, you're wrong on two-counts here.

First off: it has everything to do with being straight and subsequently, sex-life, because according to the article, this development basically seeks to eliminate any and all need for women in the God-designed biological process of reproduction.
I maintain that this will serve the gay community best, straight dudes with healthy sex lives don't need it.

Your repeat error: You keep trying to tie together two things that've been "divorced" (as another user so aptly put it) from the onset. When your end goal is eliminating the need for women in the process of biological reproduction and that aim is achieved, what your sex-life is like, how straight-as-a-needle you are, and how many women you have on speed-dial is largely IRRELEVANT. The scenario has already successfully separated the sex-life from the reproductive life, so you need to allow it, and stop forcing irrelevant funk into the equation.

And I maintain that it has nothing to do with being gay, or straight. That's just the light you're choosing to shine on the matter.

Secondly: it cannot smell, scent, or even remotely seem like the polar opposite of women who favour anonymous insemination over two-parent households.

Here's why:
Even in situations with these women, they still need the anonymous sperm from a man to carry out this anonymous artificial insemination.
So until sperm cells start being cultivated from the skin of females, only then will your theory of polar opposites hold loud and true

Objection! Genetic impossibility. The comparison was obviously made from a chosen reproductive lifestyle standpoint as opposed to a scientific one. Women, having XX chromosomes, cannot cultivate the Y needed to produce sperm cells! The necessary combination of XY chromosomes are exactly what make this scientific development a possibility for the male population. Genetics 101 - don't you make me Herp Derp again

This is more a biologically-skewed gender imbalance than it is a polar opposite of anything.

Again, chosen lifestyle. Where there's a demand, there's a market. Vice versa.

1) Like all business deals, there's a possibility that it comes around to bite you in the azz if loose ends are left 'loose'.
The right/claim to custody can always be mitigated by signing and dotting a few lines on paper.

The new development would cancel out the need for this option. Instead of reproductively associating with spouses, BabyMommas, surrogates and the like, and/or entering financial or custodial battles/contracts/agreements with them, the only dotted lines that need signing are the ones required to begin the process itself. All that 2nd/3rd/4th party legal/financial runaround is completely done away with. No loose ends to worry about! This spells instant and total freedom & control for the individual.

2) This will not and has never been a problem to those who can afford it.

Cancelled out. Now you don't need to, unless you expressly wish to. More options, and no 2nd/3rd/4th party payouts necessary.

3) This particular scientific development which seeks to separate mother & baby is no progression, but an absolute regression - unless of course we're talking about gay couples

A sentimental opinion piece. Not a logical argument.

Your three points are not 'perks' - the first two already exist and can have no fallouts if all parties are at an accord (preferably legal, for authenticity of course), while the last is totally unnecessary.

They're definitely perks for those who seek out these services, and now there's talk of making it a possibility w/o all the hoops.

Exactly, it's better fit for the camera lenses in front of a Hollywood director's chair...at least for now, and many more years to come.

Debatable.

Allow the typos. Tired.