I came across this in course of my research on testamentary capacity and i thought i should share, with regard to how far science has gone with cloning.

Strittmaters is a militant feminist who regarded men as a class with an insane hatred and, who looked forward to the day when women would bear children without the aid of men and all males would be put to death at birth.

This is a very rich woman who willed all her legacy to a group of scientist to carry out her wish,

APATHIEST, AMANFROMMARS, QSTAR, WEAH96, GENERALSHEPHERD ....etc Madam strittmaters has your name in her Will

Tell me about your Testamentary Capacity..Go on...

Reyginus:
Tell me about your Testamentary Capacity..Go on...

testamentary capacity - adult and normal

you are an atheist,

if we abolish religion and keep science only, and with respect to cloning, madam strittmaters aims and aspiration has been partially fulfilled , women can bear children without the aid of men now.

what's next?

urheme:



testamentary capacity - adult and normal

you are an atheist,

if we abolish religion and keep science only, and with respect to cloning, madam strittmaters aims and aspiration has been partially fulfilled , women can bear children without the aid of men now.

what's next?

It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Or I am not being reasonable myself?

I think thinking like her is a threat to human existence. Or is it thinking like I am doing the threat to human existence?

What do you think?

Reyginus:
It doesn't sound reasonable to me. Or I am not being reasonable myself?

I think thinking like her is a threat to human existence. Or is it thinking like I am doing the threat to human existence?

What do you think?

her thinking is only a threat to men's existence.

But her scientific mind is now a reality, so do you have problem with women bearing children with the aid of science only and not man?

urheme:



her thinking is only a threat to men's existence.

But her scientific mind is now a reality, so do you have problem with women bearing children with the aid of science only and not man?

Before I answer your question I will bring out the meaning of your first sentence. Or you can, with my inefficient methods of revelation, if you can proof them so, show me the meaning.

This is what I mean.
The human race is made up of men and women
An injury to one is an injury to the human race
Therefore, an injury to man is an injury to the human race.
If the above is true, you can show me it is not, then your first sentence is not true.

To your question. Their certainly must be a reason why women would want to do that. If it is for her reason, then I think it is not good, and since it is not good, I don't support it. Or maybe you can help with another reason why women would want to do that.

Reyginus:
Before I answer your question I will bring out the meaning of your first sentence. Or you can, with my inefficient methods of revelation, if you can proof them so, show me the meaning.

This is what I mean.
The human race is made up of men and women
An injury to one is an injury to the human race
Therefore, an injury to man is an injury to the human race.
If the above is true, you can show me it is not, then your first sentence is not true.

To your question. Their certainly must be a reason why women would want to do that. If it is for her reason, then I think it is not good, and since it is not good, I don't support it. Or maybe you can help with another reason why women would want to do that.

let me take you this way,

there is a religious belief that God created man, this contradicts scientific findings which says man evolve, also the atheist views which says "God" does not exist.

now if a person can be clone with the help of science, and a woman can have a baby without any contribution from their male counterpart then man is automatically useless to a woman,

atheist who said there is no use for God, so like wise this militant feminist is assuming women don't need men if they can bear children without men, so kill all male.

as it stands, of what good is a man to a woman?

The woman is angry, what can I say. Probably read too many books.

I read a huge book as a child, the Plague, I believe it was called, at least 1200 pages.

A mad Irish scientist created a virus or something which killed every female in Britain. I don't believe he was ever apprehended.

Maybe she read the same book.

Weah96:
The woman is angry, what can I say. Probably read too many books.

I read a huge book as a child, the Plague, I believe it was called, at least 1200 pages.

A mad Irish scientist created a virus or something which killed every female in Britain. I don't believe he was ever apprehended.

Maybe she read the same book.

The woman is not angry, she is just crazy about science and use all her wealth and passion to surport cloning which is now a reality,

Will you still call her mad?

My point, if you claim we don't need God, then women can as well claim they don't need men,
She is saying eliminate them, why not

urheme:


let me take you this way,

there is a religious belief that God created man, this contradicts scientific findings which says man evolve, also the atheist views which says "God" does not exist.

now if a person can be clone with the help of science, and a woman can have a baby without any contribution from their male counterpart then man is automatically useless to a woman,

atheist who said there is no use for God, so like wise this militant feminist is assuming women don't need men if they can bear children without men, so kill all male.

as it stands, of what good is a man to a woman?

Yes, it would seem so. But it is not so because man's contribution to the sustenance of human existence does not lie only in procreation.

Man covers the emotional needs of the woman.

Reyginus:
Yes, it would seem so. But it is not so because man's contribution to the sustenance of human existence does not lie only in procreation.

Man covers the emotional needs of the woman.

Am glad to inform you that science have replaced that area covered by man with BOB (battery operated boyfriend) and other emotional toys which is even more conveinent for woman and besides, haven't you heard that women are marrying and raising kids with their own kind.

Don't need God, don,t need man too,

Back to the question: of what good is man to a woman

urheme:



Am glad to inform you that science have replaced that area covered by man with BOB (battery operated boyfriend) and other emotional toys which is even more conveinent for woman and besides, haven't you heard that women are marrying and raising kids with their own kind.

Don't need God, don,t need man too,

Back to the question: of what good is man to a woman

Actually, you didn't really follow my answer with your explanations.

We are talking about a new method of delivery here where no man is involved. From all you indicated Strittmatters did not tackle the problem of the feminine emotions. As a militant feminist, she, as briefed by you, was only concerned about creating a model which will enable women to give birth without men.

And both of us are discussing about the implications. Note that we are not on our own, or rather, you are not propounding a strategy for the elimination of men in the life of women but you are analysing solely the outcome of her proposal.

This makes your BOB non feasible here. For it to be part of the argument it must be inculcated in Strittmatter's proposal. Is it? If yes, when didn't you say earlier? If no, do you want me to venture into other matters she didn't mention and thus take them as your own defense of the case?

urheme:



Am glad to inform you that science have replaced that area covered by man with BOB (battery operated boyfriend) and other emotional toys which is even more conveinent for woman and besides, haven't you heard that women are marrying and raising kids with their own kind.

Don't need God, don,t need man too,

Back to the question: of what good is man to a woman

Actually, you didn't really follow my answer with your explanations.

We are talking about a new method of delivery here where no man is involved. From all you indicated Strittmatters did not tackle the problem of the feminine emotions. As a militant feminist, she, as briefed by you, was only concerned about creating a model which will enable women to give birth without men.

And both of us are discussing about the implications. Note that we are not on our own, or rather, you are not propounding a strategy for the elimination of men in the life of women but you are analysing solely the outcome of her proposal.

This makes your BOB non feasible here. For it to be part of the argument it must be inculcated in Strittmatter's proposal. Is it? If yes, when didn't you say earlier? If no, do you want me to venture into other matters she didn't mention and thus take them as your own defense of the case? Only, then can I answer you differently.

Reyginus:
Actually, you didn't really follow my answer with your explanations.

We are talking about a new method of delivery here where no man is involved. From all you indicated Strittmatters did not tackle the problem of the feminine emotions. As a militant feminist, she, as briefed by you, was only concerned about creating a model which will enable women to give birth without men.

And both of us are discussing about the implications. Note that we are not on our own, or rather, you are not propounding a strategy for the elimination of men in the life of women but you are analysing solely the outcome of her proposal.

This makes your BOB non feasible here. For it to be part of the argument it must be inculcated in Strittmatter's proposal. Is it? If yes, when didn't you say earlier? If no, do you want me to venture into other matters she didn't mention and thus take them as your own defense of the case? Only, then can I answer you differently.

She said all male be put to death at birth, becaue they are useless i surpose, she want to creat a generation without male.

urheme:


She said all male be put to death at birth, becaue they are useless i surpose, she want to creat a generation without male.

Then how does she manage to deal with their need in the life of every woman? It doesn't end in childbirth.

Reyginus:
Then how does she manage to deal with their need in the life of every woman? It doesn't end in childbirth.

Good question,

Science,

The same science that atheist have used to replace God will deffinately replace man,

Infact, man is even a problem to a woman as far as science is concern, they occupy space, he only has a role in religion mythology.

So if we remove religion and leave only science, of what good then is man to a woman

Those proud atheist have cowardly refused to venture into this thread, am waiting for the female ones tho.

urheme:


Good question,

Science,

The same science that atheist have used to replace God will deffinately replace man,

Infact, man is even a problem to a woman as far as science is concern, they occupy space, he only has a role in religion mythology.

So if we remove religion and leave only science, of what good then is man to a woman

Those proud atheist have cowardly refused to venture into this thread, am waiting for the female ones tho.

Honestly, I think she is both a sadist and a confused humanist hiding under the menace of men to project her ill-founded and evil agenda. She is not different from the very thing she tried to eliminate.

Man is not good to a woman because of religion. Emotions existed before religion. Killing religion you have not killed emotion.

Reyginus:
Honestly, I think she is both a sadist and a confused humanist hiding under the menace of men to project her ill-founded and evil agenda. She is not different from the very thing she tried to eliminate.

Man is not good to a woman because of religion. Emotions existed before religion. Killing religion you have not killed emotion.

"Man is not good to a woman because of religion"
How?
Pls explain

urheme:


"Man is not good to a woman because of religion"
How?
Pls explain

The love that a man has for his wife is not motivated by passages in scriptures. Her a)ss and tits maybe, but not scriptures.

Weah96:


The love that a man has for his wife is not motivated by passages in scriptures. Her a)ss and tits maybe, but not scriptures.

You can say that to pastor oyedepo,

You have just use religion to surport science yet again that man is really useless to a woman, then of what good is man to a woman

What did i just read?

Ranchhoddas:
What did i just read?

Am i to provide an answer to your question

urheme:


"Man is not good to a woman because of religion"
How?
Pls explain

My meaning is, emotions preexist religion. Before religion came to be emotions have been in existence.

The point then is, women will not be free or better emotionally by ending religion.

Reyginus:
My meaning is, emotions preexist religion. Before religion came to be emotions have been in existence.

The point then is, women will not be free or better emotionally by ending religion.

Which religion is that?
In the beginning was the world, where was emotions?

urheme:


Which religion is that?
In the beginning was the world, where was emotions?

Are you still following this thread at all?

I could remember somebody suggesting an end to Religion as the way to end male dependency and achieve Mrs Strittmatters vision. To which I pointed out that the role of men in the life of women stretched to emotional support.

And to your question, people felt sad, happy, troubled, etc., before they invented religion.

Reyginus:
Are you still following this thread at all?

I could remember somebody suggesting an end to Religion as the way to end male dependency and achieve Mrs Strittmatters vision. To which I pointed out that the role of men in the life of women stretched to emotional support.

And to your question, people felt sad, happy, troubled, etc., before they invented religion.

Now we have religion and there is still sadness and trouble.
science has done more good to humanity than religion

I am saying science has provided solution to the emotional and procreational need of woman and as such don't need men, that man is only usefull to a woman within the ambit of religion,

that if we remove religion and keep science alone, then man is not important to a woman

What don't you not understand?

urheme:


Now we have religion and there is still sadness and trouble.
science has done more good to humanity than religion

I am saying science has provided solution to the emotional and procreational need of woman and as such don't need men, that man is only usefull to a woman within the ambit of religion,

that if we remove religion and keep science alone, then man is not important to a woman

What don't you not understand?

Science has not provided the solution to the emotional need of women nor men. That technology is yet to surface.

Any attempt to cease the population of any of the two sexes without the aim of propagating the existence of better humas is immoral. There are so many things wrong with her vision.

urheme:


Now we have religion and there is still sadness and trouble.
science has done more good to humanity than religion

I am saying science has provided solution to the emotional and procreational need of woman and as such don't need men, that man is only usefull to a woman within the ambit of religion,

that if we remove religion and keep science alone, then man is not important to a woman

What don't you not understand?

@ bold: First religion birthed science. To deny this is to deny the historical fact that writing and even the first sciences were started within a religious framework. Two, science (more crucially scientific materialism) has brought its ills as well, death due to technological mishaps, a cheaper regard for life (at birth), and the undervaluing of familial ties given the rise of urban centres due to industrialization are the main ills of the enterprise not to mention the fact that in the final end science has done little or nothing to save man from the age-old vices of laziness, greed and lust but in many cases worsened them.

Reyginus:
Science has not provided the solution to the emotional need of women nor men. That technology is yet to surface.

Any attempt to cease the population of any of the two sexes without the aim of propagating the existence of better humas is immoral. There are so many things wrong with her vision.

Technology for emotional need of women is readily available and it is cheap, i mean for 7000, you can buy a durable one or more and they don't complain.

You are talking about immorality when same sex marriages is been legalised everywhere.

Her vision is now a reality
Shakau is busy raising female killers that will kill men like him very soon,

urheme:


Technology for emotional need of women is readily available and it is cheap, i mean for 7000, you can buy a durable one or more and they don't complain.

You are talking about immorality when same sex marriages is been legalised everywhere.

Her vision is now a reality
Shakau is busy raising female killers that will kill men like him very soon,

The beauty of technology in the wrong hands. Confusing the mind with delusions of grandeur.

You post is very contradictory,

You said religion birthed science.

You went further and condermed science.

Religion gave birth to something that is bad to man,

So religion is itself bad, your conclusion

UyiIredia:


@ bold: First religion birthed science.


science has done little or nothing to save man from the age-old vices of laziness, greed and lust but in many cases worsened them.

My question to you is: now that the world women have embraced science which have provided solution for emotional and procreational need of women, they now fall inlove with robert and toys, of what good is a man to a woman?

Reyginus:
The beauty of technology in the wrong hands. Confusing the mind with delusions of grandeur.

You don dey blow grammer