Poll: For Men's Liberation do they need to have access to having their own children without a woman

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

For Men's Liberation do men need to have access to having their own children and family without a woman as vice versa?

I don't even know if this is something any substantial portion men want so I'm asking.

EDIT: Sorry this is so brief. I had a poll with 7 options. It is gone.

Umm...men's liberation? Are we enslaved?

Although the idea of a man adopting a child by himself is an interesting idea. I see no reason why he can't or why society would think its wrong/weird.

Silentpony:
Umm...men's liberation? Are we enslaved?

Although the idea of a man adopting a child by himself is an interesting idea. I see no reason why he can't or why society would think its wrong/weird.

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose. But I do not know that any sizable number of men care about this issue.

Gorfias:

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose.

That is kind of a bizarre way to frame that. Like, since my car needs gasoline to run, does that mean that I have not been "liberated" from gasoline?

Lol, yea taking the "mother" out of the picture will help make things easier for men.. Mhmmm.. Does anyone actually believe any of this nonsense? Single mothers just have it so easy right?

BreakfastMan:

Gorfias:

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose.

That is kind of a bizarre way to frame that. Like, since my car needs gasoline to run, does that mean that I have not been "liberated" from gasoline?

Actually yes. #DownWithGas

Gorfias:

Silentpony:
Umm...men's liberation? Are we enslaved?

Although the idea of a man adopting a child by himself is an interesting idea. I see no reason why he can't or why society would think its wrong/weird.

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose. But I do not know that any sizable number of men care about this issue.

Well duh. Humans are a sexually reproductive species. Men need women to carry a baby, just as women need a man's sperm to impregnate with.
If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true. However there are surrogate mothers who will carry a child to birth, basically for rent for lack of a better term.
Alternatively adoption is available.

But if you're wondering if one day we will have artificially eggs, and a womb and a man can have a child without a woman, I doubt it. DNA will still be required from a woman to complete the DNA makeup of the child.

Silentpony:

Gorfias:

Silentpony:
Umm...men's liberation? Are we enslaved?

Although the idea of a man adopting a child by himself is an interesting idea. I see no reason why he can't or why society would think its wrong/weird.

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose. But I do not know that any sizable number of men care about this issue.

Well duh. Humans are a sexually reproductive species. Men need women to carry a baby, just as women need a man's sperm to impregnate with.
If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true. However there are surrogate mothers who will carry a child to birth, basically for rent for lack of a better term.
Alternatively adoption is available.

But if you're wondering if one day we will have artificially eggs, and a womb and a man can have a child without a woman, I doubt it. DNA will still be required from a woman to complete the DNA makeup of the child.

Not only that, you could be risking the child's health due to not receiving the mothers antibodies from breastfeeding. The reason why all Pediatricians recommend breast feeding is due to how much it increases the child's chance for survival. This is also why many women who are not able to breastfeed their own child hire a "wet nurse" to give their child the best chance of survival possible. Bottle feeding alone cannot match the health benefits that the child receives from breastfeeding. Endangering a child's health simply because they do not want women around is not a valid reason to actively seek to intentionally inflict this on a child who cannot consent.

http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2093315

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/breastfeeding/Pages/Breastfeeding-Benefits-Your-Babys-Immune-System.aspx

crimson5pheonix:

BreakfastMan:

Gorfias:

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose.

That is kind of a bizarre way to frame that. Like, since my car needs gasoline to run, does that mean that I have not been "liberated" from gasoline?

Actually yes. #DownWithGas

I mean sure, I can't deny that I would like to never have to pay for gas again. XD

Silentpony:

Gorfias:

Silentpony:
Umm...men's liberation? Are we enslaved?

Although the idea of a man adopting a child by himself is an interesting idea. I see no reason why he can't or why society would think its wrong/weird.

At this time, men need women to have our children. We are not liberated from them for this purpose. But I do not know that any sizable number of men care about this issue.

Well duh. Humans are a sexually reproductive species. Men need women to carry a baby, just as women need a man's sperm to impregnate with.
If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true. However there are surrogate mothers who will carry a child to birth, basically for rent for lack of a better term.
Alternatively adoption is available.

But if you're wondering if one day we will have artificially eggs, and a womb and a man can have a child without a woman, I doubt it. DNA will still be required from a woman to complete the DNA makeup of the child.

Cloning pretty much creates a child from just one person so a second one isn't needed. Although mixing DNA from two or more is the better idea due to the need for genetic diversity to prevent issues that come from such. Artificial wombs will also happen at one point in the future. So sooner or later it'll be doable to go at it alone. Is it a good idea? I don't know.

Silentpony:
But if you're wondering if one day we will have artificially eggs, and a womb and a man can have a child without a woman, I doubt it. DNA will still be required from a woman to complete the DNA makeup of the child.

Actually maybe not.
Although it is highly fledgling science and I haven't heard much about it ever since it was first reported on, if this turns out to be a major breakthrough it'd be pretty big news for same-sex couples. This does mean that a man will still need a 2nd person to contribute material to create the egg/sperm, so no single-donor babies, but at the very least same-sex couples can have biological children where both of them are genetic contributors.

That aside, I don't really get why OP is going on about "male liberation", we've always needed women to reproduce. This isn't some "oppression" or "enslavement", it's just biology, and until science has advanced far enough to overcome biology, that's how it's going to be. Unless you want to throw a bunch of guys on an island and wait for some to start changing to have female reproductive systems a la Jurassic Park and wait for life to "find a way".

Define "Liberation", in context.

Yes, it is true that men require women if they want to have children, and if adoption isn't an issue for some reason. Not seeing the issue though.

Thaluikhain:
Define "Liberation", in context.

Yes, it is true that men require women if they want to have children, and if adoption isn't an issue for some reason. Not seeing the issue though.

Well, equality is the buzzword today isn't it? Women can have babies without men so logically men should not need women.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Thaluikhain:
Define "Liberation", in context.

Yes, it is true that men require women if they want to have children, and if adoption isn't an issue for some reason. Not seeing the issue though.

Well, equality is the buzzword today isn't it? Women can have babies without men so logically men should not need women.

Women can have babies without men? No one told me emaculate conception was back in style.

erttheking:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Thaluikhain:
Define "Liberation", in context.

Yes, it is true that men require women if they want to have children, and if adoption isn't an issue for some reason. Not seeing the issue though.

Well, equality is the buzzword today isn't it? Women can have babies without men so logically men should not need women.

Women can have babies without men? No one told me emaculate conception was back in style.

A jar of sperm is not a man.

Blood Brain Barrier:

erttheking:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Well, equality is the buzzword today isn't it? Women can have babies without men so logically men should not need women.

Women can have babies without men? No one told me emaculate conception was back in style.

A jar of sperm is not a man.

I didn't realize sperm just spontaneously generated and women just had to scrape some off. Clearly they don't need men. *rolls eyes*

erttheking:

Blood Brain Barrier:

erttheking:

Women can have babies without men? No one told me emaculate conception was back in style.

A jar of sperm is not a man.

I didn?t realize sperm just spontaneously generated and women just had to scrape some off. Clearly they don?t need men. *rolls eyes*

how about " scraping" some bone marrow? XD

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409471/female-sperm/

Silentpony:

If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true.

They still need a man: scientists don't synthesise sperm from raw chemicals. It's just the man has become a resource in an industrial process than a partner.

Gorfias:
For Men's Liberation do men need to have access to having their own children and family without a woman as vice versa?

It's not legally watertight, but they could do so.

A man could find a willing woman, pay her to have his baby, and then sign it over to him. There are surely going to be women prepared to do this; the problem is if they reconsider and want to keep it.

Lil devils x:
how about " scraping" some bone marrow? XD

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409471/female-sperm/

In the future, maybe. Cloning is possible, but has problems; a lot of clones seem to have dysfunctional development, health problems, shortened lives, etc. But if we start going there, we'll probably also end up developing an artificial uterus, so you can literally grow a foetus in a tank and remove mummy and daddy from anything but cell donation.

Agema:

Silentpony:

If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true.

They still need a man: scientists don't synthesise sperm from raw chemicals. It's just the man has become a resource in an industrial process than a partner.

Gorfias:
For Men's Liberation do men need to have access to having their own children and family without a woman as vice versa?

It's not legally watertight, but they could do so.

A man could find a willing woman, pay her to have his baby, and then sign it over to him. There are surely going to be women prepared to do this; the problem is if they reconsider and want to keep it.

Lil devils x:
how about " scraping" some bone marrow? XD

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409471/female-sperm/

In the future, maybe. Cloning is possible, but has problems; a lot of clones seem to have dysfunctional development, health problems, shortened lives, etc. But if we start going there, we'll probably also end up developing an artificial uterus, so you can literally grow a foetus in a tank and remove mummy and daddy from anything but cell donation.

I should have written that it needs to be about as easy for a man to have his own children, not adopted, without a woman as it is for a woman to have her own children and family without a man for the sexes to be equal on this front. Women need sperm which can be acquired very easily. With technology, it would be helpful to have a blend of DNA. In the future, I could see science taking a skin scrape from a woman and accomplish that (and change a skin cell into an ovum.) I heard about a rich man (South Korean I think) having 13 women surrogate for him so now he has 13 of his own kids without a wife. But that isn't easy. It isn't a solution for the vast majority of men.
My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

Gorfias:

Agema:

Silentpony:

If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true.

They still need a man: scientists don't synthesise sperm from raw chemicals. It's just the man has become a resource in an industrial process than a partner.

Gorfias:
For Men's Liberation do men need to have access to having their own children and family without a woman as vice versa?

It's not legally watertight, but they could do so.

A man could find a willing woman, pay her to have his baby, and then sign it over to him. There are surely going to be women prepared to do this; the problem is if they reconsider and want to keep it.

Lil devils x:
how about " scraping" some bone marrow? XD

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409471/female-sperm/

In the future, maybe. Cloning is possible, but has problems; a lot of clones seem to have dysfunctional development, health problems, shortened lives, etc. But if we start going there, we'll probably also end up developing an artificial uterus, so you can literally grow a foetus in a tank and remove mummy and daddy from anything but cell donation.

I should have written that it needs to be about as easy for a man to have his own children, not adopted, without a woman as it is for a woman to have her own children and family without a man for the sexes to be equal on this front. Women need sperm which can be acquired very easily. With technology, it would be helpful to have a blend of DNA. In the future, I could see science taking a skin scrape from a woman and accomplish that (and change a skin cell into an ovum.) I heard about a rich man (South Korean I think) having 13 women surrogate for him so now he has 13 of his own kids without a wife. But that isn't easy. It isn't a solution for the vast majority of men.
My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

My understanding of Andrea Dworkin is that she was an extremist, and not representative of feminism in general. I think that as long as socially men and women are treated as equals, then we can all be happy- so in this context, single parents of either sex can (or should be able to) adopt, women can raise kids without fathers, etc. And as for the biological differences between the sexes getting somehow 'balanced out' through technology, I have no opinion on that.

Gorfias:

My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want?

I wouldn't have thought so. I wouldn't have thought a particularly large number of women want to be able to have children without men either. Naturally there will be some people for whom that's suitable (e.g. same-sex couples), but I doubt the numbers are significant.

That said, I don't see this as an equality issue. To keep within the physical-differences line of thought, are there a lot of women out there who are insisting that science come up with a way to make them as physically strong as a male counterpart? Certainly, there are women who don't want people to assume they're much weaker than men (and certainly there are women much stronger than me!), but I've not heard many women insisting on someone finding a way to make that work, only to accept that they can be strong enough for whatever the task at hand is. In much the same way men don't want people to assume they're a crap parent, I suppose.

I'm waffling somewhat and need to go do some work now - hope that's all clear, but pretty sure it isn't.

Baffle2:
To keep within the physical-differences line of thought, are there a lot of women out there who are insisting that science come up with a way to make them as physically strong as a male counterpart?

It already has, to an extent. Modern technology has made physical strength irrelevant in modern life to the point where the male strength is obsolete in domestic and employment spheres.

Gorfias:
My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

Firstly, anytime something is credited to Dworkin, it's important to find the original quote, and check if she said it. More so than most people, she was the go-to feminist when you want to make something up to discredit them. Also, she was a radfem, not mainstream.

Secondly, the idea isn't all that far-fetched. People like mass slaughter for any old reason, there's a few genocides going on right now, give the world the technology to do this, and it'd be little surprise if some nation somewhere did that. Why is mass murder based on gender more absurd than based on religion or ethnicity or being disabled?

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want?

I wouldn't have thought so. I wouldn't have thought a particularly large number of women want to be able to have children without men either. Naturally there will be some people for whom that's suitable (e.g. same-sex couples), but I doubt the numbers are significant.

That said, I don't see this as an equality issue. To keep within the physical-differences line of thought, are there a lot of women out there who are insisting that science come up with a way to make them as physically strong as a male counterpart? Certainly, there are women who don't want people to assume they're much weaker than men (and certainly there are women much stronger than me!), but I've not heard many women insisting on someone finding a way to make that work, only to accept that they can be strong enough for whatever the task at hand is. In much the same way men don't want people to assume they're a crap parent, I suppose.

I'm waffling somewhat and need to go do some work now - hope that's all clear, but pretty sure it isn't.

A lot of good thoughts for fodder.
I do wonder how many women really want a family without a man. It is a central tenant of Feminism (A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle) that they want to NOT NEED a man. Women are having their own kids and raising them with no dad in the house. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-192.html . I'm thinking that for men to not need women, they have to be able to do the same. Or not. Even the vast majority of MGTOW may not actually want kids.

Blood Brain Barrier:

It already has, to an extent. Modern technology has made physical strength irrelevant in modern life to the point where the male strength is obsolete in domestic and employment spheres.

There are plenty of jobs where strength still matters. But technology has made it obsolete in many. Would you agree that gendered differences in strength are merely social constructs? Change society, we change the strength differences (over time).

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
My question is, would this even be something any reasonably large number of men would want? Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

Firstly, anytime something is credited to Dworkin, it's important to find the original quote, and check if she said it. More so than most people, she was the go-to feminist when you want to make something up to discredit them. Also, she was a radfem, not mainstream.

Secondly, the idea isn't all that far-fetched. People like mass slaughter for any old reason, there's a few genocides going on right now, give the world the technology to do this, and it'd be little surprise if some nation somewhere did that. Why is mass murder based on gender more absurd than based on religion or ethnicity or being disabled?

Should that quote only be necessary if there's any real doubt it was ever said? Otherwise a conversation thread is going to look like a research paper.EDIT: She did say, "'m a radical feminist, not the fun kind. " so, you got me there.

As to why gender based gendercyde is absurd: I just can't see men wanting to bother. And straight men, even if cloned, adore women, even if they often find it difficult to get along with them.

Gorfias:
As to why gender based gendercyde is absurd: I just can't see men wanting to bother.

I don't see why killing people over religion or race happens either, but it does.

Gorfias:
And straight men, even if cloned, adore women, even if they often find it difficult to get along with them.

Yeah, no, statistical on rapes and murders and political suppression would indicate otherwise. Hell, even in common or garden genocides, it's usually men doing it, and statistically most of them would be straight. Plenty of female victims, though.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
As to why gender based gendercyde is absurd: I just can't see men wanting to bother.

I don't see why killing people over religion or race happens either, but it does.

Gorfias:
And straight men, even if cloned, adore women, even if they often find it difficult to get along with them.

Yeah, no, statistical on rapes and murders and political suppression would indicate otherwise. Hell, even in common or garden genocides, it's usually men doing it, and statistically most of them would be straight. Plenty of female victims, though.

Race and religion, like gender, can engender competition resulting in war and conflict. I think men adore women in a way that, for instance, a Lutheran may not adore a Jew. But you have a point: only a small percent of Germans wanted to commit genocide against Jews. But they were powerful in the right places. Dunno if that could translate to gender. I really wouldn't think so.

Blood Brain Barrier:
It already has, to an extent. Modern technology has made physical strength irrelevant in modern life to the point where the male strength is obsolete in domestic and employment spheres.

I still have to open some of the jars, and take the lid off the coke bottle if I was the one that put it on. There's hope for us as a gender!

Gorfias:
Andrea Dworkin once posited something I think ridiculous: that if men could do this, particularly through science, they would round up women and commit gendercyde. Are there really women in any substantial number that believe this?

I'm not going to rule out that Dworkin ever said something like that, but it certainly doesn't sound like her, and it contradicts with the vast majority of work she did and statements she made over her life.

Dworkin, for all her problems, understood very well that misogyny is not comparable to anti-semitism. Heterosexual men do not want to exterminate women and Nazis did not want to fuck Jews (although plenty did anyway, of course). Instead, heterosexual men's hatred of women manifests in the desire to control women, in particular to control their sexuality and reproductive ability, and to deny them independent existence outside of the functions they perform for men. Men kill women, overwhelmingly, to assert this control. They kill partners who try to leave them, or who they suspect of cheating. They kill women they desire to "punish" them for not acceding to this desire. They kill women who anger them or don't show them the respect they feel they deserve as men.

There are women out there who genuinely do hate men. What defines these women, overwhelmingly, is that they want nothing to do with men, they seek to rid their lives of men to the greatest extent possible. Men who hate women (including those who consider themselves separatists like MGTOW) coversely, tend to express this hatred as an obsession with gaining control or power over women (again, particularly over women's sexual functioning) without having to give anything in return.

That is why the concept of "men's liberation" never meant liberation from women. Short of some nonsensical Fight Club shit, you can't "liberate" people from their own property. The original men's liberation movement in the 60s was about liberating (heterosexual) men from prescriptive and self-abusive codes of "masculine" behaviour which hurt their relationships with women by relegating women to the status of property, and thus ultimately hurt men themselves. It was born out of the overwhelming realisation that men are happiest when they are able to have mutually caring and emotionally honest relationships with women. Being able to rape their wives with impunity never made men "liberated" or happy. Power over someone else is not liberation.

I look forward to the day when scientific control over the human body allows people of any gender or none to have full reproductive control and to be able to choose to have children on their own terms. However, of the numerous benefits of such an advancement, allowing misanthropic males to raise "redpilled" kids strikes me as overwhelmingly the least important or desirable effect. Compared to the possibility of liberating half of the species from the immense labour burden of repopulating it each generation and of unravelling the deepest origins of patriarchal society itself, it strikes me as a fairly trivial "freedom".

Blood Brain Barrier:

A jar of sperm is not a man.

Neither is a woman a walking womb and ovum.

What's your point?

evilthecat:

I look forward to the day when scientific control over the human body allows people of any gender or none to have full reproductive control and to be able to choose to have children on their own terms. However, of the numerous benefits of such an advancement, allowing misanthropic males to raise "redpilled" kids strikes me as overwhelmingly the least important or desirable effect. Compared to the possibility of liberating half of the species from the immense labour burden of repopulating it each generation and of unravelling the deepest origins of patriarchal society itself, it strikes me as a fairly trivial "freedom".

Not me. Frankly it would be disastrous and inethical to allow wholesale genetic manipulation of the unborn. Not only are you inviting a whole host of bioethical problems yhat may emerge (such as future planning and problems for public health) ... but also stealing peopld away from actuslly owning themselves completely.

If you want children, adopt, get a surrogate, or start a conventional family... don't play with human genetics to thr point your children become extensions only of whst people consider fashionable in the most debased sense of consumerism.

Humans do not exist solely for the actions of their parentage, they exist as a neoteny of their own construction and inherit on its own the future of things to come.

They can't do that when we extend concepts of 'liberty' to the products of our loins. In the same way we extract children from abusive homes, no one owns their children like property ... and a child shouldn't (have to) suffer the perpetual shadow of their parents. Parents are guardians, not dictators... and they no more own the bodies of their children anymore than they do their children's reasonable expectations to their liberty.

I remember doing Parent-Teacher Interviews... the number of good parents to bad ones is enough alone to lose faith in a world where parents can have even greater presence into the lives of their kids in so intimate a way as 'liberating' parents from traditional ideas of conception. Because adults, and the majority of parents, are already fucked in the head... to put it curtly.

I spent 4 hours of my life putting together a study guide for one student to help them catch up in my class.

You know what they told me? Why can't I just tutor them. Parents are already awful as a generalization.

I've had parents lie to school admin, to track down my personal details just so they could bombard my home phone, and harass me on weekends fot assistance. Pretending as if it was part og my duty of care to work unpaid because they don't want to sit down with their kid and follow what resources I've prepared for them.

There is quite literally not enough hours in a life to do for every student what I had done for ghem already, and they expected more.

I've had a parent accost me in a parking lot to the point ehere the school needed to notify police.

I've had a parent fully expect me to teach their kids classroom etiquette rather than senf them to a disciplinarian when they attacked another student of mine with a chair. They then blamed me for getting struck with said chair trying to restrain them from hitting one of my other pupils.

Bible bashers, narcissistic, illiterate, chronically unemployed, abusive, and egotistical... any one of those in a parent is already bad enough for a child.

But the latent narcissism of said fututistic technological state involved that should see a person utterly divorce themselves from any mollifying hesitation to procreate without active socialization and interpersonal discourse terrifies me to the core. Adding on to the naturally large degree of genetic manipulation that would need to be made allowable, the utter waste of resources to allow it, and the shadow it casts over the offspring of such ontop of that is dangerous.

Science requires ethics, otherwise it's merely a tool of tyranny and control.

In the same way, responsibility is the flipside of liberty. If you want thr freedom to run an enterprise, you accept the responsibility of providing services in good faith returned on honest trade regardless of who the customer is. LGBTQ, Asian, Black, everyone's dollar is still a dollar and everyone deserves access to honest trade.

If you can't live up to that responsibility, start a church.

In the same way, if you decide to become s parent... it is no longer a liberty on so far a self-elected responsibility with punitive aspects of you fail to meet them. Responsibility is the necessary cost of liberty. Having children is very much the former rather than the latter.

Far too many fuckwit parents pretending their kids are a liberty. Refusing to get them treated by doctors... refusing to prepare them for the world ....

You know what's fucked up? Swimming.

You know how many kids in my homeroom didn't even know how to swim to save their lives by secondary school?

About 40%...

The most basic of survival skills. Parents can't even be trusted with that. You ever wonder why schools spend a shitload on P.E.? That. Because parents can't even be trusted to teach their kids how to physically interact with the world. I used to think P.E. was a pointless expenditure of government money prior my prac year getting my masters... it took me a month to become an advocate of PDHPE in schools.

When it gets to the point where 40% of children's parents think it's A-OK their children might drown if they ever fall into deep water... why exactly should we make it easier to treat children as a liberty rather than a responsibility?

Thaluikhain:
Yeah, no, statistical on rapes and murders and political suppression would indicate otherwise. Hell, even in common or garden genocides, it's usually men doing it, and statistically most of them would be straight. Plenty of female victims, though.

If you bring that up thrn you should also admit that the majority of victoms in genocides tend also to be male. Just as if it is easier for men to kill other men then to kill women.

evilthecat:
I look forward to the day when scientific control over the human body allows people of any gender or none to have full reproductive control and to be able to choose to have children on their own terms. However, of the numerous benefits of such an advancement, allowing misanthropic males to raise "redpilled" kids strikes me as overwhelmingly the least important or desirable effect. Compared to the possibility of liberating half of the species from the immense labour burden of repopulating it each generation and of unravelling the deepest origins of patriarchal society itself, it strikes me as a fairly trivial "freedom".

Still, i think overall it would be a good thing for men who can't find a partner but still want children to be able to have them otherwise instead of having to continue to pursue sex when they don't really care for the prospective partner or the activity.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Not me. Frankly it would be disastrous and inethical to allow wholesale genetic manipulation of the unborn. Not only are you inviting a whole host of bioethical problems yhat may emerge (such as future planning and problems for public health) ... but also stealing peopld away from actuslly owning themselves completely.

If you want children, adopt, get a surrogate, or start a conventional family... don't play with human genetics to thr point your children become extensions only of whst people consider fashionable in the most debased sense of consumerism.

That will come anyway and i look a bit forward to it. Progress stalled a bit after cloning proved to be more difficult than expected but because children are that important people won't stop trying to improve their chances even before birth if the opportunity arises.

The only downside is that the kind of genetic manipulation that will fisrt become available is stuff that already exists in other humans and of which we know the results. Aside from removing hereditary deseases that will mean the availability to modify stuff associated with race. And that will lead to problems.

Y'all know that adoption's a thing, right?

Just, like, take a kid. Might have to fight the government if you want to do it alone with with another dude, but still easier than artificial wombs and cloning.

Cripes.

Agema:

Silentpony:

If you're arguing that a woman can become pregnant through a clinic without the need of a Male to sexually reproduce with, that's true.

They still need a man: scientists don't synthesise sperm from raw chemicals. It's just the man has become a resource in an industrial process than a partner.

Gorfias:
For Men's Liberation do men need to have access to having their own children and family without a woman as vice versa?

It's not legally watertight, but they could do so.

A man could find a willing woman, pay her to have his baby, and then sign it over to him. There are surely going to be women prepared to do this; the problem is if they reconsider and want to keep it.

Lil devils x:
how about " scraping" some bone marrow? XD

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409471/female-sperm/

In the future, maybe. Cloning is possible, but has problems; a lot of clones seem to have dysfunctional development, health problems, shortened lives, etc. But if we start going there, we'll probably also end up developing an artificial uterus, so you can literally grow a foetus in a tank and remove mummy and daddy from anything but cell donation.

The big issue with this of course is the transfer of immunity to the foetus from the mother. It is not just nutrients that the child receives from the mother, the mothers immune system keeps the child alive and increases the child's chances of survival outside the womb. The mothers transfer is not limited to inside or outside the womb, it is a combination of both that help the child survive.

While they can replicate nutrients, replicating the immune transfer is an entirely more complex issue.

Add this to the links above about breastfeeding:
https://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/939.aspx?CategoryID=54

How is the child going to have the mother's antibodies constantly passed to them through the process?

Lil devils x:

The big issue with this of course is the transfer of immunity to the foetus from the mother. It is not just nutrients that the child receives from the mother, the mothers immune system keeps the child alive and increases the child's chances of survival outside the womb. The mothers transfer is not limited to inside or outside the womb, it is a combination of both that help the child survive.

Honestly, that is one of the least difficult technical hurdles to the whole thing.

altnameJag:
Y'all know that adoption's a thing, right?

Just, like, take a kid. Might have to fight the government if you want to do it alone with with another dude, but still easier than artificial wombs and cloning.

Cripes.

You are correct. There are plenty of children who need homes as it is, they do not need to eliminate a woman giving birth to raise a child.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here