Sometimes things go too far.

[Thaliat Everwood]

Wait...let me get this straight. I can pick my baby's features? I can have a genetically healthy child with none of my family's health issues? Damn, sign me up, that is the best option I've ever heard of. Now I can have a child of my own and not have to worry about health defects/allergies/genetic disease. I don't see genetically modified children as a terrible thing. And if science allows gay and lesbian couples to have their own childer, it's even more great in my opinion.

Just because nature didn't make humans of same sex coupling able to procreate, it still isn't really unnatural...hell, there are amphibians that can change gender to procreate. How is using our own science to help same sex couples have their own children be any worse than using science to stop diseases from ravaging the human race?

GRM, you are entitled to your opinion, and you definitely don't have to indulge in genetically modified children, but I think other people should still have the option available to them if science allows for it and they can afford it. I just see no reason to tell someone they are wrong to use science to allow them the chance to experience the joy of having their own biological child if that is what they prefer.  

[God-Raped-Me]

I can understand people wanting to be sure that their kids don't have genetic defects, but you also have to think of all the people who would be out of a job if you got rid of the defects. Also with what you said you must also be all for men being able to give birth too right? Why not allow the couple to choose what one can go through the pain of child birth.

I'm just against all of it. Saving people's lives, sure you're saving a life, creating more when it wasn't meant to be made that way is ******** retarded. There are enough unwanted children out there for people to adopt. Don't make more!  

[Taeryyn]

The idea of a designer baby is pretty creepy. At the same time, though, it's not too far off from seeing a genetic counsellor to see what the likelihood is that your child will have some sort of serious defects.

I don't feel wise enough to say where exactly we should draw the line, but I really do hope the medical and scientific community is thinking about it. Just because they can do something doesn't necessarily mean they should. (If that makes any sense?)

PixiecuTT

Getting back to the topic at hand, it's not possible for two women to like...blend their genetic material and have a baby. :s It's a non-issue.

Just because we can't do it now, doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it. Better to deal with it theoretically than after they've started mucking around with real people. x3  

[Thaliat Everwood]

God-Raped-Me

I can understand people wanting to be sure that their kids don't have genetic defects, but you also have to think of all the people who would be out of a job if you got rid of the defects. Also with what you said you must also be all for men being able to give birth too right? Why not allow the couple to choose what one can go through the pain of child birth.

Yes, I am for allowing men to give birth if they wish to have the full experience. Heck, I still don't get why women seem to not mind the birthing part. If a lady can have it, why shouldn't a man be allowed to have it?

I don't see the "because nature didn't make them that way/ it's just weird" argument particularly convincing, in my opinion. Science has resolve a lot of nature's screw ups (cleft pallets, some conjoined twins, massive deformations, hair loss, being born in an undesired gender...)

I'm not sure how people being out of a job is a factor. Who? SPED instructors (they can be aides in large classrooms, or be teachers for other subjects), health care workers for the handicap (people are still going to have those idiotic mishaps that will keep these people employed) or some other third party? Plus, wouldn't this science create a heck of a lot of jobs? Problem solved.

God-Raped-Me

I'm just against all of it. Saving people's lives, sure you're saving a life, creating more when it wasn't meant to be made that way is ******** retarded. There are enough unwanted children out there for people to adopt. Don't make more!

So if a gay guy wanted a kid, adoption or abduction are his only options? Both are tough and take a lot of time and one takes a hell of a lot paperwork while the other isn't even legal. Plus, with adoption there are a lot of unknown issues to address as well as the "why didn't they want me" discussion which can be a terrible turn off to someone who could be a fabulous parent. A lot of people don't want the excess concerns and stresses of adoption that biological parents don't have to endure. I think if science allows for it, men and women should be able to choose how and/or who they want to bring their children into the world.

I support adoption, but it is a choice, just like the choice to bear your own children. I think, since science allows for it, everyone should be allowed the choice to decide what is right for them. You choose for you, I choose for me, and everyone else chooses for themselves.  

[God-Raped-Me]

Our only job as women is to gave babies and raise them, as a mans is to hunt and gather the food for the family unit. I would like to think that humans can try and keep SOME role that nature gave us. I Don't want to share the role of giving birth because that is MY role as a female! Hell why not give everyone a p***s and a v****a, 2 pairs of tits too, one male and one female. Lets get rid of everything nature worked to do!

As for the jobs, how about the surgeons who work strictly with those issues. How about the charities that raise money for these causes. The researchers wouldn't have to research cures for these problems, what would they research now? Believe it or not, a LOT of people would be without a job.

Gay guys could also ask a female to birth a child for them and that's ALL their options. They couldn't do the whole "Lets have a baby with our genes only". Sorry.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

God-Raped-Me

Our only job as women is to gave babies and raise them, as a mans is to hunt and gather the food for the family unit. I would like to think that humans can try and keep SOME role that nature gave us. I Don't want to share the role of giving birth because that is MY role as a female! Hell why not give everyone a p***s and a v****a, 2 pairs of tits too, one male and one female. Lets get rid of everything nature worked to do!

Dear gods, I do NOT agree that my only job as a woman is to be a freakin' baby making machine!

Maybe that's how you see your role a female (and that's OK), but I do not subscribe to your point of view here. Not at all. Please do not include me in the above quoted generalization or I am officially creating a new gender classification for myself.

I am just as capable, if not more, than many of my male friends to hunt and gather and provide for the family unit. Perhaps this is why I have no problem with allowing men to adopt the role of baby maker. If I can perform the "male role" successfully then a man (with the aid of science, should he so desire) can assume the "female role".

God-Raped-Me

As for the jobs, how about the surgeons who work strictly with those issues. How about the charities that raise money for these causes. The researchers wouldn't have to research cures for these problems, what would they research now? Believe it or not, a LOT of people would be without a job.

Well, that's the setback with pigeon holing one's self in such a very specific career choice. Honestly, at least in my nation, most medical clinicians have more than one focus of study. People do learn to adapt and can get other jobs within the same field. And charities are not paying jobs...besides there are tons of other causes they can under take like the environment, global warming, famine, homelessness...the list goes on. Researchers research loads of other things in the medical fields as well...and we still don't have a cure for diabetes, AIDS, cancer. Maybe if the "out of work" researchers joined forces on these causes we might finally get a cure. Oh wait, that would be bad because they'd be out of the job again. No...I'd rather have researchers out of work and less diseases to worry about. I find that to be a very acceptable trade.

God-Raped-Me

Gay guys could also ask a female to birth a child for them and that's ALL their options. They couldn't do the whole "Lets have a baby with our genes only". Sorry.

That seems like a very unfair option and close minded "only option", personally. I'd rather it just be one of the options available to them. Test tube babies are still babies, regardless of the body that carries them to term.

Hey, since everyone hates us in the US because we are just so socially different from the rest of the world (or so it seems), why not just make it legal for men to have babies here in the USA and then you don't have to worry about it in your country. Then we could both be happy.  

[Phaeton]

Nature is a bad example for things that are supposed to work.

For women being baby machines, they also happen to be better suited for combat and athletic endeavors. In fact the only logic to support Men doing the hunting and gathering instead is lactation which has since been outsourced to the baby bottle. Humans have too man teeth for their mouths, if we still had snouts like other primates this wouldn't be the case. Having this upper body supporting pelvis is detrimental to child birth (Sometimes hazardous), and our feet weren't designed to walk on flat, paved land.  

[God-Raped-Me]

I don't think you two are quite understanding what I mean by it's our job to make the babies. I'm referring to way back when we were still very fuzzy. I think it's great that science has come so far, but I honestly believe we're not even in touch with our basic instincts other than to eat breath and have sex. When sapiens had the whole family unit thing going on the females stayed behind while the men put their lives on the line to make sure there was food. And that's what I'm talking about when I'm referring to natures role for us. It is our biological "job" to have the babies, not men.

And no, men can only have 2 options for having kids. Adoption, or asking a woman to carry one of the man's babies. 2 men cannot ever have children together because of the Y chromosomes. You absolutely NEED that X chromosome!

Also Thal, I have no clue what you're trying to get across in your last statement there.

Phaeton, we're still in the middle of evolving, it will be thousands of years, if we make it that far, before we are at the point of what we are supposed to be at. Also, men have more muscle mass then women do, typically, therefore making them stronger and better at hunting and killing things. What does having a flat nose have to do with teeth? The reason we have so many teeth now is because we don't loose them like we used to... Well some people still do. Even then there are people who DO have enough room in their mouths for all the teeth to come in.

I found a really funny image just now, I hope you all are able to laugh at it with me.



Does posting an image in guilds just not work now?  

[Shram]

God-Raped-Me

I don't think you two are quite understanding what I mean by it's our job to make the babies. I'm referring to way back when we were still very fuzzy. I think it's great that science has come so far, but I honestly believe we're not even in touch with our basic instincts other than to eat breath and have sex. When sapiens had the whole family unit thing going on the females stayed behind while the men put their lives on the line to make sure there was food. And that's what I'm talking about when I'm referring to natures role for us. It is our biological "job" to have the babies, not men.

And no, men can only have 2 options for having kids. Adoption, or asking a woman to carry one of the man's babies. 2 men cannot ever have children together because of the Y chromosomes. You absolutely NEED that X chromosome!

Also Thal, I have no clue what you're trying to get across in your last statement there.

Phaeton, we're still in the middle of evolving, it will be thousands of years, if we make it that far, before we are at the point of what we are supposed to be at. Also, men have more muscle mass then women do, typically, therefore making them stronger and better at hunting and killing things. What does having a flat nose have to do with teeth? The reason we have so many teeth now is because we don't loose them like we used to... Well some people still do. Even then there are people who DO have enough room in their mouths for all the teeth to come in.

I found a really funny image just now, I hope you all are able to laugh at it with me.



Does posting an image in guilds just not work now?

phaeton is probably using modern combat system as an example.
Sneaking and getting places "fast" so to speak, but before guns were around brute force and enough mass to take damage without to many ill effects were the way to go.

and thats my short input on this, yay for irrelenvence...
Don't mess with nature, we are still evolving and forcing changes only causes risks. often I find these discussions are built on fairness, well get over it life aint fair. besides how we treat others shouldn't have anything to do with our "structure" in any sense of the way.  

[YunieCookie]

Just pointing this out as part of the gender-roles debate..
Men going and hunting and women staying in the home to care for children isn't universal. In a number of places (I think some tribes in Africa, and maybe elsewhere, I'd have to go check the notes from my AnthroPsychSoc course) the women are the primary hunters and the men stay and look after and raise the children. There're also societies where both sexes take the "male" role and the children are mostly left to themselves.


(Yes, I know this doesn't have much to do with the original topic, but I thought it was worth pointing out)  

[Thaliat Everwood]

God-Raped-Me

I don't think you two are quite understanding what I mean by it's our job to make the babies. I'm referring to way back when we were still very fuzzy. I think it's great that science has come so far, but I honestly believe we're not even in touch with our basic instincts other than to eat breath and have sex. When sapiens had the whole family unit thing going on the females stayed behind while the men put their lives on the line to make sure there was food. And that's what I'm talking about when I'm referring to natures role for us. It is our biological "job" to have the babies, not men.

Actually, women have the choice to not make babies. Men were robbed of that choice by nature. Genetically, were are pretty much the same, it is literally just out internal plumbing that segregated us by gender. If we alter that, as science has proven can be done, men can have babies. Just because the archaic history books made men the sole providers (which is not really correct for all societies) does not mean we need to continue living in the dark ages.

Quote:

And no, men can only have 2 options for having kids. Adoption, or asking a woman to carry one of the man's babies. 2 men cannot ever have children together because of the Y chromosomes. You absolutely NEED that X chromosome!

Clearly science has proven there ARE other options. I never said you didn't need the genetic material from both genders, just that science has made it so that sexual preference no longer needs to impact an individual's ability to procreate.

Quote:

Also Thal, I have no clue what you're trying to get across in your last statement there.

Really? That's a bummer, I thought you'd appreciate my social commentary and sarcasm. Oh well.

Quote:

Phaeton, we're still in the middle of evolving, it will be thousands of years, if we make it that far, before we are at the point of what we are supposed to be at. Also, men have more muscle mass then women do, typically, therefore making them stronger and better at hunting and killing things. What does having a flat nose have to do with teeth? The reason we have so many teeth now is because we don't loose them like we used to... Well some people still do. Even then there are people who DO have enough room in their mouths for all the teeth to come in.

Yeah, evolution might actually make it so that men can give birth too!

Oh, and women technically have a mini p***s, or so a few of my anatomy/biology teachers have claimed. It is just recessed in the vaginal region that we can't easily see it's form. Our sexual organs are really that similar to male organs. So maybe men really are destined to make babies one day, naturally!  

[The Dinosaur Next Door]

Well, I don't know if I'd ever use this feature because, were I ever to breed, I'd want my baby to develop as naturally as possible... Believing as I do in evolution, I think it would be... dishonest and cheap of me to guarantee my child's traits.

That said, jut because I feel that way doesn't mean I would ever impose my beliefs on others. I think that mothers who can afford to make that choice should be allowed to.  

[Odd Boy Out]

Most gender roles cannot be backed up with biological evidence. The only reason a woman is supposed to care for children is because its a cultural adaptation. After breast feeding I don't think there is any biological evidence for a woman to care for her child. I don't even think that men providing for his woman and children is a biological adaption. Hell, a man was probably providing for them so that he'd be taken care of in old age before humans even realized that sex made babies.

Since we have developed conscious thought, we have stopped the traditional understanding of natural selection. Now we are evolving through technological advances. We get to select how to improve our species. There are many, many moral implications to go along with that. Currently though with the issue of combining the unaltered X-chromosomes of two women in a fertilized egg I see no moral problems.  

[God-Raped-Me]

Thal, X is a woman's chromosome and needed therefore the genetic material from a woman is needed, so again men cannot have a child using their genetic material together.

Also should evolution make it possible for men to give birth fine, however it's not possible right now and not fine to me.

When it comes to women and men's bodies being similar it's actually the other way around, the mens bodies are based off a female's body. In the womb men are actually female before they are male. Which is why we're so similar. Also the "p***s" on the woman you were referring to is our clitoris. Just like ovaries are testicles and the vas deferens are our fallopian tubes. Fascinating the human body is.

Steph actually pointed out my point of view in a better way than I can. Evolution has been doing it's thing forever and it's trying to get things right, who are we to take it into our own hands?

I would also like to point out that just because this is my view on it I would never stop someone from doing this or other things. I enjoy science as well and if they can do this then that would be just amazing. I just prefer evolution over science.  

[Thaliat Everwood]

God-Raped-Me

Thal, X is a woman's chromosome and needed therefore the genetic material from a woman is needed, so again men cannot have a child using their genetic material together.

Yeah, I already know women have the X chromosome. This is not news. In fact the only chromosomes women have are the X chromosomes. Men have an X and a Y. So technically two men still have the base genetic material to create babies. (I guess that means lesbians would have to get some frozen sperm or something for their baby if they wanted a boy.) Kind of an interesting thought, ironically since women have been dubbed as the baby producers.

God-Raped-Me

Also should evolution make it possible for men to give birth fine, however it's not possible right now and not fine to me.

Yeah, but even though you don't like it, science can still make it happen. And science is part of our evolution because we created scientific progress by being inquisitive and learning how to influence the world around us.

Oh, and evolution has already created males in nature that can give birth...it has just been slow to reach humanity.

Remember that one guy did have a baby as a legal man last year. He just started out as a woman. So, technically, science already has made it happen, in a rather roundabout way.

God-Raped-Me

When it comes to women and men's bodies being similar it's actually the other way around, the mens bodies are based off a female's body. In the womb men are actually female before they are male. Which is why we're so similar. Also the "p***s" on the woman you were referring to is our clitoris. Just like ovaries are testicles and the vas deferens are our fallopian tubes. Fascinating the human body is.

Yep, for a while in the womb we are the same. The ladies' c**t is just like a mini p***s, they function the same way (as do our tongues). Judging by our beginnings and other species in nature, I have a theory that eventually our evolution will shift toward humans being hermaphrodites as the norm...in the very distant future, of course. We have proven, regardless of gender, we are capable of do the same things. Heck, some men make way better parents than some women. So why is this broad reaching scope of gender and the possibilities for either gender such a problem once we get out of the womb? Maybe ignorance wins. Fascinating.

Oh, and I never said male bodies were based off female bodies, I just pointed out the similarity the our reproductive organs function the same way, despite shape. Sorry if I managed to confuse you with that.

God-Raped-Me

Steph actually pointed out my point of view in a better way than I can. Evolution has been doing it's thing forever and it's trying to get things right, who are we to take it into our own hands?

We're just helping it out...evolution is S-L-O-W. Evolution is also a process of trial and error...just like science!

God-Raped-Me

I would also like to point out that just because this is my view on it I would never stop someone from doing this or other things. I enjoy science as well and if they can do this then that would be just amazing. I just prefer evolution over science.

I'm cool with you not liking it, so long as you still allow others their right to choose what is best for them. It's just fun to have a debate in this guild again!

I just happen to prefer science over evolution. wink