Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why don't we just grow babies in a test tube? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Welllll...I don't see that going down well.
    why?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    There would be backups in secure fridges.
    Stored next to the semi-skinned milk.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, because making babies is fun.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    why?
    Because, again speaking from a feminist perspective, they would be seen to be helping men to reduce a womans place in society. Also I would sense this would cause a lot of disunity amongst women.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    Because, again speaking from a feminist perspective, they would be seen to be helping men to reduce a womans place in society. Also I would sense this would cause a lot of disunity amongst women.
    Why would they be helping specifically men?

    It's not like women won't suddenly be needed, their eggs will still be needed. Just as men weren't suddenly reduced in their place in society when sperm banks became a thing.

    That argument makes essentially no sense unless you're a paranoid feminist who thinks anything anyone does they don't agree with is out to get women.

    I can't fathom it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which we already do.
    Lol...just no.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Why would they be helping specifically men?

    It's not like women won't suddenly be needed, their eggs will still be needed. Just as men weren't suddenly reduced in their place in society when sperm banks became a thing.

    That argument makes essentially no sense unless you're a paranoid feminist who thinks anything anyone does they don't agree with is out to get women.

    I can't fathom it.
    I haven't just made up this argument out of thin air, it's quite a well known argument when you read what a lot of feminist critics have said in the past. Why can't you fathom it? It completely makes sense, a woman has the ability to develop a baby in the womb, and men don't. So for male Dr's/ Scientists or whoever is working on this to take that away from women and do it better (better health of the baby once born from the test tube) it can be seen as reducing a womans role/ outdoing women on what is essentially their role naturally.

    Sperm banks is not the same as procreating in a lab. Also, it's difficult for a man to be "reduced to their place" in what is quite evidently a patriarchal society. If we lived in a matriarchal society, this probably would be a non-issue, as women would be able to exert control in anyway they pleased, but since we do not it will still in a feminists eyes be seen as reducing/ restricting a womans role in society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    I haven't just made up this argument out of thin air, it's quite a well known argument when you read what a lot of feminist critics have said in the past. Why can't you fathom it? It completely makes sense, a woman has the ability to develop a baby in the womb, and men don't. So for male Dr's/ Scientists or whoever is working on this to take that away from women and do it better (better health of the baby once born from the test tube) it can be seen as reducing a womans role/ outdoing women on what is essentially their role naturally.

    Sperm banks is not the same as procreating in a lab. Also, it's difficult for a man to be "reduced to their place" in what is quite evidently a patriarchal society. If we lived in a matriarchal society, this probably would be a non-issue, as women would be able to exert control in anyway they pleased, but since we do not it will still in a feminists eyes be seen as reducing/ restricting a womans role in society.
    I never said you did materialise it out of thin air.

    No one would be taking it away, it's not like women wouldn't be allowed to get pregnant any more. It's just another option for anyone who can't or doesn't want to carry a child.

    I disagree with it reducing women's role is society. And frankly another feminist could very easily flip your argument on it's head and claim you're holding back women with your views by equating them to a baby making machine.

    Obviously it's not the exact same thing. But the comparison was pretty obvious.

    Not even going to bother with patriarchy argument. There are short falls for both genders it's not like all men are sitting in a building somewhere plotting how to disadvantage women.

    It does not in any way restrict women from carrying children naturally.

    Well depends on the feminist. I disagree with you completely.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Stored next to the semi-skinned milk.
    You know me well .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Yes, let's take one of the most natural and beautiful life experiences, suck all the humanity out of it, and turn it into just another cold, clinical, procedure.

    And while we are at it, let's go full sociopath and cut down all the real trees and replace them artificial ones that will do the same job of producing oxygen as real trees, with the added bonus that they don't need pruning, won't catch diseases and will never die. Sure they might not be as aesthetically pleasing as real trees, but who cares about such trivial matters, function and efficiency is all matters in our brave new world.
    I'm on your side but holy ****, that tree idea is actually pretty good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    answer our question pls
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    No, I don't think so. It still reduces a womans role in society as this is role unique to women, something that "men cannot take away from them". Ofcourse it's not seen as their "sole use to society" but it's a pretty important role, and one that woman can claim. So for it to be duplicated by men/ male Dr's and scientists is quite insulting.
    So you're saying men are worth less than women? :hmmm:

    You deserve to feel insulted for being a tit.

    The womans egg is used with the dudes sperm. The DNA of the mother is still needed. Just like that of the Mans. That is the essence of the whole sexual reproduction thing. That's what fish do.... The female fish lays eggs, the male fish squirts his sperm containing semen all over those eggs. It's through the giant accident of evolution that mammals combine and pass on our genes the way we do. Even more so an accident that it is so god damn painful and dangerous for humans due to brain size and other reasons. Then humans being humans have made all this mythology surrounding it all and the importance of what carry and giving birth to a child means which you and a lot of people buy into (since we are human and all and if we didn't we'd be crap parents).

    Well done, through no particular effort of your own and blind luck you were born with a uterus. Do you want a medal? Or should I save the medal for the woman that find a cure for a cancer or the woman that fights against a conservative Islamic society that stops female children going to school?

    It's like me being insulted if my future wife needed IVF for denying my male role of sticking my penis in her vagina.

    You are also assuming only men are Drs and scientists lol, how insulting for women. Can't wait to see how you dig some more. :yum:


    Also for the record I'm speaking from feminist perspective as well.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I never said you did materialise it out of thin air.

    No one would be taking it away, it's not like women wouldn't be allowed to get pregnant any more. It's just another option for anyone who can't or doesn't want to carry a child.

    I disagree with it reducing women's role is society. And frankly another feminist could very easily flip your argument on it's head and claim you're holding back women with your views by equating them to a baby making machine.

    Obviously it's not the exact same thing. But the comparison was pretty obvious.

    Not even going to bother with patriarchy argument. There are short falls for both genders it's not like all men are sitting in a building somewhere plotting how to disadvantage women.

    It does not in any way restrict women from carrying children naturally.

    Well depends on the feminist. I disagree with you completely.
    I never said that you did. It is "taking away" if it's done better than a woman can naturally. No women are not baby making machines, it's a choice.

    Your comparison isn't the same for reasons I explained, "short falls" or not, that doesn't mean we don't live in a patriarchal society. I never said men are purposely trying to disadvantage women, but in our society it's difficult for a man to be reduced to his place as his place is up at the top anyway, which is why your comparison isn't the same.

    Also I never said I agreed, I was simply proposing an argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Lol...just no.
    But we do freeze eggs don;t we??
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    But we do freeze eggs don;t we??
    My comment was in reaction to you saying we have already taken away the pain and discomfort of pregnancy...because lol no we haven't
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    I never said that you did. It is "taking away" if it's done better than a woman can naturally. No women are not baby making machines, it's a choice.

    Your comparison isn't the same for reasons I explained, "short falls" or not, that doesn't mean we don't live in a patriarchal society. I never said men are purposely trying to disadvantage women, but in our society it's difficult for a man to be reduced to his place as his place is up at the top anyway, which is why your comparison isn't the same.

    Also I never said I agreed, I was simply proposing an argument.
    Then why bring it up? Whose to say this will be better than a natural pregnancy/ birth? If the end result is the same I fail to see your problem. So should this not also be their choice?

    I disagree with your reasoning. And I disagree, we don't live in a patriarchal society. Not any more, women have the same opportunities and rights as men there is no denying that. I disagree with that as well, men are very disadvantaged when it comes to the making and rearing and custody of their own children. How is his "place" up at the top? We don't live in that society any more, we're steadily moving away from such sexist views.

    And I was also posing an argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    My comment was in reaction to you saying we have already taken away the pain and discomfort of pregnancy...because lol no we haven't
    Oh right lol

    I think I meant more that we have moved in that direction. Like, we try and find ways to minimise it with pain killers and procedures if it goes wrong. My OP is using the same principles, just going much further.

    I'm just trying to convince a punch of Luddites in the error of their ways. I;m aloud to be free with the truth

    I'm also not sure how I am being patriarchial when my motivation is in that of helping women with the pain of childbirth. :beard:

    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    No, because making babies is fun.
    You could still have sex. You may not have realised but most of the sex we do is not to make babies and we have made many inventive ways to avoid conception. Sex with humans is not about directly making babies most of the time. Why do I even have to point this out?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Oh right lol

    I think I meant more that we have moved in that direction. Like, we try and find ways to minimise it with pain killers and procedures if it goes wrong. My OP is using the same principles, just going much further.

    I'm just trying to convince a punch of Luddites in the error of their ways. I;m aloud to be free with the truth

    I'm also not sure how I am being patriarchial when my motivation is in that of helping women with the pain of childbirth.
    Because no matter what you do and no matter what your motives are, someone somewhere will still be offended.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I never said you did materialise it out of thin air.No one would be taking it away, it's not like women wouldn't be allowed to get pregnant any more. It's just another option for anyone who can't or doesn't want to carry a child.

    It would undermine the current cultural significance of child birth though. Sure it would technically be a choice but if it became widespread it would change things. Just like contraception changes things. People react differently to these kind of things. Some push for it some fight it. Lots of people on this thread feel it would undermine their view of what it means to be human and having babies, which can be upsetting and creates resistance. There is also the concern that the "progressive" change creates more problems that it supposedly fixes.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lemon Haze)
    I'm on your side but holy ****, that tree idea is actually pretty good.
    Well perhaps using them with existing trees would be a good idea, the technology does actually exist (or at least it will do very soon)http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/w...t_we_just_suck

    But I still think it would be better to just plant more trees. I mean the amount of money it would cost to build just one of those artificial trees, could probably buy you enough sapplings to plant an entire forest.

    Perhaps one day we will be able to create genetically modified "super" trees that can suck up huge amounts of pollution and convert it to oxygen. I wouldn't be opposed to that, provided they cause no harm to the ecosystem (see, I'm not a total luddite).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.