We buy genetic material from young men and women. We allow other women to carry our genetic children. We’ve eliminated the need for sex to create a child. Are we eliminating the need for a uterus, too? Are we trying to eradicate the need for women?
Yes, yes we are, women are the largest cost in every western society.
it pains me how you cannot see that through your ridiculous misunderstandings of the world and its reality, and the resultant insanities you come up with, you actually end up validating women in their imaginary quest to eradicate you.
your view is illusions upon illusions and the still the best you can come up with is a strange mutual destruction stalemate where both you and your illusion of women deserve to die off.
I unironically think it is both unethical AND fucking dangerous to do both this and the bone-marrow-fake-sperm, just like sperm donors and egg donors/surrogates are, but for a whole different reason, I suppose.
Making your children be engineered in any way by the same doctors who collectively fucked us over so many times and seem to have a twisted god delusion about themselves is not a smart decision.
It's also not ethical to have the elite (be it Hollywood homosexuals or executive political lesbians) be able to create designer children for themselves, meanwhile you are being told that if you marry another white person and have a kid, you are trash. Even just giving a deaf child medical help to hear is seen as "genocide", just like teaching a mildly autistic kid how to fit in a bit better.
But farming the perfect child that fits your Hamptons house's deck furniture is cool if you are a fag?
I also refuse the idea of lab grown meat, by the way. The normal, natural kind is demonised, but I am supposed to trust some other person (this one with a fancy diploma) to create a replacement for me?
unironically think it is both unethical AND fucking dangerous to do both this and the bone-marrow-fake-sperm
Shock, woman opposes something that devalues women. I too am worried about the fake sperm, but not because of danger or ethics. No, because women will kill us when they get it. The trigger of the rise of radical feminism, as written in "The Future - if there is one - Is Female" is the development of a way to reproduce without men.
The difference between men and women, we want to be free, they want us dead.
I explained why I do it, but please, just assume I am after you. Also, you are doing your autism again. You think degreed butchers would treat you and your test tube babies with care and respect, because you think a man who thinks he is god would treat you like a brother even though we have legit proof of the other, just so you can blow your hate load at me.
But please, claim I want you dead. You sound like hyperbolic, whiny woman. You are a feminist minded person. Same delusions, same hysteria.
You have the soul of a bitch, my friend.
You lie about me constantly, I don't need to assume you are after me. You clearly are. Some of the insanity you've claimed I've said is basically libelous.
just so you can blow your hate load at me.
I have many questions about this choice of wording. Please don't imagine me blowing my load anywhere near you, it's sexual harassment.
You sound like hyperbolic, whiny woman. You are a feminist minded person. Same delusions, same hysteria.
After all the things that were "hysteria" according to you came true...maybe you shouldn't play the gaslight here.
Wasn't it you who said to me that female health officials covering up harm to young men was absurd? But it did turn out to be true...
Maybe the reason I sound like them is because the truth is the exact opposite of what they're saying. Women aren't being discriminated against, they're doing the discriminating.
Sue me, mate. I'm sure the Lithuanian female assassins posing as Ukrainian refugee women will vouch for me.
Will you claim my intentionally comical word choice touched your nono place? Go ahead. I won't find it any less laughable than I find feminists claiming AC raeps them.
Yes. I am sure your manic episodes are all realistic.
Because it is good for Jews. If tradtionalist Christians fall into the trap of thinking it is bad and ban it in their own countries, it will only be good for Jews.
Artificial wombs will lead the path forward back to patriarchal family structure by taking control away from women, who are increasingly brainwashed by Feminism.
No one here is suggesting that they be trusted at all. Hell, I openly advocate forcing most of them to confirm/behave and making public examples of the rest.
Artificial wombs will lead the path forward back to patriarchal family structure by taking control away from women, who are increasingly brainwashed by Feminism.
Wait, what? This probably wins the award for most insane post ever. Even if the technology works perfectly (which it won't), even if it isn't used for all sorts of crazy eugenics nonsense (which it will be), how will destroying families all together help improve family structures?
Oh, and the primary users of these artificial wombs? Probably 40-50 year old Karens who, upon realizing their actual wombs dried up (or who got them wrecked by having a pile of abortions) go to sperm bank (or pay some 20 year old simp for some of his sperm) and then use the artificial wombs to have the kid(s) their biological clocks are demanding they have. I'm sure a whole generation of kids raised that way will only help society!
Even if the technology works perfectly (which it won't)
That is a fair criticism, and we will have to see what happens when artificial wombs hit the market. It will likely only be the rich to have this tech at first, so the people selling this tech will want the tech to be adequate enough for buyers to pay top dollar. And there should be improvements in the tech by the time the tech is affordable for the general public.
even if it isn't used for all sorts of crazy eugenics nonsense (which it will be)
Eugenics is good.
how will destroying families all together help improve family structures?
No one said anything about destorying families. While I don't think it should be common for single guys to start families by themselves, the mere option being there will improve the sexual & romantic market place significantly in men's favor. When you take away women's natural advantages, they have to offer more in relationship, men can afford to be more picky.
Artificial wombs is only one part. The other part will be artificial eggs and realistic sex robots. When single men have options other than women for having children and even the act of sex itself, women will have to step up their game in a relationship to compete. This is basic sexual economics.
improve the sexual & romantic market place significantly in men's favor
Modern sexual and romantic market has little to do with family prospects.
When you take away women's natural advantages, they have to offer more in relationship, men can afford to be more picky
Men want to fuck hot women. Women want to fuck handsome, high status, high income men. Artificial wombs change none of that.
The other part will be artificial eggs and realistic sex robots.
Women having to compete with widespread pornography hasn't improved anything. The proliferation of porn tracks with relations between men and women becoming more fucked up, not less. Why would robots be any better?
When single men have options other than women for having children and even the act of sex itself, women will have to step up their game in a relationship to compete.
Again, we have history to draw on. Women eschewing motherhood and having to compete with porn haven't improved anything.
You also ignored the previous commenter's point about artificial wombs removing the biological clock issue for women. That is one of men's biggest edges in finding wives.
Women having to compete with widespread pornography
Women have never had to compete with porn. Masterbation has never been competition to sex.
Men want to fuck hot women.
Men want to fuck women who are pretty enough, and men have higher sex drives than women. This is why even complete pigs of women get more attention on dating websites than average looking men.
Women want to fuck handsome, high status, high income men.
Women want to be wow'd more than they want to be fucked. Women have low sex drives. Money is one way of wow-ing women, and just as man's ideal woman is hot but he will settle for pretty enough, women tend to settle for guys with steady income that will spend money on them. Another way of wow-ing is having a good talk game, I have seen some ugly dudes pull women because their talk game was amazing, they didn't have alot money either (they also weren't tall, which women do like) and again, women will settle for a guy that just talks good enough.
Anyways, this is less about changing women's overall sexual habbits and more about changing women's overall relationship habbits. I would agrue it changes both but the former will be less than the latter, which will be most noticable.
You also ignored the previous commenter's point about artificial wombs removing the biological clock issue for women. That is one of men's biggest edges in finding wives.
If this gives men an edge, that edge is pretty dull but that is neither here or there.
Anyways women already have access to surrogates now but those surrogates are of course other women. So artificial wombs will give men some control in this area.
If this gives men an edge, that edge is pretty dull but that is neither here or there.
The edge is dull because, as I said before, the romance/sex market doesn't revolve around family formation. Pfiser or whoever growing a baby in a lab isn't going to help that.
Anyways women already have access to surrogates now but those surrogates are of course other women.
Surrogates are crazy expensive. It's not something you order at a McDonald's drive thru. What power do you think they give women?
You think restricting access to childbirth based on political affiliation (IE, "I'm sorry, you're registered as a Republican, therefore you can't use the wombs) is a good thing? Or restrictions based on DIE reasons (I'm sorry, all we can offer you is black kids today, we've had too many whites so far this year) is a good thing? And that would be easy to do today. Long-term, if people can figure out some form of basic engineering, I can easily imagine the government wanting to ensure that most kids are engineered to be nice, dull and easily compliant to ensure they are good little worker drones.
When single men have options other than women for having children and even the act of sex itself, women will have to step up their game in a relationship to compete. This is basic sexual economics.
You really think that's accurate? Really? In any type of basic economics, you have to offer the other party something they want. If there's realistic sex robots and artificial wombs, what else do you have to offer? Sperm? There's already sperm banks and spermjacking one simp should provide enough for a whole bunch of kids - and that's before artificial sperm comes around. Money? Uncle Sam will steal and/or print to take care of that, even if it's needed. What else do you have to offer?
Would I trust our current 'leaders' with this tech, fuck no you know we'll get people bred to be slaves and some weird 'superior ones' as their offspring
But this tech would also destroy feminism at it's root, it's the most sharp of double edged swords.
There is this idea that artificial wombs will destroy women's political power. It's not just Imp1 but many others in the sort of MGTOW/MRA/whatever scene who believe it. The logic is that women's power comes from motherhood so replacing it with this crude simulacra will remove women's power, but there is an obvious flaw in this reasoning. Women's power has increased as the birth rates collapsed - and collapsed precipitously. Why would this then take it away?
Yes they are. That's why the lowering birth rates are followed by yet more bailouts for women. The high birth rates are required to keep the Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state alive.
They're trying to bribe an inherently hostile entity.
I'm talking about how many on Patriots think the CCP controls their politicians and that's why birth rates are down, why young men are harmed by jabs etc.
You're seriously asking me to explain handouts for women?
Strictly speaking, a "replacement rate" is just economist speak for a population that increases at a rate that allows consistent economic growth, that's why it's not exactly 2. Rather hilariously for you, the idea was created by a Jew.
scientists in Israel are making moves to investigate mammalian embryogenesis (the formation of a fetus or baby) by growing mice outside of the female body, eliminating the need for a uterus.
Give them more money. It's been a year since women cried about this, how much progress has been made? We need to get this done before they get 51% of Congress.
Are we trying to eradicate the need for women?
You say this like you didn't celebrate when the sperm banks were evaluated by a feminist group to see if there was enough genetic diversity to keep the human race going without men.
Eradicating the need for you will just make you irrelevant, we're not psychopaths like you. You want to eradicate the need for us so you can kill us.
Yes, yes we are, women are the largest cost in every western society.
it pains me how you cannot see that through your ridiculous misunderstandings of the world and its reality, and the resultant insanities you come up with, you actually end up validating women in their imaginary quest to eradicate you.
your view is illusions upon illusions and the still the best you can come up with is a strange mutual destruction stalemate where both you and your illusion of women deserve to die off.
The amount of people they've harmed both directly and indirectly must be approaching the billions at this point.
I unironically think it is both unethical AND fucking dangerous to do both this and the bone-marrow-fake-sperm, just like sperm donors and egg donors/surrogates are, but for a whole different reason, I suppose.
Making your children be engineered in any way by the same doctors who collectively fucked us over so many times and seem to have a twisted god delusion about themselves is not a smart decision.
It's also not ethical to have the elite (be it Hollywood homosexuals or executive political lesbians) be able to create designer children for themselves, meanwhile you are being told that if you marry another white person and have a kid, you are trash. Even just giving a deaf child medical help to hear is seen as "genocide", just like teaching a mildly autistic kid how to fit in a bit better.
But farming the perfect child that fits your Hamptons house's deck furniture is cool if you are a fag?
I also refuse the idea of lab grown meat, by the way. The normal, natural kind is demonised, but I am supposed to trust some other person (this one with a fancy diploma) to create a replacement for me?
Shock, woman opposes something that devalues women. I too am worried about the fake sperm, but not because of danger or ethics. No, because women will kill us when they get it. The trigger of the rise of radical feminism, as written in "The Future - if there is one - Is Female" is the development of a way to reproduce without men.
The difference between men and women, we want to be free, they want us dead.
I explained why I do it, but please, just assume I am after you. Also, you are doing your autism again. You think degreed butchers would treat you and your test tube babies with care and respect, because you think a man who thinks he is god would treat you like a brother even though we have legit proof of the other, just so you can blow your hate load at me.
But please, claim I want you dead. You sound like hyperbolic, whiny woman. You are a feminist minded person. Same delusions, same hysteria.
You have the soul of a bitch, my friend.
He's a female exclusionary liberal. Feminists are male exclusionary liberals, hence the similarity.
I like that term, I might steal it.
Hello FBI? I'd like to report a murder.
I'm still alive.
You're not dead, certainly. Living? I'd argue no.
You lie about me constantly, I don't need to assume you are after me. You clearly are. Some of the insanity you've claimed I've said is basically libelous.
I have many questions about this choice of wording. Please don't imagine me blowing my load anywhere near you, it's sexual harassment.
After all the things that were "hysteria" according to you came true...maybe you shouldn't play the gaslight here.
Wasn't it you who said to me that female health officials covering up harm to young men was absurd? But it did turn out to be true...
Maybe the reason I sound like them is because the truth is the exact opposite of what they're saying. Women aren't being discriminated against, they're doing the discriminating.
Sue me, mate. I'm sure the Lithuanian female assassins posing as Ukrainian refugee women will vouch for me.
Will you claim my intentionally comical word choice touched your nono place? Go ahead. I won't find it any less laughable than I find feminists claiming AC raeps them.
Yes. I am sure your manic episodes are all realistic.
I cant help but see a plot twist where future AI will take advantage of both those things to eradicate humans and breed only designer slaves.
Sounds like enabling women with extra steps.
Translation:. "Vile abominations against God are good if women don't like them!"
Oh, and of course it's Israel doing it. You won't ever put two and two together.
Because it is good for Jews. If tradtionalist Christians fall into the trap of thinking it is bad and ban it in their own countries, it will only be good for Jews.
Artificial wombs will lead the path forward back to patriarchal family structure by taking control away from women, who are increasingly brainwashed by Feminism.
"Buying your lab-grown baby from Pfizer is the key to restoring a patriarchal family structure."
"Trusting women to moderate their expectations is the key to a happy life, look how it worked in Japan..." awkwardly covers up suicide forest
No one here is suggesting that they be trusted at all. Hell, I openly advocate forcing most of them to confirm/behave and making public examples of the rest.
Wait, what? This probably wins the award for most insane post ever. Even if the technology works perfectly (which it won't), even if it isn't used for all sorts of crazy eugenics nonsense (which it will be), how will destroying families all together help improve family structures?
Oh, and the primary users of these artificial wombs? Probably 40-50 year old Karens who, upon realizing their actual wombs dried up (or who got them wrecked by having a pile of abortions) go to sperm bank (or pay some 20 year old simp for some of his sperm) and then use the artificial wombs to have the kid(s) their biological clocks are demanding they have. I'm sure a whole generation of kids raised that way will only help society!
That is a fair criticism, and we will have to see what happens when artificial wombs hit the market. It will likely only be the rich to have this tech at first, so the people selling this tech will want the tech to be adequate enough for buyers to pay top dollar. And there should be improvements in the tech by the time the tech is affordable for the general public.
Eugenics is good.
No one said anything about destorying families. While I don't think it should be common for single guys to start families by themselves, the mere option being there will improve the sexual & romantic market place significantly in men's favor. When you take away women's natural advantages, they have to offer more in relationship, men can afford to be more picky.
Artificial wombs is only one part. The other part will be artificial eggs and realistic sex robots. When single men have options other than women for having children and even the act of sex itself, women will have to step up their game in a relationship to compete. This is basic sexual economics.
Modern sexual and romantic market has little to do with family prospects.
Men want to fuck hot women. Women want to fuck handsome, high status, high income men. Artificial wombs change none of that.
Women having to compete with widespread pornography hasn't improved anything. The proliferation of porn tracks with relations between men and women becoming more fucked up, not less. Why would robots be any better?
Again, we have history to draw on. Women eschewing motherhood and having to compete with porn haven't improved anything.
You also ignored the previous commenter's point about artificial wombs removing the biological clock issue for women. That is one of men's biggest edges in finding wives.
Women have never had to compete with porn. Masterbation has never been competition to sex.
Men want to fuck women who are pretty enough, and men have higher sex drives than women. This is why even complete pigs of women get more attention on dating websites than average looking men.
Women want to be wow'd more than they want to be fucked. Women have low sex drives. Money is one way of wow-ing women, and just as man's ideal woman is hot but he will settle for pretty enough, women tend to settle for guys with steady income that will spend money on them. Another way of wow-ing is having a good talk game, I have seen some ugly dudes pull women because their talk game was amazing, they didn't have alot money either (they also weren't tall, which women do like) and again, women will settle for a guy that just talks good enough.
Anyways, this is less about changing women's overall sexual habbits and more about changing women's overall relationship habbits. I would agrue it changes both but the former will be less than the latter, which will be most noticable.
If this gives men an edge, that edge is pretty dull but that is neither here or there.
Anyways women already have access to surrogates now but those surrogates are of course other women. So artificial wombs will give men some control in this area.
Sex robots are masturbation with extra steps.
The edge is dull because, as I said before, the romance/sex market doesn't revolve around family formation. Pfiser or whoever growing a baby in a lab isn't going to help that.
Surrogates are crazy expensive. It's not something you order at a McDonald's drive thru. What power do you think they give women?
You think restricting access to childbirth based on political affiliation (IE, "I'm sorry, you're registered as a Republican, therefore you can't use the wombs) is a good thing? Or restrictions based on DIE reasons (I'm sorry, all we can offer you is black kids today, we've had too many whites so far this year) is a good thing? And that would be easy to do today. Long-term, if people can figure out some form of basic engineering, I can easily imagine the government wanting to ensure that most kids are engineered to be nice, dull and easily compliant to ensure they are good little worker drones.
You really think that's accurate? Really? In any type of basic economics, you have to offer the other party something they want. If there's realistic sex robots and artificial wombs, what else do you have to offer? Sperm? There's already sperm banks and spermjacking one simp should provide enough for a whole bunch of kids - and that's before artificial sperm comes around. Money? Uncle Sam will steal and/or print to take care of that, even if it's needed. What else do you have to offer?
He doesn't care. He wants us all enslaved to women, it's the stormcuck way.
Woman herself is an abomination.
Pretty sure women bullying children into castrating themselves is a bigger abomination.
But, like always, you jump to defend m'lady.
Who invented sex change surgeries again?
By that logic, we should blame Tim Berners-Lee for the hatred women spew on the Internet.
Don't try to distract, yet again, with trying to bring up Hirschfeld.
You know what you're doing, and I wonder how you can sleep at night after doing it.
On people who were biologically defective. It was women who pushed the idea that it should be done on healthy people.
https://media.scored.co/post/lPlcFPDW3DY9.jpeg
What do you mean?
Klinefelter, botched circumcision, etc.
Would I trust our current 'leaders' with this tech, fuck no you know we'll get people bred to be slaves and some weird 'superior ones' as their offspring
But this tech would also destroy feminism at it's root, it's the most sharp of double edged swords.
There is this idea that artificial wombs will destroy women's political power. It's not just Imp1 but many others in the sort of MGTOW/MRA/whatever scene who believe it. The logic is that women's power comes from motherhood so replacing it with this crude simulacra will remove women's power, but there is an obvious flaw in this reasoning. Women's power has increased as the birth rates collapsed - and collapsed precipitously. Why would this then take it away?
The more birth rates collapse, the more those in power panic and hand women extra power to try and buy their co-operation.
The idea is that women will then be irrelevant, and all those deals will be torn up.
The women being handed power are mostly low-birth rate liberals.
Not specific women, the entire class.
All the extra bailouts for them, it's all to try and bring them to the negotiation table.
China has the same issue, and CCP power hasn't been as effective as hoped in defusing it.
If it really was the work of "Chinese-aligned globalists", how come the CCP gets fucked?
No one is trying to "bring women to the negotiating table."
WTF are you talking about?
Yes they are. That's why the lowering birth rates are followed by yet more bailouts for women. The high birth rates are required to keep the Ponzi scheme that is the welfare state alive.
They're trying to bribe an inherently hostile entity.
I'm talking about how many on Patriots think the CCP controls their politicians and that's why birth rates are down, why young men are harmed by jabs etc.
What are you talking about?
Births are required to keep any state going. Welfare has nothing to do with it.
I'm not one of those people.
You're seriously asking me to explain handouts for women?
Strictly speaking, a "replacement rate" is just economist speak for a population that increases at a rate that allows consistent economic growth, that's why it's not exactly 2. Rather hilariously for you, the idea was created by a Jew.
android waifus when
Give me one fucking reason why we shouldn't.
All-Male education. All-Male workforce. All-Male military.
The only thing better would be posthuman Godhood.
women require men to survive. men having any power over their own reproduction scares the shit out of women.
Give them more money. It's been a year since women cried about this, how much progress has been made? We need to get this done before they get 51% of Congress.
You say this like you didn't celebrate when the sperm banks were evaluated by a feminist group to see if there was enough genetic diversity to keep the human race going without men.
Eradicating the need for you will just make you irrelevant, we're not psychopaths like you. You want to eradicate the need for us so you can kill us.
oy vey, had a misstep there moshe...
I think we should fund any efforts that reduce society's dependence on women.
I'd say the same thing about any other country.