Jump to content

Moral objections to human sexuality; breeding should be done in a lab


LittleGoody2Shoes

Recommended Posts

LittleGoody2Shoes

I have moral objections to any forms of sex, and would like utopian world where sex doesn't exist. I'm looking for people who agree with me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll probably find a fair number of people who object to sex but the rest of the pitch might not have so much traction. Mind if I ask what gives you the notion that anything remotely resembling a utopia could ever be constructed by human hands?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with @Camicon here. I don't see why, or even how, sex is immoral. Could you elaborate on this? And I don't think many people are going to agree with your view and consider that a utopia...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're saying  "immoral" stemming from your religious viewpoint, then you're not being realistic:  God, however you see her/him/it, designed human beings to be capable of having sex.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be an anti-natalist sentiment as well fellas. Best if we all hold our horses maybe and talk stuff over. I'm curious where OP is coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that sex between freely consenting individuals is immoral? The condition here is that everyone involved is freely consenting without any coercion.

 

I don't see how it could be immoral. I can understand that you don't want to be involved. I can also relate a bit with being uncomfortable when other people around you are sexually active. But all this does not make sex per se immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint, but like others here, I find the concept of all sex being immoral rather bizarre. 

I can understand the idea of being repused by sex, that's a not uncommon point of view hereabouts 

However, morally creating human embryos could be seen by some as much more questionable than sexual reproduction as it opens the door to eugenics, designer babies etc. The end result would probably be a loss of genetic diversity and a new pathogen wiping out humanity 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even as someone who is forced to consider themself sex-negative based on the opinion that sex does more harm than good overall, I still can't go as far as to say it just shouldn't exist at all.  (Good luck with that, anyway -- it isn't going to happen, so whatever "agreement" you might get on this is a moot point)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for the vast majority of people, sex is very enjoyable, so how could it even be utopian for >~90% of people? It would only make a utopia for a very small percentage of people. Also, I add to the voices asking your opinion on why it is immoral. At least it's not someone saying that only gay sex is immoral for once, though! :D ^^;

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Monteiro

I"m sorry, utopia ? It's impossible to exist an utopia simply because humans aren't perfect and never will be. As for sex being immoral, that's really just your point of view but for the majority of people and even Nature, it's just a complete normal thing, there is nothing moral or immoral on it.

 

You know what is more interesting about a point of view ? It varies from people, and some may agree with you and others disagree, but the fact still remains there, untouchable. Immoral and moral are just constructions from the human mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would being sexless lead to a utopia?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flower Boy said:

How would being sexless lead to a utopia?

No more humans?

 

I agree with most everyone that sex is neither moral or immoral. It definitely can be put to either moral or immoral purposes as most things can, but at the end of the day it's a tool, a way to keep up the population (the enjoyment for most people is a side benefit - a positive thing). That said, I'm all for a future featuring uterine replicators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sex is disgusting and so damn primitive, hence future humans should be bred in a lab with artificial uteruses! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, when it ever gets to the stage where we're born in pods it is very likely the vast majority won't do sex thanks to other technologies that give us the same gratification but is more convenient. Not because sex is immoral (it isn't) but because people would deem it no longer necessary. 

 

I don't think you are going to get many here agreeing with you, topic creator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lazypanda said:

I think sex is disgusting and so damn primitive, hence future humans should be bred in a lab with artificial uteruses! 

Thank goodness you have no control over anything relating to the human race. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that it should be a respectful consent of all parties involved. I happen to never plan on being one of those parties, though, because I personally find the concept of it disgusting. If I ever have kids, I'd want them to be test tube babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I"m sorry, utopia ? It's impossible to exist an utopia simply because humans aren't perfect and never will be.

Not even just "perfect" -- it's because we all have different tastes.  As this topic clearly demonstrates, what is a utopia to one person would be a dystopia to many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint, but like others here, I find the concept of all sex being immoral rather bizarre. 

I can understand the idea of being repused by sex, that's a not uncommon point of view hereabouts 

However, morally creating human embryos could be seen by some as much more questionable than sexual reproduction as it opens the door to eugenics, designer babies etc. The end result would probably be a loss of genetic diversity and a new pathogen wiping out humanity 

Agree. Making baby humans in a lab would probably form all sorts of discrimination. As much as gene-selecting test-tube babies could help prevent genetic disorders, I could only imagine so many issues that could arise from parents could select a child's genes, for example, selecting certain genes to make the child "beautiful" or "perfect" could destroy diversity in the gene pool, not to mention cause all sorts of -isms. I've heard bad stories about bigoted parents trying to "cure" their child's autism or "fix" their child's sexuality. 

 

Every utopian idea can have dystopian side effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
2 hours ago, James121 said:

Thank goodness you have no control over anything relating to the human race. 

 

 

Technicaly, lazypanda is not wrong. Sex is primitive and many people can find it disgusting, on a general term. Its only when emotional aspects get involved that they change their opinion.

 

Moreover, I could see the appeal in a lab created specimen. For one thing it could control population and allow better distribution of resources (assuming the entities that govern it arent complete assholes, but meh one can dream)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James121 said:

Thank goodness you have no control over anything relating to the human race. 

Thank you for ur wonderful comment !!!

 

Too bad I don't have control over the human race....if I did...at least there wont be terrible STDs,birth complications and over population !!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

For one thing it could control population and allow better distribution of resources (assuming the entities that govern it arent complete assholes, but meh one can dream)

Exactly !!! We could also use genetic engineering to ensure babies don't have any genetic diseases or genes with potenial for disease !!! 

Again,as @Jade Cross said,assuming the people regulating this are ethical !

Link to post
Share on other sites
confused lil bee

Apart from as many have mentioned the logistic and moral implications of human reproduction being confined to the lab, it doesn't make sense. If the argument here is that you think it's primitive, disgusting or not to your taste why does that effect anyone else? Surely those who oppose sex can just... not participate in it? Most of the human population seems to really enjoy sex though so even if it were possible to breed people in a lab (why would you want to though? who would pay for this?? what is the incentive???) it's not gonna stop any time soon lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

Technicaly, lazypanda is not wrong. Sex is primitive and many people can find it disgusting, on a general term. Its only when emotional aspects get involved that they change their opinion.

 

Moreover, I could see the appeal in a lab created specimen. For one thing it could control population and allow better distribution of resources (assuming the entities that govern it arent complete assholes, but meh one can dream)

 

 

14 hours ago, lazypanda said:

I think sex is disgusting and so damn primitive, hence future humans should be bred in a lab with artificial uteruses! 

All the human wants and needs are primitive, though. Maybe we should evolve and not digest food through our mouths? Just beam food into us Star Trek style? Well no, no one wants to do that, because eating is enjoyable. Just as sex is. But, not everyone finds eating enjoyable, nor does everyone find sex enjoyable.

 

1 hour ago, lazypanda said:

Exactly !!! We could also use genetic engineering to ensure babies don't have any genetic diseases or genes with potenial for disease !!! 

Again,as @Jade Cross said,assuming the people regulating this are ethical !

And who determines is the people regulating it are 'ethical'? Ethical pertaining to whose standards? A lot of people would say that the genes for being gay give potential for disease (HIV). Does this mean a lot of people would want to ensure babies don't have these genes? Where do you draw the line? Who decides where to draw the line? Why is this better than just letting natural genetic selection take its own choices?

 

Also, it's not like we understand enough to do this anyway. Perhaps such genetic engineering could just lead to different sorts of genetic diseases. For example, what if we think we understand how a genetic illness is manifested in our genes, but we don't actually, and it just leads to a different disability upon 'removing' it?

 

There are WAY too many what ifs at this stage. It is definitely not a better option than sexual reproduction at this stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lazypanda said:

Thank you for ur wonderful comment !!!

 

Too bad I don't have control over the human race....if I did...at least there wont be terrible STDs,birth complications and over population !!! 

And someone (you) would be in complete control over how many children one family are allowed to have, when they can have them and removes any surprise pregnancy (which in some cases is a good thing). This is a power no one should be allowed to have.

Hitler tried to have enough power over the human race to play god. Thank the lord he was stopped by the allied nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

 

 

Technicaly, lazypanda is not wrong. Sex is primitive and many people can find it disgusting, on a general term. Its only when emotional aspects get involved that they change their opinion.

 

Moreover, I could see the appeal in a lab created specimen. For one thing it could control population and allow better distribution of resources (assuming the entities that govern it arent complete assholes, but meh one can dream)

 

 

 

Eating meat is also primitive. Should we all be made to stop?

Mankind making tools to serve a purpose is primitive. We should stop this too (despite the fact that the tools required to harvest a lab pregnancy are designed and made by man)

“Many people can find sex disgusting” but for every one that does there are thousands maybe millions that don’t.

We don’t survive as a species by following the few and ignoring the many.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lazypanda said:

Exactly !!! We could also use genetic engineering to ensure babies don't have any genetic diseases or genes with potenial for disease !!! 

Again,as @Jade Cross said,assuming the people regulating this are ethical !

Assuming.

 

And that’s the issue right there. My immediate argument is that it is unethical to remove sex and produce children in a lab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lazypanda said:

Again,as @Jade Cross said,assuming the people regulating this are ethical !

Is there any example of Mankind regulating such a big thing in an ethical manner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...