Jump to content

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


LittleGoody2Shoes

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Jade Cross said:

Let me ask you this. Do you consider things like driving a car, wearing colone, using utensils to eat is unnatural?

Cars aren't natural. Perfumes can be, but the act of perfuming yourself definitely is. Utensils, depends on what they are.

 

I feel the need to specify that being "natural" or "unnatural" doesn't make a thing good or bad.

 

Anthrax poisoning is very "natural", I think we can all agree that it's a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
1 minute ago, James121 said:

I can’t see your point at all.

Now youre just trolling. Have it your way then.

 

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

Implying that sexual people are primal and need to evolve.

Saying an act is primitive is not the same as saying the people doing it are primitive ! Grow up...

 

3 hours ago, Baam said:

Now this is BLATANT asexual elitism here. This is clearly stating that you are superior to me and all other sexual people.

So saying being rich is better than being poor means that all poor people are inferior ? Your thinking is so messed up. 

 

3 hours ago, Baam said:

 

If you admit that not all sexuals are like this, then why do you insist that all of us should suffer for some people's bad decisions?

What ?? 

How are you suffering by making babies in a lab ??? 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Why on earth did you think it was anything to do with you? I was just pointing out more potential advantages.

Of all the advantages of genetic engineering,that's the one you thought off? Well done !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

wow.....what an insightful comment that has contributed so much to our discussion here !!!! 

 

Before you make "wonderful" comments like this,pls take some time to read the thread and understand the context of the replies ! You only embarrass yourself by making irrelevent comments like this.

Before you crow about your ridiculous opinions, perhaps educate yourself on the subject matter. You only embarrass yourself by making uneducated assertions like you have in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James121 said:

About as mature as arguing we should completely change the way the human species are brought in to this world.

Yea...people mature by wondering about new ideas....not by vehemently opposing anyone who suggests anything new. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Camicon said:

Before you crow about your ridiculous opinions, perhaps educate yourself on the subject matter. You only embarrass yourself by making uneducated assertions like you have in this thread.

Care to enlighten me what uneducated assertions I have made ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lazypanda said:

Saying an act is primitive is not the same as saying the people doing it are primitive ! Grow up...

It implies it, just as your entire argument does.

Quote

So saying being rich is better than being poor means that all poor people are inferior ? Your thinking is so messed up. 

Yes, saying that literally does mean you're saying that. You do know that 'better' and 'superior' are synomyms, right? If being a rich person is better than being a poor person, then rich people are superior to poor people. That's what you're saying.

Quote

What ?? 

How are you suffering by making babies in a lab ???

You said that the world would be a better place if you were in charge and there was no more sex. That is denying all sexual people of an activity that we really enjoy! Depriving us of all sexual activity just because you think it's immoral and disgusting is for sure something that would make sexual people suffer!

 

'Making babies in a lab' is not something that I am disapproving of. I am very supportive of things such as IVF. What I am very disapproving of is your statements that sex is primitive and that we would all be better of without it.

 

I'd also appreciate it if you could refrain from throwing petty insults my way, thanks. The inferences are bad enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see that this thread has been infested with multiple trolls who make irrelevent comments ,take personal jabs and argue for the sake of arguing. 

There's only one way to stop this...and that's to stop feeding the trolls. 

Thats what I'm going to do!!! I'm going to stop dignifying ur silly arguments with a response !!!

Have fun trolls !!! Goodbye !!!! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
9 minutes ago, Camicon said:

 

 

I feel the need to specify that being "natural" or "unnatural" doesn't make a thing good or bad.

Thats my point. The only argument being used is if lab breeding is unatural but nothing beyond that. Just as we use unatural things in everyday life, a process like lab bredding would be the same.

 

9 minutes ago, Camicon said:

 

Anthrax poisoning is very "natural", I think we can all agree that it's a bad thing.

Agreed and noone denies ita bad just becauss its natural.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

Ok, I see that this thread has been infested with multiple trolls who make irrelevent comments ,take personal jabs and argue for the sake of arguing. 

There's only one way to stop this...and that's to stop feeding the trolls. 

Thats what I'm going to do!!! I'm going to stop dignifying ur silly arguments with a response !!!

Have fun trolls !!! Goodbye !!!! 

You yourself took a couple of personal jabs at me... We're not trolls just because we don't agree with you, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last try.

 

15 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

and the "fact" that artificial birth is unnatural

It's literally right there in the very term you're using. The whole point of the term "artificial" is to distinguish stuff from "natural".

 

16 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

Its just the general trend.

Could you back this up?

 

Also, I'd really be interested in the benefits of artificial production only. The question still stands - what would actually make artificial reproduction a better way? Who gets to determine what the "ethical standards" are which the people in the lab are supposed to follow? And of course - what are those moral objections you refer to?

 

Yes, there are people who can't procreate for some reason or other and those might benefit, but this approach holds absolutely no advantage for the overwhelming majority of the population. Most people I ever talked to about this see conceiving and pregnancy as important steps on the "road to parenthood".

The "less discrimination" angle doesn't make any sense either - if people want to discriminate against someone, they'll find something. Wouldn't education be the better and more sustainable way, compared to just taking things away from people? If you got mocked for your haircut, how would you feel if someone told you "Well just shave your head!"?

 

There are some people who suck at driving. Does that mean that we should abolish all vehicles? (The benefits are right there, clean air, a safer environment and a ton of exercise for everyone.) There are people who can't control their eating habits. Away with food, problem solved? There are videos with questionable content on the internet. Shut the whole thing down, everyone wins? Is this the approach towards things you favour? That's not a world I'd want to live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

Yea...people mature by wondering about new ideas....not by vehemently opposing anyone who suggests anything new. 

 

Ok I think we just have to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Monteiro

Can we all agree that nobody is going to agree equally on the matter about sex ? Looking to this thread, I just see lots of arguments with their own emotional and rational mix to argue what it's better and what is worst. This is one of the reasons why humanity will never truly work in conjuction with the agreement of every human, it's simply impossible, every person has their own opinions. 

 

By the way, if we are talking about breeding humans in lab, I would say it's definitely a bad idea cause of the human nature. There will always be someone who will want to take control over to have power, and giving the tools to control the birth of the population to some few people, it's not a great idea. For those who find a good idea, I would advice for you to watch the movie Gattaca, and see what I'm talking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Baam said:

Yes, saying that literally does mean you're saying that. You do know that 'better' and 'superior' are synomyms, right? If being a rich person is better than being a poor person, then rich people are superior to poor people. That's what you're saying.

Just for the record, I fiercely disagree with this statement.

 

Being rich is better than being poor. Things like overall general health and life expectancy directly correlate to the standard you live in. I can't think of a single circumstance in which anyone would ever say "Damn, I wish I had no idea how to make ends meet and what to eat for dinner tomorrow." Yet I DO think that you conflated two things. No matter if we agree on being rich as something better than being poor, it doesn't mean that rich people are better people than poor people. Those are two completely different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Homer said:

Just for the record, I fiercely disagree with this statement.

 

Being rich is better than being poor. Things like overall general health and life expectancy directly correlate to the standard you live in. I can't think of a single circumstance in which anyone would ever say "Damn, I wish I had no idea how to make ends meet and what to eat for dinner tomorrow." Yet I DO think that you conflated two things. No matter if we agree on being rich as something better than being poor, it doesn't mean that rich people are better people than poor people. Those are two completely different things.

I think I've worded myself poorly. She said that a population would be better if they were all asexual. Therefore, if you have two populations, one comprised of all asexual people, and one of all sexual people... She would be saying that the asexual population would be better than the sexual population, i.e. the asexual population would be superior to the asexual population. I do not think that those two things are completely different at all.

 

In that context, 'better' and 'superior', are the same. But I agree with what you are saying in the quote above. And you could interpret what I said as conflating two things, due to my bad wording. But it's not what I intended. I didn't say that if 'rich' is better than 'poor', then being a rich person is superior to being a poor person. I said, if being a rich person is better than being a poor person (objectively), then being a rich person is superior to being a poor person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, lazypanda said:

Ok, I see that this thread has been infested with multiple trolls who make irrelevent comments ,take personal jabs and argue for the sake of arguing. 

There's only one way to stop this...and that's to stop feeding the trolls. 

Thats what I'm going to do!!! I'm going to stop dignifying ur silly arguments with a response !!!

Have fun trolls !!! Goodbye !!!! 

 

 

No trolls, just people who believe that statements such as ‘laboratories should replace natural breeding’ is ludicrous. Now enough people have opposed the idea, they are “trolls”. That was such a predictable escape route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lucas Monteiro said:

Can we all agree that nobody is going to agree equally on the matter about sex ? Looking to this thread, I just see lots of arguments with their own emotional and rational mix to argue what it's better and what is worst. This is one of the reasons why humanity will never truly work in conjuction with the agreement of every human, it's simply impossible, every person has their own opinions. 

 

By the way, if we are talking about breeding humans in lab, I would say it's definitely a bad idea cause of the human nature. There will always be someone who will want to take control over to have power, and giving the tools to control the birth of the population to some few people, it's not a great idea. For those who find a good idea, I would advice for you to watch the movie Gattaca, and see what I'm talking about it.

Absolutely. I just feel if people are going to start threads like this, expect some feedback. Just because there is feedback that people don’t like, it doesn’t make someone a troll.

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

Thats my point. The only argument being used is if lab breeding is unatural but nothing beyond that. Just as we use unatural things in everyday life, a process like lab bredding would be the same.

No, the argument is that the technology which allows test tube babies carries with it the potential to be massively abused by unethical and unscrupulous individuals. And even if all attempts are made in good faith, our DNA is incredibly complicated and manipulating it in one seemingly simple way could result in a cascading series of problems that only become emergent later in life.

 

The argument is not that the technology is unethical, but that the people in charge of the technology frequently are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross
12 minutes ago, Camicon said:

No, the argument is that the technology which allows test tube babies carries with it the potential to be massively abused by unethical and unscrupulous individuals. And even if all attempts are made in good faith, our DNA is incredibly complicated and manipulating it in one seemingly simple way could result in a cascading series of problems that only become emergent later in life.

 

The argument is not that the technology is unethical, but that the people in charge of the technology frequently are.

 

 

That didnt seem to be what was being argued. But if it was, I had already stated from the start that the benefits from lab breeding would be benefitial, provided those that governed it were assholes. Even said "meh one can dream"

 

Not sure how that got lost in translation

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

this reminds me of a dystopian book I read called "Brave new world" if you truly think people being made from test tubes only (I understand thats how some babies start because a mother has problems getting pregnant) is a good idea then i encourage you to read this book 

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

Now youre just trolling. Have it your way then.

 

Jade, I am seriously not just trolling. This thread indicates that we as a species should consider ditching natural conception and womb based pregnancies for a laboratory. I can’t begin to tell you just how ridiculous and extreme I find this idea. The only supporting evidence for it is that 1) the people supporting it don’t like sex  2) disease may be reduced and 3) we may be able to harvest the perfect human being.

 

But as for number 1, it’s biased by your lack of interest or dislike of sex. 2 is an unproven argument because hospitals are literally littered with disease and germs that end up killing people and who is to say the laboratory wouldn’t be? 3, define the perfect human being because you and I for certain will have a different opinion. I’m not trolling, I just don’t agree with you and it’s an easy and predictable way of trying to discredit my view.

 

But......it hasn’t worked.

 

Sorry

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

 

 

That didnt seem to be what was being argued. But if it was, I had already stated from the start that the benefits from lab breeding would be benefitial, provided those that governed it were assholes. Even said "meh one can dream"

 

Not sure how that got lost in translation

 

It didn’t get lost in translation, it’s just an unethical method to breed full stop if everyone is made to do it. I and I’m sure others understand what you are saying but it doesn’t change how extreme and strange that type of view is.

 

Its no different to me starting a thread called “moral objections to lack of sexuality. All non breeders should be treated in a lab”

 

You can’t be serious in that you believe that this extreme idea of removing choice from human beings is a good idea? I’m starting to wonder who is trolling!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the original post, "a utopian world where people don't have sex" 

 

I think it's fair to say that most people would regard that as the exact opposite of a utopian world. Utopia would be a world where STD's don't exist, and consenting couples could just flick a switch to decide which act of intercourse creates a baby and which acts don't. 

 

Moral objections. Maybe these are not natural, but a human construct. Could they be as natural as birth control, antibiotics, computers etc? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
PixleyDust✨
On 2/13/2018 at 8:37 PM, E is for E said:

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?

Woah. AVEN gets DEEP. 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP let ppl  breed and continue to overpopulate the planet, suck resources dry, kill the environment in peace. In a few centuries it'll be descendants from their line suffering not you.

 

Seriously now...nothing goes as plan when it comes to humans. If there is a utopia we will find some way to fk that up. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex acts so idk why there is a moral claim here and frankly you can't stop ppl from having kids naturally. 

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

OP let ppl  breed and continue to overpopulate the planet, suck resources dry, kill the environment in peace. In a few centuries it'll be descendants from their line suffering not you.

 

Seriously now...nothing goes as plan when it comes to humans. If there is a utopia we will find some way to fk that up. There's nothing wrong with consensual sex acts so idk why there is a moral claim here and frankly you can't stop ppl from having kids naturally. 

Just just to be clear, the OP mentioned nothing about over population, resources being sucked dry or the planet being destroyed. Simply it was a post hating on natural conception and natural pregnancy born of a hatred and disgust of sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rhaenys said:
8 minutes ago, E is for E said:

Damn, I think the oil fire in here scared OP away. I legitimately wanted a discussion for curiousity's sake.

No further comment from the OP.

I was hoping they would have returned to clear up what the post at meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...