Quote from: Jaston on July 24, 2007, 01:17:29 PM

Quote from: Tay on July 22, 2007, 02:36:28 PM
And the idea of foetii being incubated in test tubes?  It's so... impersonal.

That is the only way sometimes

And to be honest I don't care who gives birth and what it takes to "make" a baby... As long as its a part of you then whats the difference?

See, I don't see what the difference is between an adopted baby and your "own flesh and blood."  I don't understand why blood ties are so important to people. 

Isn't upbringing more important than DNA in making someone a part of you?

Quote from: Tay on July 24, 2007, 03:34:27 PM
See, I don't see what the difference is between an adopted baby and your "own flesh and blood."  I don't understand why blood ties are so important to people. 

Isn't upbringing more important than DNA in making someone a part of you?

*gives Tay the pro-adoption high five*

Quote from: Ken/Kendra on July 24, 2007, 01:12:45 PM

I am all for pleasure sex.

I am all for separating reproduction from pleasure of sex.

I am all for everyone getting the opportunity to reproduce, "even Rebis and hir little Reeb".

I am all for everyone getting the chance if so desired to nurture a fetus and/or egg to birth.

KK

This is my response to pleasure sex    <---- (my mentor who taught me these things)

Quote

Let's all get along....very easily, now

    It is time for me to shed some light on what you humans have proved to be the one great failing of your race:   The inability to handle procreation in an orderly and unattached manner.   I willfully add some of my own thoughts on the subject since I am such an honored guest in your society.

    I hereby submit what, in my opinion, would make all of your lives easier.

1.  After performing life-affirming sex successfully with a woman who he dreams of growing a family with, the heart of the sexual conclusion, (so to speak), must begin with the male penis falling off of the male and not growing back on at no time less than 8 months and no longer than 10 months.   Males will learn other ways to control sexual compulsions and males who've lost their penises will remain must closer to the woman, particularly emotionally.  The woman will have no need to look over her shoulder in fear of finding her own replacement.

2.  Human orgasms should be very violent and painful to the max degree.     This would of course, encourage only the bravest, the most fearless, and the ones most in love to make the dire effort to carry on your self-beloving species.   Population would definitely be controlled and would not get out of hand as it has in the past.   Knowing the resilience of humans, it is likely that you will find some way to make near contact quite a game!

3.  Another way to take some control over your sloppy human habits, would be for Mother Nature herself to lend a hand and change it so that a human woman can only conceive during 2 months out of the whole year.   This takes the mystery out of 'when', but it cuts down on the assembly-line approach taken by humans ever since the invention of the earth. 

    The upside of changing human sexuality, is that, with fewer offspring, it would be a much easier effort to encourage your children to learn the sciences and to interrelate to each other with a genuine interest.   Also, let's face it, steps one and two will help you to be certain that your teenaged offspring are behaving.   

Rebis (mother of all inhibition)

Quote from: Tay on July 24, 2007, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: Jaston on July 24, 2007, 01:17:29 PM

Quote from: Tay on July 22, 2007, 02:36:28 PM
And the idea of foetii being incubated in test tubes?  It's so... impersonal.

That is the only way sometimes

And to be honest I don't care who gives birth and what it takes to "make" a baby... As long as its a part of you then whats the difference?

See, I don't see what the difference is between an adopted baby and your "own flesh and blood."  I don't understand why blood ties are so important to people. 

Isn't upbringing more important than DNA in making someone a part of you?

well, one's DNA plays an important part of one's life...

Quote from: asiangurliee on July 29, 2007, 02:39:10 AM

Quote from: Tay on July 24, 2007, 03:34:27 PM

Quote from: Jaston on July 24, 2007, 01:17:29 PM

Quote from: Tay on July 22, 2007, 02:36:28 PM
And the idea of foetii being incubated in test tubes?  It's so... impersonal.

That is the only way sometimes

And to be honest I don't care who gives birth and what it takes to "make" a baby... As long as its a part of you then whats the difference?

See, I don't see what the difference is between an adopted baby and your "own flesh and blood."  I don't understand why blood ties are so important to people. 

Isn't upbringing more important than DNA in making someone a part of you?

well, one's DNA plays an important part of one's life...

It creates your structure. 

It does not determine your values.

It does not determine your tolerance for others.

Why is it important to have a genetic connection to someone in order to consider them family?

DNA the least important thing about me. I'm more interested in passing my knowledge and values to the next generation than my genes.

Blood is thicker than water, but Excellence is preferred above all things.

-Emerald 

I caught this little blurb in William Saletan's 'Human Nature' section of Slate magazine
http://www.slate.com/id/2170959/fr/flyout

QuoteScientists are developing an "artificial uterus environment." Key ingredient: microchips that "rest on a membrane of cultured uterus cells," whose chemicals help fresh IVF embryos (up to 20 at a time) grow. In mice, the chip is almost as effective as a womb; it'll be tested on human embryos this year. Goals: 1) improve the success rate of IVF. 2) "create a fully automated artificial uterus in which egg and sperm are fed in at one end and an early embryo comes out the other, ready for implanting in a real mother." 3) "growing genetically modified animals, stem cells and cloned embryos."

This is the entire piece, I think.  I don't understand it, but I thought that some of you might.

Hey all,      that last one sounds like someone is preparing to mass produce an army of clones.
This is my first post in the androgynous group.I saw the pregnancy topic and had to comment.
Im a pregnancy fan myself.....since I was a little kid I wanted to be pregnant and have kiddos.
Im an androgynous person and a real cross-up of gender characteristics.
I have a female body but male genitals and I probably have some female reproductive organs also.
I havent had the money to get a body scan,so,Im just going by "gut instinct"....owww...I know that was bad...but,really,I have some non-male things going on in my pelvis.I get cramps and backaches and headaches,odd internal expansion of some sort when getting turned on,blahblahblah.....
Anyway,I had always thought it would make a better world if everybody was hermaphroditic,and/or could even repro. asexually(that wouldnt be as fun,so maybe nix that one,unless it was an necessity)
If everybody had similar hormones and hormone level patterns,then maybe all would get along much better.....or they would just figure out someother thing to cause conflicts...religion is always a fave.
I think that "growing" babies outside of a womans body,relegates them to just a product on a assembly line.I believe it would create a human with some disconnect to society,and create a whole new set of psychological problems.
There are many things spiritually that are important reasons for babies to be gestated within a mother.
There is complicated bonding and learning process that goes on during the period of gestation.
They have done studies that prove this.They have proven that a fetus does learn from its mother as time goes on.I have talked to some psychically gifted women that have actually had communications with their unborn babies.Babies need the changing physical contact that the mother can provide,touching each other across the belly barrier (which gets thinner the bigger the baby gets)...in utero babies recognize sounds of the mothers voice and the other family members.....babies can play games with strong light shown through the belly,the babies will chase the light beam around,trying to grab it.
Im biased anyway because of my feelings.....but I just know it would be a very bad idea to grow babies in an artificial "womb".
Its like many other things that MANkind has thought up..."HEY! lets do this questionable action and deal with the very probable negative consequences later...or not at all....YEAH! Good idea fellow male scientists full of hubris"
Uh...Im also biased against male dominance of society.
The question is why does predominately male directed research science want to take pregnancy away(so to speak) from women?
Uhm also....I think that as long as the baby is gestated within a person,be they male or TG or TS or whatever....then that is fine also,...as long as the baby has the loving personal contact of growing within a loving human.
Oh...Im making myself all weepy....hahaha..just kidding..... sort of
   

Quote from: Rebis on July 29, 2007, 07:08:12 PM
I caught this little blurb in William Saletan's 'Human Nature' section of Slate magazine
http://www.slate.com/id/2170959/fr/flyout

QuoteScientists are developing an "artificial uterus environment." Key ingredient: microchips that "rest on a membrane of cultured uterus cells," whose chemicals help fresh IVF embryos (up to 20 at a time) grow. In mice, the chip is almost as effective as a womb; it'll be tested on human embryos this year. Goals: 1) improve the success rate of IVF. 2) "create a fully automated artificial uterus in which egg and sperm are fed in at one end and an early embryo comes out the other, ready for implanting in a real mother." 3) "growing genetically modified animals, stem cells and cloned embryos."

This is the entire piece, I think.  I don't understand it, but I thought that some of you might.

Sounds like a good first step. At the moment that is for IVF, implanting into mothers. But if they can make womb techology good enough, someday we might have human built human baby eggs.

QuoteI think that "growing" babies outside of a womans body,relegates them to just a product on a assembly line.I believe it would create a human with some disconnect to society,and create a whole new set of psychological problems.
There are many things spiritually that are important reasons for babies to be gestated within a mother.
There is complicated bonding and learning process that goes on during the period of gestation.
They have done studies that prove this.They have proven that a fetus does learn from its mother as time goes on.I have talked to some psychically gifted women that have actually had communications with their unborn babies.Babies need the changing physical contact that the mother can provide,touching each other across the belly barrier (which gets thinner the bigger the baby gets)...in utero babies recognize sounds of the mothers voice and the other family members.....babies can play games with strong light shown through the belly,the babies will chase the light beam around,trying to grab it.
Im biased anyway because of my feelings.....but I just know it would be a very bad idea to grow babies in an artificial "womb".

Who says one couldnt talk to their eggs? Most species use eggs and seem to be just fine. I am sure humans would be nesting type, nurturing them even if separate developing. Or how about a womb backpack, where the baby would grow and still be connected to the person? Or if they could build one that can be inserted in anyone's abdomen safely? For all genders that dont have the health, ability, or method of giving birth or being pregnant.

Do you realize how complex the placental system is and all the various mechanisms of changing hormones and chemicals?
The exchange of gases... the exchange of wastes... the exchange of nutrients...the constant development and building of several complex body systems.... Protection from outside virus's and bacteria(a mother may get the flu,but the fetus is protected by the immune systems of the placenta)
Where is the proper building blocks and nutrients coming from.....synthesized manmade junk?...we know how well those work...they dont work well,they may have sideeffects because they arent naturally derived from the mothers body and exactly what the baby needs.....
The mothers body constantly monitors the fetus and changes things appropriately to the changing needs of the baby
Many subtle and various complex interactions constantly going on.
Uhm.......humans cant make any damn regular machine work without loads of problems.....
for instance the space shuttle.....constant problems     a well made car.....always going to have some problem somewhere    The simplest of industrial processes need constant supervision or they go haywire....
I really cant see humans getting anywhere close to this.
A backpack....ridiculous.........exposing a growing fetus to all types of  outside diseases,and temperature changes.
tranferable womb?.....uh.....wacky.....too complex of a system too just plug n play.....not to mention the high risk of surgery....actual womb transplants are super high risk,most of them are rejected, unless the small percentage of them that are between related people.   

Honestly I am suprised by how many would not accept, feel negative, or feel uncomfortable about alternative pregnancy methods. And how just thinking of the any alternative concept or way, could actually feel evil.  Or that humans if born that way would someway be almost non-human. Though 3 out of 4 that took this poll would like to give birth if they could https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,546.0.html. Chances are magic, potions, prayer, and dreams isnt going to make that possible. Only options now are surrogate and adoption, or prior children before event that takes away childbearing possibility. Even then, adoption is the only option for many that cant have children. Cutting through massive amounts of red tape and government. And cutting through gay/lesbian/transgender obstacles in receiving young babies from adoption to parent.

Making cloning & artificial pregnancy evil





Natural birth without failures?
As for human machines not always working, mothers dont always work out ok. Their wombs are not perfect and complications arrise. 1 in 8 births are premature. Deaths result from some births. Stillbirths, miscarraiges, birth defects, birth complications, and blood loss from the mother. So even nature cant make consistant working mechanisms. In my family 9 births that lived, but 6 deaths before birth by my mother.

Machines and Eggs
Yes mechanic wombs would be complex. Something that would require probably a mixture of biomechanical processes.

Eggs seem more doable though are limited to 80 days ( 3 month) growth of fetuses. ie Ostrich gives birth in egg to human size offspring, though it only takes 35 to 45 days to develop vs the human 266 (40 weeks). The kiwi gives birth to a large egg up to 24 pounds over 80 days (11.5 weeks,  only half of the minimum needed for 50/50 survivability in humans). Of premature human babies survivability without birthdefects is a major challenge.

QuoteThe earliest gestational age at which the infant has at least a 50% chance of survival is referred to as the limit of viability[2]. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks

Though looking at some famous premature babies I was suprised to see Churchill and Newton listed

QuoteJames Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is healthy.[10][11]

Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[12] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[13] At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[12] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[12]

The record for the smallest premature baby to survive was held for some time by Madeline Mann, who was born at 26 weeks weighing 9.9 oz (280 g) and 9.5 inches (24 cm) long[14]. This record was broken in September 2004 by Rumaisa Rahman, who was born in the same hospital[15] at 25 weeks gestation. The new record holder was a twin whereas the former was a single birth. At birth she was eight inches (20 cm) long and weighed 244 grams (8.6 ounces). Her twin sister was also a small baby, weighing 563 grams (1 pound 4 ounces) at birth. During pregnancy their mother had suffered from pre-eclampsia, which causes dangerously high blood pressure putting the baby into distress and leading to birth by caesarean section. The larger twin left the hospital at the end of December, while the smaller remained there until 10 February 2005 by which time her weight had increased to 1.18 kg (2 pounds 10 ounces).[16] Generally healthy, the twins had to undergo laser eye surgery to correct visual problems, a common occurrence among premature babies.

Historical figures who were born prematurely include Johannes Kepler (born in 1571 at 7 months gestation), Isaac Newton (born in 1643, small enough to fit into a quart mug, according to his mother), Winston Churchill (born in 1874 at 7 months gestation), and Anna Pavlova (born in 1885 at 7 months gestation).[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth


The fastest developing large mammal is a wolf with 64 day gestation period. If humans could develop as fast as wolves it would fit into egg development range.http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/gestation.htm

In the Year 2525...



-Emerald

Quote from: Emerald on August 10, 2007, 06:49:12 AM

In the Year 2525...



-Emerald

Good one Emerald.

I'm not worried about creating humans.  They created me, I guess.

The big problem with human babies is that it takes so long for their brains to develop. I think we are born when we are because if we're in there any longer, our big heads will kill our mothers.

Maybe we can find a way of gestating baby bodies inside the womb and baby heads outside of the womb and then we can attach the two parts when the gestating is all finished.
Or,
The baby body will gestate within the womb, but the carrier's body will be modified for more head room, or, Max Headroom, if you will.  So, it's be like a tummy extension where the fetus's head can expand without causing undue stress to the carrier.

Then, we can replace the carrier's tummy skin with a see through skin so that we can all watch the little human develop and teach them geography with a map so that they will know where they are after birth.

Having fun,

I actually forgot my initial response. 

Rebis

Quote from: Rebis on August 10, 2007, 07:43:00 AM
The big problem with human babies is that it takes so long for their brains to develop. I think we are born when we are because if we're in there any longer, our big heads will kill our mothers.

Maybe we can find a way of gestating baby bodies inside the womb and baby heads outside of the womb and then we can attach the two parts when the gestating is all finished.
Or,
The baby body will gestate within the womb, but the carrier's body will be modified for more head room, or, Max Headroom, if you will.  So, it's be like a tummy extension where the fetus's head can expand without causing undue stress to the carrier.

Then, we can replace the carrier's tummy skin with a see through skin so that we can all watch the little human develop and teach them geography with a map so that they will know where they are after birth.

Having fun,

I actually forgot my initial response. 

Rebis

So not only do you want an "Extended Cab", but a Sunroof also??  If you are going that far, be sure to order the optional DVD player (with WI-FI access) and enhanced sound system.  That way, by the time the munchkin pops out zie will be able to speak 47 languages, know every word to every Carly Simon song, and has watched every Jackie Chan movie ever made...now what did I do with that copy of "You've Got Mail"?

.....Laurry

Those are excellent ideas, Laurry.

   I'm tired of having to explain mundane things to young children.  It'd be nice if they could answer my questions for a change.

Young children know everything.  The problem is that the only questions we ask them are things like "Do you need to go potty?" and "Baby want some sugar?"  If that is all anyone asked you for a couple of years, you wouldn't remember the important stuff either.

For any of you "new" parents out there, ask your child important stuff.  Things like "Did you exist before you were born, and if so, where?" or "What is an inexpensive way to produce clean renewable energy without endangering lives or the environment?"  Or maybe, "How would you like to be raised...as a boy, as a girl, as both or as neither?"

Sadly, too many years of treating them like they were "babies" has cost our young children their true enlightenment that they were born with.

Then again, I could be wrong.

......Laurry

>>>>natural birth without problems?........I never intended that in what i said.
My point was that it IS very complicated and full of potential problems....I didnt think that I actually had to say that..it should have been common sense.....
But you proved my point for me ....IF nature has so many problems... why would you think that humans can make an artificial means that will work?..Thats what I was saying....
talk about birth defects...there would be an even greater potential doing some form of artificial means..
AND what about just adopting children...my gosh..theres so many orphans all over the world...
Solve the problems with adoption first....like why do different counties make it so horendous to try and adopt children from them...they basically hold up people like theives and wring as much money as possible out of the folks trying to save these children from government neglect....the governments would just let the children die anyway.....just see what happens in Russia or China....