Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Sorcha, Sep 9, 2004.
LOL, whoops...my bad...hehe. That's just what Kal-EL said, totally not my fault.
You must learn to word your post very carefully around here, darlin'.
Ahaha, so it would seem
I think women have been doing their job very well so far. I don't think that we are scarce on female population yet, or my eyes deceive me when I see about 7/10 of my school as females....
The point stated above is bot only wrong and pointless, but it is also crazy and mental from all angles of view.
Very eloquent Fingon, not to mention inoffensive
Not everyone who wants kids has access to a female who is "doing their job very well." Especially hetero couples where the female is incapable of having kids, or gay couples who wish to have kids.
"Wrong, pointless, crazy and mental." Care to elaborate?
Now Scorcha, are you saying everything should come down to religion or it just does?
Well, it always will come into play because people's religions color their opinions...most probably even base them on it. And in the case of an atheist, their opinion is based on the lack of religion. I'm not sure it should come into debates, but it is inevitable that it will.
So all us atheists can't have values similar to religious people?
Down girl, I don't think that's what she meant
Oh, no it isn't, I'm sorry. I just mean that god or whatever will not play into what you think, rather it will be based upon your own values. I'm so bad at wording things, I apologise. I really need to work on that, two strikes in as many days...in the same thread no less...
That's ok. I just hate it when people think the morals of non-religious people are automatically lower.
What point are you referring to?
the point that this post is reffering to....read it over and you will see...
Heh, I'm not exactly religous. I belvie in god and that's enough for me.
I think a big point is being overlooked in this discussion. The *need* for a man to gestate is irrelevant. It should not be governed based on need. If a man wants to gestate a child, why the hell not? Gay, straight, single, or married they should all have equal right to do so if they so desire and it does not increase the risk to the baby moreso than your garden variety pregnancy.
Many would argue that use of sperm banks, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc are not 'needed' either. While personally, I would get great satisfaction and amusement, if not a little wierded out, seeing a pregnant man waddling around, I do think that men should have that right if it is their desire. I imagine a similar debate was flaming round about the time the first test tube baby was proposed as well.
Most would argue that this would only be ethical if it did not pose an increased risk of injury/death to the infant. I agree with this. Having, what I can modestly say is a 'higher than average' knowledge about conception, pregnancy, and birth I am having a hard time rectifying how successful this would be. Given the necessitated location that would serve as the make shift womb, I have my doubts about the safety and well being of the growing child.
In a female pregnancy the baby has the benefit of being surrounded by an amazingly strong and accomodating muscle known as the uterus. Seeing as how men don't possess a uterus, the protection that it offers would be nonexistant. This would present a few problems; the obvious being that the growing baby would not have adequate protection from outside forces. This is not just limited to protecteing the child from physical harm, but also environmental harm as well. Noises, light, and even radioactivity would be a danger for the child. Loads of data support the fact that the uterus filters many potentially harmful substances. Radio waves have been proven to be harmful to the cell division that must take place for a baby to mature. The uterus protects the baby from this. Skin however would not. I could bore you with pages and pages of examples of the 'why this wouldn't be feasible', but if the majority of those factors were in some way erased, I see no reason why men shouldn't gestate children.
One more factor as well. Given the nature that the child must be born, via c-section, the risk of infant mortality is markedly increased. It is well documented, and reasonably undisputed, that statistically a vaginal birth is safer for the baby for many reasons(clearing lungs properly, signaling the brain to begin it's 'breathing' capabilites, sensory signals, nerological complications, etc). Of course, c-sections, are warranted for many female pregnancies and can be wonderful life saving operations. However, I do not see the ethical 'rightness' in creating an option that dictates that this increased risk will be part and parcel of all male pregnancies.
Oh, on the note of why is this research being conducted instead of potentially life-saving research, well I must agree with Nik about science being about exploration as well as utilitarian. Also, chances are this research was funded by groups(pharmecutical companies)that would stand to profit greatly from this. Sad to say more bucks can be made by hormonally and medically supporting a pregnant man than curing cancer/AIDS/any disease.
I can assure you there was. I remember it well.
Sadly, you are right. The pharmaceutical industry is all about money, and they do anything to get a multi-bilion dollar selling drug. But this kind of research is caried out by individual institutes such as universities, probably with very little funds. The Industry wouldn't be interested at this point, since the risk of failure is way to big. Maybe we are talking about 1 mln. dollar fundings a year, maybe invested by a pharm. Company. But then again, this is such a hot topic that nobody in the industry would dare to burn their fingers on it.
As a sidestep I would like to remark that the development of such a therapy would cost about $500,000,000-1,000,000,000 dollar. And then there is the risk of failure due to gouvernment policies. Can you imagine Bush saying "Sure, let all males get pregnant"? Nope, at this moment, the risks are way to high to develop this therapy. So, too bad guys, wait another 20 years or so.
well it has been a long time since i was here!
RoG you said a ways back
what did you meen!?!?
Separate names with a comma.