I would be cool with adopting, but the other person in this potential kid-raising endeavor is firmly attached to the idea of a child with his genetics. And mine .

Also, adopting is complicated and expensive.

You mentioned assisted reproduction technology. I, too, think it’s strange that people go to so much trouble to have genetic children, or even non-genetic children that they carry. I don’t understand why they want that. It’s not something I’d ever do.

Note: I don’t think anyone should be barred from using whatever reproductive technologies they’d like; I just don’t understand it. I’ve read enough by people who are going through hell to try to get biological children that if I was going to understand why they do it I would by now, but it just doesn’t make sense to me on a very fundamental level. Kind of like smoking.

Many thanks to all.

“I guess you’d know, Troll. … Small wonder we find you such a contemptable [SIC] piece of work.”

Ahh yes, one of the invective sisters. I expected one of you might show up spitting your vile, hate-fillied bilge. Your always lurking, ready jump into phone booth and dawn your cape, filled with bumper sticker slogans, and your giant foam finger so you can wag it at suspected trolls that might threaten to awake you from your self-loathing stupor.

Small wonder we find you such a contemptable [SIC] piece of work.

You contempt is my badge of honor. I think many others on this site are a lot more reasonable.

Simplicity can be very secure.

I guess you’d know, Troll. I find it a clear mark of an overly simple mind when a person obsesses constantly over hypotheticals at the expense of reality. While you toy with your pretend horror-show scenarios, your comrades in arms are stripping women of our reproductive rights. While you play with your gaming dice, your comrades play games with our lives to get their own moralistic ya-yas off. They work mightily, too, at selling your treasured hypotheticals to an ignorant public as things that are in imminent danger of occurring. Small wonder we find you such a contemptable piece of work.

For some reason many people on this site have a politician’s like fear of hypothetical. They either don’t want to be pinned down, or don’t want to think too hard about tough subjects. Simplicity can be very secure. But whether one is reasonable or not depends on the context and in the spirit that the questions were asked. If, for example, we were debating acceptable interrogation methods of suspected terrorists would it be unreasonable to explore the subject with hypotheticals? Why couldn’t I reasonably expect an answer to questions such as:

**Suppose a group of terrorists had captured a family and held them hostage and threatened to kill them in one day unless their leader was released from gitmo. Then suppose we got lucky and captured one of the group 12 hours before the deadline. Then suppose ordinary interrogation methods were not working and there were only 2 hours left. Should it be wrong or illegal to:

Slap him? Hit him with a baton? Falsely threaten to kill him with an unloaded weapon to scare him? Use a waterboard to make him think we would be drowned? Threaten him with a growling dog? etc.

**

In an honest debate should I expect answers such as: “show me where that’s happened and I will answer”, or “First answer me this: Suppose the suspected terrorist was really a terminator cyborg how would you capture him then? Huh? Huh? Then I will answer your questions.” (womanbabykeet)

I don’t see how the budgie scenario is any more ridiculous than, “Well, what if it were magically, painlessly, instantly transported from the woman’s body into an artificial womb hundreds of miles away, where it could develop into a baby that would immediately be adopted by a wealthy, progressive, culturally conscious family that would neither judge the birth mother nor alienate her? And she’s a convicted serial rapist and a paranoid schizophrenic? THEN would you allow her to get an abortion?!”

Which, yes, absolutely, if only because a woman has the right to opt out of an ultra-preachy Star Trek episode if she has the right to opt out of pregnancy, but so fucking what? Pregnancy is not a hypothetical. There are real-life, recorded situations to explore and debate. The women responding with (literally) chimerical pregnancy complications have the right to feel angry and scared when a commonplace situation with actual effects on their lives is treated as a Philosophy 101 essay question.

What if you were literally the last man on Earth, Larry? Would it be okay for women to steal your sperm, store it in Tupperware, and impregnate themselves the same day you were laid off? Would the survival of the human race give them a claim to child support, or would it be unfairly burdensome to garnish your wages hundreds of thousands of times over? Or, wait, what if this woman was an ex, and you’d been with her for ten years before breaking up, and you’d confessed to her many times your secret desire to have an out of wedlock baby result from a drunken one night stand? What then? What if a mad scientist grafted a snow leopard onto your groin? Would it be rape if scientists wanted to breed the snow leopard in captivity?

And the fact is, it’s really tiresome and offensive when people constantly bring up a hypothetical that not only doesn’t exist, but also wouldn’t be honored. When people bring up unreasonable hypothetical’s, don’t you agree that a reasonable answer is to quid pro quo?

Basically it was some pathetic attempt to justify dodging a series of hypothetical questions.

Link to post

What the hell is a “womanbabykeet”?

Considering this thread is the origin of the “long weird road of tangential speculation on reproductive technologies of the future,” as you put it in the other thread. Odd there is no whinning from you about hypotheticals or no bizarre rants about “womanbabykeet”s here.