Supposing men were rendered obsolete by science and eventually bred out of existence.

Do you think that that is an acceptable use of science? a beneficial use?

I personally don't disagree that every woman has a right to cut men out of the breeding equation entirely, but it seems like kind of cold treatment of half the population.

You're assuming it would happen intentionally, through science. It could happen naturally, as it did to the animals mentioned.

Answer the question.

I don't believe it to be a desirable use of science at all. However I think it is an inevitable outcome of modern feminist ideology. You asked for my opinion, doesn't mean it had to be a popular one.

It seems like you have the curious notion in your head that, being born a man, you're entitled to sex with *someone* and entitled to breed.

Why, pray tell, is that?

If you think technology will give women more and more choices, shouldn't you direct your efforts toward being the kind of man women will still *want* to procreate with even if they've got options?

Superduperficial:

It seems like you have the curious notion in your head that, being born a man, you're entitled to sex with *someone* and entitled to breed.

Why, pray tell, is that?

If you think technology will give women more and more choices, shouldn't you direct your efforts toward being the kind of man women will still *want* to procreate with even if they've got options?

I don't think I am entitled to sex. I don't think that mankind is entitled to his continued existence. I do value myself and my gender and I think I am worthy of sex and relationships if not actually "entitled" (those are two different words with different meanings - just so there is no confusion) Apparently some feel that men are neither entitled nor worthy of the furtherance of their genetic code. If that is your feeling you are certainly entitled to express it (rather than deflecting the question back onto me).

It certainly depends on what type of man women *want* to procreate with. It is my sense that the type of woman that would pursue her own personal pathogenisis is not the type of woman whom I would want to procreate with in any case, so I suppose if I am not "good enough" it is no great loss to me. Suffice it to say I believe that there are class issues at play as much as gender issues.

It is no great loss to me. What a revelation! The question remains, however; is it alright to have an eliminationist attitude towards the male gender? I suppose it is if you can just convince yourself that its their own damn fault. Maybe, just maybe (for once) the gender that has an unhealthy attitude toward it's opposite is the female.

Even if science progresses to the point where women can have children without a man at all, men would never be bred out of existance. Too many women like having husbands and boyfriends for this to happen.

I see nothing beneficial in not having men in the world. As for acceptable, well I don't think that it is wrong to develope technology so that women could have children without the genes of a man. But I do not think that it would be acceptable to be rid of men. Of course, this would never happen as I stated above, so it's really a moot point.

Beaujoe:

Supposing men were rendered obsolete by science and eventually bred out of existence.

Do you think that that is an acceptable use of science? a beneficial use?

I personally don't disagree that every woman has a right to cut men out of the breeding equation entirely, but it seems like kind of cold treatment of half the population.

It seems like you're conflating two things here:

1) Scientifically enabling women to produce children without men.

and

2) Breeding men out of existence.

One does not follow the other.

It's the same sort of "logic" people use when they claim that "allowing" homosexual relationships will eventually lead to the demise of the human race - after all, homosexuals cannot reproduce. As if "allowing" the 10% (or less) of the population that is gay to lead normal lives (as married folk, parents, etc) would suddenly "turn gay" the other 90%!

Same goes for this argument. I have no problem with the DNA of two women producing a child (and yes, it's an acceptable, even exceptional use of science!)... I'm not sure why anyone does... But, IF that does eventually happen, how many people do you imagine would undergo the procedure instead of just doing it the old-fashioned way... (boy mounts girl/girl mounts boy, etc, etc) It has the benefits of being free and (generally speaking) quite fun as well.

I agree with bugger. It is alarmist to think men will be eliminated because of this.

Exactly. And if we *were* eliminated, it would be in a free market fashion (women simply choosing not to breed with them) rather than as part of some coordinated policy.

Acceptable to use science in order to eliminate the necessity of men for procreation? Yes

Beneficial to eliminate men by this? No

Unlikely to happen? Extremely. Not only will artificial wombs give men the chance to reproduce as they wish, there's just too much fun to be had doing it the old fashion way

This is just too funny. I hope that you are being sarcastic here. I'm sure that women being able to reproduce without a male is much closer to being possible than artificial wombs for men are. Not too many men would be interested in the discomfort and pain that would involve. But what is actually feasible is that women could continue to have babies with only a few men on the planet. And that could be accomplished no matter what the sexual orientation of the females. It only takes one of millions of sperm to impregnate a woman, but there is usually only one egg produced at a time.

I'm not being sarcastic. Google "artificial womb" and you'll see what I mean. Research is being conducted both to help women who are infertile because of damaged uterus, where the artifical womb would be transferred back to them after the embryo establishes itself, and where the fetus is brought out of the womb and develops in a tank of amniotic fluid. Good article in the Guardian covers some of this.

<link>

But like I said before, it won't replace the natural method any time soon.

A species that is totally dependent on a particular technology to reproduce isn't viable. That reason alone should make the idea undesireable.

'course, I'm male and have hopes of being found desireable by an adult female of the species, so I might be biased;)

Let feminists try. They'll have a war on their hands that they can't win. Women are still physically weaker than men, and no amount of science is going to change that in the near term.

As far as cutting men out of the situation: the science cuts both ways. Given an artificial womb, it is women that could be phased out.