The Loud Shadow
- Jan 23, 2009
Fairly certain it was this one - similar but not exactly the sameRecusant said:If I have, it was more than a few months ago, probably more than 6.Xsjadoblayde said:I swear this exact topic has been posted before here. By the very same person! Am I imagining this? It had the same sort of replies and rebuttals for a few pages. Perhaps a little more long-winded.
This isn't your average de-ja-vu, nor glitch in the matrix, nay... I ... can't have invented this memory. Not another one. It has to be real this time.
From the much laxer threadGethsemani said:*Snips*Paragon Fury said:A woman's ability to have children creates automatic value, period. End of story. This isn't even debatable; it's scientific fact. However, alongside this they can have all the same kinds of value men can have - wit, intelligence, friendliness, cooking, crafting, charisma etc.
b) you absolutely need men too for babies to occur. This means that for any fertile women who wants babies, fertile men have the same value because without them she's up shit creek. It also means that on a sociological level you absolutely need both men and women because both are intrinsic to the procreation of the human race.
Something the "women have value because babies" does not, because it is intrinsically rooted in the idea that women act as gatekeepers to men having children. The irony being that the opposite is true for women, they need men to have children.
AlsoLil devils x said:you do not necessarily have to have males to fertilize eggs.
Science!Recusant said:Bear in mind that (although many of the technologies are unrefined and currently illegal) we currently can make artificial gametes (male and female) artificial wombs, and (as of 2012) artificial DNA, we don't even need humans to make more humans (so long as we still have data from the human genome project).