Artificial Womb Facility Could Grow 30,000 Babies A Year: A Solution To Elon Musk's Fears?

You are obviously confused. This neither relates to what I was talking about, nor to what you had said: that a surrogate meant 3 peoples' DNA being intertwined.

wgabrie said: ↑
I knew someone would bring up surrogate mothers, but that also has the problem of the child having the DNA of three parents as the egg has to come from somewhere, and even though the DNA is scrubbed and replaced, the egg still has trace amounts of the woman's
<End quote>

I guess you realize that you had misspoken and are just unwilling to admit it. I was discussing how these pods were a poorer version of a surrogate; and you were saying that human surrogates presented some problem of extra DNA. Of course you need both a sperm and an egg, to create a person. That makes 2 peoples' gametes, regardless of whether the egg being used also originally had come from the surrogate, which is what you seem to have been considering. I had assumed nothing of the sort, but that the surrogate was just the oven in which the genetic cake gets baked.

What you are talking about, historically speaking, has nothing really to do with the physiological implications of these pods, which have you so "excited." The top part of your reply, did not address my question about your mentioning there being a third person's DNA involved with surrogacy. Now this part of your answer, to my explaining to you, for a second time, how I believed that the trial of child birth must serve some evolutionary PURPOSE, to imbue the child with some BENEFIT, speaks instead, on patriarchy, not about the evolution of the human body, for child birth. All indications, therefore, are that you cannot follow the line of my thought, or that you refuse to respond to it. That leaves me no reason to continue to offer my ideas, regardless of whether it is that you are choosing to ignore, failing to appreciate, or unable to grasp them.

 

What about postpartum depression? You can't say that childbirth has a benefit if many women are worse off after it.

 

See the part of my response earlier:

 

I think you are confused on timelines. Do female non human primates decide how reproduction works? How about females of other species? Why do you think humans are not subject to selection the same as other species? Why do you think patriarchal societies developed? If matriarchal societies were more adaptable or more “fit” why did patriarchal societies develop instead? Why do you think female humans were in complete charge and control of reproduction at some point previous to patriarchal societies?

Furthermore, in natural selection, why would selection pressure on birth weight or clotting ability know whether a pregnancy/birth was the woman’s idea or some man’s idea? Why would a woman with a small pelvis deliver multiple healthy 12 lb babies is she was raping men but if raped by a man not be able to deliver a healthy 6 lb baby? None of what you are posting makes any logical sense and all conflicts with science.

 

It has to do with penis size. Earlier in our evolution women picked to have sex with the men with bigger members. They had the choice. It was natural.

Later on, when we gathered into tribes and civilizations men took over and designed rules and laws to guarantee sexual access for themselves. This isn't natural selection.

 

Sure. Before civilization men lined up with their members out and let women pick them out of a lineup. SMH.

Civilization IS a result of selective pressures. It’s a method of adaption. Civilization is all about natural selection.

 

And so I guess eating can't be said to have a benefit, since "many" get indigestion, after doing it.

 

Good lord!

Children need immediate reward.

Adults can understand that the travails of child birth give you a BABY!!!!

Ask your Mama.

Remember that there are ends that are worth working for, even if you don't get a cookie each day.