Creating a sperm or egg from any cell?

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: Creating a sperm or egg from any cell?

#101

Post by crubier » Mon, May 29, 2023, 10:48 PM UTC

dsign wrote: post #20

This is funny. It's "my son if it has my DNA" is the copyright equivalent of "it's my song if it has my chords." I can't resist: - "You got a copy of my DNA files. Then you had a child, and they look similar to one of ours. I don't care if you modified it by removing all my faulty genes, or if you wrote the DNA from scratch after looking at mine. I sue you for copyright deft, you ought to pay reparations and the kid…

« I don’t think that parenthood has anything to do with genes »

See, this is why 80% of people are annoyed by the « woke » and other progressive discourse: Taking minority or rare cases (Transgenderism, LGBT, Obesity, etc.) that are exception to the norm, and using them to completely and absolutely deny that any norm exists or that the norm exists for legitimate reasons.

I’m sorry, but for 100% of animals and 99% of humans, parenthood absolutely has a lot to do with genes. The whole point of natural reproduction in nature is for genes to transmit. That might be inconvenient for you and you are welcome to express it, but denying it and ridiculing the vast majority who understand that makes you sound annoying.

Re: Creating a sperm or egg from any cell?

#102

Post by mynameisvlad » Tue, May 30, 2023, 4:37 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #99

mynameisvlad wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hypothetical ? The one where men can turn off reproduction? Congrats, that already exists. The one where laws are made around the ability to do so? Congratu-fucking-lations. It exists. There is no hypothetical when the things being discussed already exist. That's not how hypotherticals work. Next time, don't have a shit argument that can be broken down in a heartbeat and then whine about your precious hypothetic…

> This is relatively new; previously Visa/MC prevented their merchants from doing this but it changed recently. Not that it is the biggest point in this chain of people arguing badly past each other, but you have confused “hypothetical” (which assumes a condition independent of what is true in reality) vs. “counterfactual” (which assumes a condition contrary to what is true in reality).

Gotta love replying to a day old thread you had nothing to do with with both a quote that doesn’t come from the thread and a definition that isn’t accepted by most major dictionaries.

That’s like peak “I know what I’m talking about” material.

Post reply on HN