Page 1 of 3
#1
If the government (not Obama or Bush's) but maybe the next government or whatever, came to you and said that for reasons of survival of the species (and if that was true) they need you to allow yourself to be fertilized with a man's sperm and carry a baby to term and have it, and then you could raise it or give it up for adoption, would you be okay with that?

And do you think that most lesbians feel the way that you do?
#4
Quote by axuality
If the government (not Obama or Bush's) but maybe the next government or whatever, came to you and said that for reasons of survival of the species (and if that was true) they need you to allow yourself to be fertilized with a man's sperm and carry a baby to term and have it, and then you could raise it or give it up for adoption, would you be okay with that?

And do you think that most lesbians feel the way that you do?
Would you carry someone else's baby for nine months just becuase the government told you to? And your scenario is ridiculous. The problem on this planet is overpopulation, not underpopulation.



stratkat
#5
You do know there's probably like two lesbians on UG the majority of the answers will be from teenage boys.
#8
I don't quite think that would happen.

There are lesbians who opt for in vitro fertilization. Lesbians are a minority though. I suspect most women period would find the whole idea rather barbaric.
Why not just encourage more procreation in general?
Last edited by AA00P at Sep 30, 2009,
#10
1. Overpopulation, not lack of it. There are enough trailer trash popping out kids for this to never be necessary
2. This isn't a respectful question
3. Some lesbians want children. See: sperm banks
4. I'm straight and I wouldn't be ok with this. What makes you think this is a question exclusively for lesbians? do all straight women want to be baby machines?
5. Delete this thread, idiot.
#11
Lesbian women would be no more or no less ok with this than straight women.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#12
Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
1. Overpopulation, not lack of it. There are enough trailer trash popping out kids for this to never be necessary
2. This isn't a respectful question
3. Some lesbians want children. See: sperm banks
4. I'm straight and I wouldn't be ok with this. What makes you think this is a question exclusively for lesbians? do all straight women want to be baby machines?
5. Delete this thread, idiot.


To TS, BURN!!
That quote says it all
"Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining" - Wrex
#13
by lesbians do you mean all the emo kids that want to bang davey havok
#14
I think the only way this scenario would probably work is if everything was like the Half Life 2 series or something to the matter of Alien invasion, Aliens kill off everyone one, and procreation is needed to maintain the human race.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#15
If the survival of the species depended on it, why would it just be lesbians? They are a small percentage of the female population.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#16
Quote by josh999x
You do know there's probably like two lesbians on UG the majority of the answers will be from teenage boys.



ha ha ha, no kidding. Well, that's just great. thanks ha ha

And the point is, let's say that suddenly a comet passed by the earth and everyone on earth turned gay. (ha ha, right?) Within a few generations the population would PROBABLY go WAY down. Eventually, there WOULD be a necessity either for lesbians to carry babies or else all procreation would have to be test tube babies.

The importance for all this information was implicit in my post, and judging by the outraged responses, I would conclude that all the responders WERE teenagers, and none were lesbians.
#17
Quote by axuality
If the government (not Obama or Bush's) but maybe the next government or whatever, came to you and said that for reasons of survival of the species (and if that was true) they need you to allow yourself to be fertilized with a man's sperm and carry a baby to term and have it, and then you could raise it or give it up for adoption, would you be okay with that?

And do you think that most lesbians feel the way that you do?

irrelevant, the world is very overpopulated as it is.
My Gear:
Gibson Faded Flying V
"Dante's Inferno" Iceman
Fender Hot Rod Deluxe 112
etc.




Quote by freedoms_stain
I can't imagine anything worse than shagging to Mark Knopfler.

Maybe shagging Mark Knopfler, but that's about it.
#18
CuSO4

"I don't have an instrument, I don't have a great voice, I just have some nice clothes maybe." paul rutherford
#20
TS is a disrespectful idiot or troll
you still have zoiiidbeeeerg
(V) (;,,;) (V)
YOU ALL STILL HAVE ZOIDBERG
Quote by TheBurningFish
It's more shocking to see Tom dressed at all.
Quote by suckersdream
I don't think I've ever actually seen him clothed.
Sexy Peoples Only
◕ ‿ ◕
TweetZ
#22
...lets say iran starts a nuclear war, all of a sudden there is an under population crisis.

so lets say a ton of people have died, and now we must re-populate with the people that are here. straight women are having babies, so NO, the question would not apply to them

third, its not disrespectful to lesbians or anyone in any way. its a simple question. would u surrogate to help save your species?
#23
We need more gay Men and women......
Too many people in this world.
If You See Me Posting In The Pit HIT ME.
Quote by KingJak236
My hamster used to bite me when I picked it up, then it got too old and fat to bite and died in a pool of it's own vomit.

Quote by Kensai
That's the rockstar way to go. I salute him.
#24
Quote by !normajean!
it was a hypothetical question.....ughh..


this, +1 etc.

seriously, you lot are thick - stop regurgitating gcse human geography.
#25
Quote by axuality
ha ha ha, no kidding. Well, that's just great. thanks ha ha

And the point is, let's say that suddenly a comet passed by the earth and everyone on earth turned gay. (ha ha, right?) Within a few generations the population would PROBABLY go WAY down. Eventually, there WOULD be a necessity either for lesbians to carry babies or else all procreation would have to be test tube babies.

The importance for all this information was implicit in my post, and judging by the outraged responses, I would conclude that all the responders WERE teenagers, and none were lesbians.

Seriously wat.
#26
i would carry a baby for the government


i lack a womb however
Lady Gaga if you're out there, i don't care if you have a penis or not, i will marry you
#27
Quote by wheatmore
i would carry a baby for the government


i lack a womb however


That might cause problems with the whole 9 months thing
"Don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining" - Wrex
#29
Quote by axuality
If the government (not Obama or Bush's) but maybe the next government or whatever, came to you and said that for reasons of survival of the species (and if that was true) they need you to allow yourself to be fertilized with a man's sperm and carry a baby to term and have it, and then you could raise it or give it up for adoption, would you be okay with that?

And do you think that most lesbians feel the way that you do?
I can answer this because I am a lesbian.


... trapped in a man's body.

Srsly, there would be no problem continuing the species. Many lesbian couples already choose to have one (or both) artificially inseminated so they can give birth and raise children.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#31
Quote by bulldozerbob
I doubt this would ever happen, and I don't think any woman would be okay with that.

this.. depends how threatening the govt. was I'd imagine
"You're a twat!"- That dude in morrisons

"You Ugly git!" - That girl in the restaurant

"You Were a Mistake!" - Mum

just a few of my fans..



#33
Quote by element4433
If the survival of the species depended on it, why would it just be lesbians? They are a small percentage of the female population.

I implied that the TS is assuming that heterosexual women would be encouraged to have children the 'traditional' way.

Its a hypothetical question. I think the TS is really trying to gather whether or not a woman would raise a child that she was forced to have, considering that it is her child.
Member of the official GB&C "Who to Listen to" list
Quote by handbanana
wiliscool is just plain dumb
#34
Quote by JohnnyV
There once was a troll named Axuality,
Who had just no grip on reality.
He started a thread,
Was awful in bed,
And had less than a sub-par mentality.



My take on a masterpiece.
#36
Quote by JohnnyV
There once was a troll named Axuality
Who had no grip on reality
He started a thread
Cause he was awful in bed
And less than sub-par mentality
Bravo!


Honestly, I think I smell multi.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#37
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I can answer this because I am a lesbian.


... trapped in a man's body.

Srsly, there would be no problem continuing the species. Many lesbian couples already choose to have one (or both) artificially inseminated so they can give birth and raise children.


THAT'S the answer. There you go. And that answer tends to supports the legitimacy of homosexuality. Your post makes sense, and answers my question. Thanks.

Homosexuality is ONLY reasonable if either the test tube baby thing is workable on a large scale, or else lesbians are willing to have babies. ---I realize that there is implied reasoning in this statement that some won't fathom, but I'm sure that others can understand it, whether they agree with it or not.
#38
Quote by dark&broken
You seriously think lesbians are against having children?

Wow.

I underestimated the stupidity of the human race.


Well, my question was about CARRYING them, yes.
#39
Quote by axuality
THAT'S the answer. There you go. And that answer tends to supports the legitimacy of homosexuality. Your post makes sense, and answers my question. Thanks.

Homosexuality is ONLY reasonable if either the test tube baby thing is workable on a large scale, or else lesbians are willing to have babies. ---I realize that there is implied reasoning in this statement that some won't fathom, but I'm sure that others can understand it, whether they agree with it or not.

You're an idiot.

There is no need whatsoever for everyone to have babies, overpopulation is the thing people should be worried about rather than underpopulation. Straight couples can be together and not have babies, is that not reasonable in your line of thought?
#40
Quote by axuality
THAT'S the answer. There you go. And that answer tends to supports the legitimacy of homosexuality. Your post makes sense, and answers my question. Thanks.

Homosexuality is ONLY reasonable if either the test tube baby thing is workable on a large scale, or else lesbians are willing to have babies. ---I realize that there is implied reasoning in this statement that some won't fathom, but I'm sure that others can understand it, whether they agree with it or not.
you're an idiot. the legitamacy of homosexuality? what the crap?
you still have zoiiidbeeeerg
(V) (;,,;) (V)
YOU ALL STILL HAVE ZOIDBERG
Quote by TheBurningFish
It's more shocking to see Tom dressed at all.
Quote by suckersdream
I don't think I've ever actually seen him clothed.
Sexy Peoples Only
◕ ‿ ◕
TweetZ
Page 1 of 3