LifeFuel Germany discusses to lift the ban on egg donation & surrogacy...

[Deleted member 10124]

Should Germany's ban on egg donation be lifted?

Time to lift the ban on egg donation? – DW – 02/01/2020

Germany is one of the few European countries where surrogate motherhood and egg donation are completely banned. But there is a growing movement for overturning, or at least softening, a law many consider outdated.

amp.dw.com

Epic. Truly. Now Incels can wagemax & reproduce from the best of foids. Combined with artificial wombs & the like.

Legalisation & decriminalization of prostitution combined with better anti STI & contraceptives coming into play can relieve sexual frustration meaning whilst surrogacy & artificial wombs can mean our genes carry on combined with in vitro fertilisation & paternity testing means that we've won.

Some of you will say "huh duh but chad this & chad that"... Argo fuck yourselves...

One small step for mankind... one giant leap for Incels...

 

[loserkarthusplayer]

not gonna happen and if it's happens it's only gonna benefit normies who can get gf if you are sub5 male things will be the same why would u betabuxx a bitch for a kid anyways

 

[Deleted member 18214]

Why is it banned in the first place? Cucked af ngl.

 

[Deleted member 22466]

This is legal in most western countries and it's not made any difference. The state isn't going to allow nasty inkwells to raise kids.

 

[ItsOver4cel]

not gonna happen

 

[Deleted member 19236]

Why is it banned in the first place? Cucked af ngl.

cuz "only god can create life"

 

[Deleted member 24166]

I hope this will happen. It will give men a reason to earn money which makes biological sense. It is also cucked to restrict the free market in general. The only problem is that a female is still needed in order to raise the child, since men should not be responsible for that.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

I hope this will happen. It will give men a reason to earn money which makes biological sense. It is also cucked to restrict the free market in general. The only problem is that a female is still needed in order to raise the child, since men should not be responsible for that.

Agreed. Oh

1. Nannies & child minders
2. Pre school nursery
3. Breakfast & after school clubs
4. Paternity leave
5. School
6. College
7. University
8. Child tax credits
9. Work place creches

A single man can easily take care of a child. However dyke Femistazis hate Incel men over & above the actual so called patriarchy itself.

This is legal in most western countries and it's not made any difference. The state isn't going to allow nasty inkwells to raise kids.

They'll have to.

not gonna happen and if it's happens it's only gonna benefit normies who can get gf if you are sub5 male things will be the same why would u betabuxx a bitch for a kid anyways

It will happen. You're not betabuxxing when it's a contract that the woman carries your child to term & leaves after that should she want to which can be contractually arranged. Also if you pay only for the pregnancy than that's it. Isn't it.

 

[Deleted member 24166]

A single man can easily take care of a child.

It is cucked though. A high IQ Chad would instead focus on impregnating as many females as possible and then let cucks (or the tax payers) pay for the raising of his children, since a child costs a lot of money and also time. It is also shown that men do experience a decrease of their testosterone levels when being fathers.

 

[LonelyDreamer]

Doesn't make any difference because surrogacy is expensive and that's why most people would do it in Ukraine anyway where it's cheaper. .

 

[Deleted member 10124]

It is cucked though. A high IQ Chad would instead focus on impregnating as many females as possible and then let cucks (or the tax payers) pay for the raising of his children, since a child costs a lot of money and also time. It is also shown that men do experience a decrease of their testosterone levels when being fathers.

Again I'm not comparing myself to chad.

Taking care of my biological DNA aka blood & honour is not cucked. Plus those persons are you & another person.

If more foids actually were boycotted by cucks & the government for getting impregnated by Chad that they'd make them think twice for getting up the duff by such men. It's normally frowned upon anyway.

The man loses some testosterone because he's tired & he's done his duty. He now has to defend his progeny & baby momma.

Having & raising a child now can be done due to the ease of financial transactional exchanging tools like BACS/ CHAPS/ PAYPAL/Western union etc.

Doesn't make any difference because surrogacy is expensive and that's why most people would do it in Ukraine anyway where it's cheaper. .

When you legalise it, it becomes cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 24166]

Again I'm not comparing myself to chad.

I used Chad as a metaphor to describe what an evolutionary successful man would do. The more children you create, the higher reproductive success you have. The more money and time you are forced to invest in your children, the harder it becomes for you to have more children.

Taking care of my biological DNA aka blood & honour is not cucked. Plus those persons are you & another person.

It is arguable. It is of course much better than taking care of another man’s child, but it is not optimal for your own life.

If more foids actually were boycotted by cucks & the government for getting impregnated by Chad that they'd make them think twice for getting up the duff by such men. It's normally frowned upon anyway.

It is better that a genetically superior Chad spread his genes though than a genetically inferior cuck. Sons born to genetically inferiors are more likely to end up as incels, and will thus live a life of suffering. Daughters born to genetically inferiors are more likely to end up as ugly landwhales instead of pretty JBs.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

I used Chad as a metaphor to describe what an evolutionary successful man would do. The more children you create, the higher reproductive success you have. The more money and time you are forced to invest in your children, the harder it becomes for you to have more children.


It is arguable. It is of course much better than taking care of another man’s child, but it is not optimal for your own life.


It is better that a genetically superior Chad spread his genes though than a genetically inferior cuck. Sons born to genetically inferiors are more likely to end up as incels, and will thus live a life of suffering. Daughters born to genetically inferiors are more likely to end up as ugly landwhales instead of pretty JBs.

Your whole post is chad worship.

Actually who makes Incels? Societies inflated & engineered view of a pseudo genetically superior man. It's garbage. Hell even Hitler & Himmler would be classified as Incels now. It's garbage this whole so called view of a pseudo genetically superior man.

As a black pilled Incel why are you buying into Goebbells style crap?

 

[LonelyDreamer]

When you legalise it, it becomes cheaper.

Even if legalized, it would still cost more than in low CoL countries.

 

[Deleted member 24166]

Your whole post is chad worship.

Actually who makes Incels? Societies inflated & engineered view of a pseudo genetically superior man. It's garbage. Hell even Hitler & Himmler would be classified as Incels now. It's garbage this whole so called view of a pseudo genetically superior man.

As a black pilled Incel why are you buying into Goebbells style crap?

How is my post objectively wrong? Chad is genetically superior by the simple fact that he is able to reproduce more, which is the only biological goal with life. If you believe otherwise, you are either coping or you have been deluded by the myth that attractiveness is inflicted by social norms, which the bluepilled (((media))) wants you to believe, but which is disproven by science.

Scientific Blackpill

The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...

incels.wiki

Also, why should we oppose further genetic improvement of the future generations?

 

[Deleted member 10124]

How is my post objectively wrong? Chad is genetically superior by the simple fact that he is able to reproduce more, which is the only biological goal with life. If you believe otherwise, you are either coping or you have been deluded by the myth that attractiveness is inflicted by social norms, which the bluepilled (((media))) wants you to believe, but which is disproven by science.

Scientific Blackpill

The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...

incels.wiki

Also, why should we oppose further genetic improvement of the future generations?

Post objectively wrong. Chad is whatever the "market" makes of it. That's all a stock bubble some would say.

He's able to reproduce more because the media idealises currently a certainly bodily form. That's all. You fail at misunderstanding the unsubtle art of "propaganda".

As for genetic improvement. Every person has genes in them which can be artificially selected for further enhancement. Incels included. It's the "genes on the day" which some could say what decides an incel & what doesn't?

 

[Deleted member 20434]

I’m sure they’ll keep a ban on it because “only God can create life” but in the same instance allow abortions.

 

[Deleted member 24166]

Post objectively wrong. Chad is whatever the "market" makes of it. That's all a stock bubble some would say.

He's able to reproduce more because the media idealises currently a certainly bodily form. That's all. You fail at misunderstanding the unsubtle art of "propaganda".

As for genetic improvement. Every person has genes in them which can be artificially selected for further enhancement. Incels included. It's the "genes on the day" which some could say what decides an incel & what doesn't?

Did you even read the study I linked to? The complete opposite of what you write is true, namely that our perception of attractiveness is biological, not socially inflicted by media nor any other external agent. With other words: the only one who made Chad the most desirable in the sexual market is nature itself.

It actually also makes sense. The only reason that companies use attractive people in their advertisements, is that we are biologically wired to like attractive people more, and thus, that likability becomes associated with the product the company wants to sell, which implies higher sales volume.

Why would the elite waste any money and resources on creating a beauty ideal and inflict it to the masses, assuming that Chad and Stacy is not what we naturally consider attractive? Would not a more likely explanation be that big companies simply exploit our natural perception of attractiveness in order to sell their products by using attractive people in their advertisements?

If major gene editing would become publicly available, I also suppose that attractiveness would still be one of the main attributes many people would want to improve, along with for example intelligence and strength.

 

[grondilu]

This is legal in most western countries and it's not made any difference. The state isn't going to allow nasty inkwells to raise kids.

Yeah. OP is delusional if he thinks they'll let males have kids on their own.

 

[Deleted member 23944]

If you think the government will let anyone on this forum have a child outside of a relationship you are delusional.

Did you even read the study I linked to? The complete opposite of what you write is true, namely that our perception of attractiveness is biological, not socially inflicted by media nor any other external agent. With other words: the only one who made Chad the most desirable in the sexual market is nature itself.

It actually also makes sense. The only reason that companies use attractive people in their advertisements, is that we are biologically wired to like attractive people more, and thus, that likability becomes associated with the product the company wants to sell, which implies higher sales volume.

Why would the elite waste any money and resources on creating a beauty ideal and inflict it to the masses, assuming that Chad and Stacy is not what we naturally consider attractive? Would not a more likely explanation be that big companies simply exploit our natural perception of attractiveness in order to sell their products by using attractive people in their advertisements?

If major gene editing would become publicly available, I also suppose that attractiveness would still be one of the main attributes many people would want to improve, along with for example intelligence and strength.

Beauty is objective and real. Culture, media, social media, and online dating exacerbate it.

The reason why you're not Chad is your genes. The reason why you're incel is social media, online dating, and so on.

The prettyboy phenomenon proves that lookism is less about any biological utility and more about just looking pretty.

 

[Deleted member 10124]

Did you even read the study I linked to? The complete opposite of what you write is true, namely that our perception of attractiveness is biological, not socially inflicted by media nor any other external agent. With other words: the only one who made Chad the most desirable in the sexual market is nature itself.

It actually also makes sense. The only reason that companies use attractive people in their advertisements, is that we are biologically wired to like attractive people more, and thus, that likability becomes associated with the product the company wants to sell, which implies higher sales volume.

Why would the elite waste any money and resources on creating a beauty ideal and inflict it to the masses, assuming that Chad and Stacy is not what we naturally consider attractive? Would not a more likely explanation be that big companies simply exploit our natural perception of attractiveness in order to sell their products by using attractive people in their advertisements?

If major gene editing would become publicly available, I also suppose that attractiveness would still be one of the main attributes many people would want to improve, along with for example intelligence and strength.

We're biologically hardwired to a certain set of characteristics. The physiological beauty is aesthetic. Unless it serves for survival purposes it's irrelevant.

What the propaganda media define as wanted is what gets ingrained in peoples minds.

If gene editing became available people would go for survival characteristics. Nothing more & nothing less. Intelligence & strength are survival. Not necessarily beauty. That's a "luxury" which gets hyperinflated to epic proportions although it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Also facetiously I ask. Would you allow a chad to fuck your wife & impregnate her? Or would you fuck your wife, impregnate her, care for your child & if a Chad attempted to fuck your wife you'd ER that SOB? Your call.

No mods I'm not advocating violence or illegal activity.

Yeah. OP is delusional if he thinks they'll let males have kids on their own.

If you think the government will let anyone on this forum have a child outside of a relationship you are delusional.

Beauty is objective and real. Culture, media, social media, and online dating exacerbate it.

The reason why you're not Chad is your genes. The reason why you're incel is social media, online dating, and so on.

The prettyboy phenomenon proves that lookism is less about any biological utility and more about just looking pretty.

They allow Foids. Why not us?

I agree with the second part of the quote.

 

[Deleted member 24166]

We're biologically hardwired to a certain set of characteristics. The physiological beauty is aesthetic. Unless it serves for survival purposes it's irrelevant.

What the propaganda media define as wanted is what gets ingrained in peoples minds.

If gene editing became available people would go for survival characteristics. Nothing more & nothing less. Intelligence & strength are survival. Not necessarily beauty. That's a "luxury" which gets hyperinflated to epic proportions although it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Beauty might not be necessary for the survival of yourself, but it is necessary for the survival of your bloodline, simply because females do not want to reproduce with ugly males. Beauty is neither not biologically irrelevant, facial symmetry also indicates good genes overall. Simply, good genes come in packs.

You are coping hard if you do not think that people would want to make their children more attractive, if major gene editing were available. I would want my children to be as attractive as possible. You are also coping if you think that Chad would not slay 1,000 years ago. He would even have been viewed as a God back then.

Also facetiously I ask. Would you allow a chad to fuck your wife & impregnate her? Or would you fuck your wife, impregnate her, care for your child & if a Chad attempted to fuck your wife you'd ER that SOB? Your call.

No mods I'm not advocating violence or illegal activity.

No. I did not say that I do not prioritize the spreading of my own genes. Every specimen is wired to do that. However, among genetically unrelated people, it is preferable that the ones with the most good genes reproduce, since the whole population benefit from the birth of children with good genes, and not least the children themselves, since good genes improves the general life quality.

Even though I do have genetic deficits (such as a short height) which makes it very hard for me to reproduce, I still have other good genes which makes me more strong and intelligent than average. Therefore, I still prioritize to spread my genes. However, if I fail to reproduce, that would only be my own fault. I am not going to blame my failure on society – instead, my reproductive failure would show that I was either too lazy or too unintelligent to reproduce, and since that are genetically undesirable traits, I would in such a case not deserve to reproduce.