Genderless Pregnancy
Women impregnating men, Men impregnating other men, Women impregnating women. And everyone in between.
Or would you prefer children to be born from eggs, in machines, or some other way?
Or would you prefer that there be no more reproduction and have the current people live forever?
I think this is a good androgyne topic since there is a good chance to have opinions less biased by current beliefs and thoughts.
And one can even call them andro-tykes, as zythyra once mentioned.
Technologically I dont know how far away we are from achieving such abilities.
And such abilities could be used for such heterosexual couples to use cells from a newly deceased husband to create a possible child to a widow wanting another child, help infertile couples have children, and maybe help with such special situations such as hysterectomy, ovarian cancer, tubes tied for birth control, or other medical conditions that disable, remove, or block reproduction.
As for the egg birth, most animals use external eggs. Fish, birds, insects, reptiles. And even plants use seeds which are external egg like, self sufficient. I could see using human eggs instead of inside a woman's womb, decreasing medical risks to a person. I think only mammals do live womb birth, besides a few exceptions. Saying that family connection would best require a woman's womb, is only true i think to a woman, that would almost selfishly want that experience for their own. Having an external egg would enable the other partner to experience guarding the egg, and caring for a prebirth child. It would also change abortion views. It would eliminate or change the right of choice since there is no longer a body/dependancy connection. Most of life uses external egg like offspring, humans would do just fine, and be more flexible.
Cloning would help in same sex, transgender, infertile, widows, medical conditions, and other limited families.
As for living forever......Oh Yeah! Though imagine the wrinkles.
I am all for pleasure sex.
I am all for separating reproduction from pleasure of sex.
I am all for everyone getting the opportunity to reproduce, "even Rebis and hir little Reeb".
I am all for everyone getting the chance if so desired to nurture a fetus and/or egg to birth.
KK
http://www.slate.com/id/2170959/fr/flyout
This is the entire piece, I think. I don't understand it, but I thought that some of you might.
Sounds like a good first step. At the moment that is for IVF, implanting into mothers. But if they can make womb techology good enough, someday we might have human built human baby eggs.
There are many things spiritually that are important reasons for babies to be gestated within a mother.
There is complicated bonding and learning process that goes on during the period of gestation.
They have done studies that prove this.They have proven that a fetus does learn from its mother as time goes on.I have talked to some psychically gifted women that have actually had communications with their unborn babies.Babies need the changing physical contact that the mother can provide,touching each other across the belly barrier (which gets thinner the bigger the baby gets)...in utero babies recognize sounds of the mothers voice and the other family members.....babies can play games with strong light shown through the belly,the babies will chase the light beam around,trying to grab it.
Im biased anyway because of my feelings.....but I just know it would be a very bad idea to grow babies in an artificial "womb".
Who says one couldnt talk to their eggs? Most species use eggs and seem to be just fine. I am sure humans would be nesting type, nurturing them even if separate developing. Or how about a womb backpack, where the baby would grow and still be connected to the person? Or if they could build one that can be inserted in anyone's abdomen safely? For all genders that dont have the health, ability, or method of giving birth or being pregnant.
Honestly I am suprised by how many would not accept, feel negative, or feel uncomfortable about alternative pregnancy methods. And how just thinking of the any alternative concept or way, could actually feel evil. Or that humans if born that way would someway be almost non-human. Though 3 out of 4 that took this poll would like to give birth if they could http://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,546.0.html. Chances are magic, potions, prayer, and dreams isnt going to make that possible. Only options now are surrogate and adoption, or prior children before event that takes away childbearing possibility. Even then, adoption is the only option for many that cant have children. Cutting through massive amounts of red tape and government. And cutting through gay/lesbian/transgender obstacles in receiving young babies from adoption to parent.
Making cloning & artificial pregnancy evil
Natural birth without failures?
As for human machines not always working, mothers dont always work out ok. Their wombs are not perfect and complications arrise. 1 in 8 births are premature. Deaths result from some births. Stillbirths, miscarraiges, birth defects, birth complications, and blood loss from the mother. So even nature cant make consistant working mechanisms. In my family 9 births that lived, but 6 deaths before birth by my mother.
Machines and Eggs
Yes mechanic wombs would be complex. Something that would require probably a mixture of biomechanical processes.
Eggs seem more doable though are limited to 80 days ( 3 month) growth of fetuses. ie Ostrich gives birth in egg to human size offspring, though it only takes 35 to 45 days to develop vs the human 266 (40 weeks). The kiwi gives birth to a large egg up to 24 pounds over 80 days (11.5 weeks, only half of the minimum needed for 50/50 survivability in humans). Of premature human babies survivability without birthdefects is a major challenge. 
Though looking at some famous premature babies I was suprised to see Churchill and Newton listed
Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[12] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[13] At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[12] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[12]
The record for the smallest premature baby to survive was held for some time by Madeline Mann, who was born at 26 weeks weighing 9.9 oz (280 g) and 9.5 inches (24 cm) long[14]. This record was broken in September 2004 by Rumaisa Rahman, who was born in the same hospital[15] at 25 weeks gestation. The new record holder was a twin whereas the former was a single birth. At birth she was eight inches (20 cm) long and weighed 244 grams (8.6 ounces). Her twin sister was also a small baby, weighing 563 grams (1 pound 4 ounces) at birth. During pregnancy their mother had suffered from pre-eclampsia, which causes dangerously high blood pressure putting the baby into distress and leading to birth by caesarean section. The larger twin left the hospital at the end of December, while the smaller remained there until 10 February 2005 by which time her weight had increased to 1.18 kg (2 pounds 10 ounces).[16] Generally healthy, the twins had to undergo laser eye surgery to correct visual problems, a common occurrence among premature babies.
Historical figures who were born prematurely include Johannes Kepler (born in 1571 at 7 months gestation), Isaac Newton (born in 1643, small enough to fit into a quart mug, according to his mother), Winston Churchill (born in 1874 at 7 months gestation), and Anna Pavlova (born in 1885 at 7 months gestation).[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth
The fastest developing large mammal is a wolf with 64 day gestation period. If humans could develop as fast as wolves it would fit into egg development range.http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/gestation.htm
bravenet.com