Talk:Vault 69/Meeting/Breeding

Actually, there is a far more effective objection to artificial insemination that what's discussed here. Artificial insemination involves surgically removing the eggs, which causes a lot of damage to the ovaries and, even in the best of cases, diminishes the function of that ovary in the future. In less good gases, that ovary will be permanently out of commission.

On the flip side, a single harvesting of eggs is good for several viable embryos, but the implantation success rate of the embryos using this method is very low. The common practice is to implant 10 or more embryos at the same time, and if the woman is lucky then 1 will make it. (although, there are some cases where more make it. The case of the "octo mom" is one of those cases where 8 of the embryos successfully implanted at the same time.)

There are just a very large number of health complications that can happen with artificial insemination, and it is a method that is highly discouraged by doctors and only used as a last resort in cases where the parents' fertility rate is rather poor for one reason or another and nothing else has worked. Anyone in the healthcare field would be VERY against artificial insemination as an option if there was no actual medically related issue preventing the natural way. Jemini (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about in vitro fertilization, but artificial direct application of the sperm without sexual activity (which I took from my knowledge of its use in raising livestock as buying sperm is usually less expensive and less hassle than hiring a stud). In this case, the egg is not harvested. I just realized I used in vitro later in the passage when I meant in utero . . . but I just fixed that, and it doesn't directly relate to what we're talking about so, there's that.

Given that, I was hard pressed to find a logical argument Scarlet could use to derail the argument for artificial insemination . . . so I just winged it. With that in mind, if you can come up with better reasons that Doctor Charbonneau or Doctor Romero could use to dissuade the others from artificial insemination without Doctor Whitney (a botanist) or Chief Runningdeer (effectively a zoologist/veterinarian without a degree) knowing would be false; I fully encourage you to make those edits. They would both like to avoid that eventuality for different reasons (Doctor Charbonneau for her experiment, and Doctor Romero because she's a pervert). Either would be willing to lie if they were fairly certain they would not be caught in the lie. I was just having a hard time coming up with something. What you see is the best I could come up with. --Elerneron (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

About the animals... so a volunteer has to have the animal implanted and carry to term, after the human host has received the F.E.V.? That seems... untenable. Wouldn't it be a more likely solution that a F.E.V. modified human male sperm could be injected into the impregnated animals, then acting as a kind of retro-virus to modify the animal fetus? Unless women being pregnant with animals (when they should be made pregnant with humans), this could be a viable solution that again leads to scenarios where the women not only have to have sex with Tay, but milk him for sperm for the animals (or force him to fuck them while the ladies "make sure he does it right"). Just a thought. I'm fine with the bestiality, but that's not what we're discussing. Surgically implanting animal embryos isn't the same as women being serviced by animals. --Notsooldpervert (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That isn't what Doctor Romero has in mind. She plans to harvest animal eggs, put them in human women, then have the male animals breed them. In reality the process would work fine on animals, Doctor Romero is just a pervert who wants to see animals mating with human women. --Elerneron (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)