Procreation for survival is not necessary anymore, and excessive procreation at this point is actually more of a danger to the survival of our species than a benefit, so Christine O'Donnell is right, but for the wrong reasons.

...are you trying to say sexual intercourse resulting in birth is not necessary for the survival of mankind ?

Seriously ?

Procreation for survival, as in procreation for the purpose of creating as many people as we possibly can to grow the population and offset the deaths caused by environmental factors which don't exist anymore.

This post was edited by jjarv on Feb 11 2011 10:36am

I think this guy tops me in facepalm value widow

Yeah , I figured that's what you meant despite your attempt to backtrack . Only a total freaking idiot would think in-vitro and artificial insemination could adequately replace natural procreation .

On this subject I gotta agree !

You are a dumbass. That was a sarcastic reply to your sarcastic response. The article was specifically talking about the benefits of masturbation increasing procreation rates, which I explained was unnecessary since they are already too high. Since you can't read between the lines, let me edit my post so that only the actual point I was making remains, so that you don't continue down the strawman path.

This post was edited by jjarv on Feb 11 2011 10:38am

...backtrack as fast as you want but your ignorance is already there for all to see !

When you get a facepalm from Thor123422 you may as well give up any attempt to justify what you posted

This is why I don't post here anymore. The stupidity and ignorance levels are too high off the charts to even have a serious discussion much less an intelligent one.

Keep wasting your golden years trolling in an online sub-forum. Sounds like a divine existence.

This post was edited by jjarv on Feb 11 2011 10:47am

If you don't post here anymore why did I just read that post of yours that you believe artificial insemination could replace natural procreation ?

Obviously you DO post here!