• pieland@piefed.socialEnglish
      291·
      4 months ago

      wait wasn’t there a fennec fox pretending to be nick’s baby in the first movie

      was this foreshadowing

      edit: oh my god

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      65·
      4 months ago

      It’s been a while since I read something that made me feel as uncomfortable as that article did. Gross.

            • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              It is life and very simple, but it also sucks. It’s a type of cell that can’t do its purpose − become multicellular, gestate in a uterus wall and turn into a mammal − but can do all defining functions of life (eat, move, produce copies of itself). Still, it’s not as good at moving and eating as bacteria, and unviable in natural conditions.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            It gets destroyed by the people who created it because by then, it has shown that the sperm was viable. It could form a colony in favorable conditions, which are not naturally occurring outside mammals.

        • mika_mika@lemmy.world
          5·
          4 months ago

          This is a horrible ethical argument. It has about as much logic as anal sex being legitimate before marriage because of the loophole of it not being traditional penetration. Just have sex. Just use viable human cells. Who cares.

        • Shave_MyBeever@lemmy.world
          2·
          4 months ago

          In the related articles, there’s a link to the Hamster zona-free ovum test where this snippet lies:

          Although medical professionals often present the procedure as unable to create an embryo,[5] these claims are not technically correct. If the human sperm succeeds in penetrating the hamster egg, a hybrid embryo is indeed created, known as a humster.[6] These embryos are typically destroyed before they divide into two cells; were they left alone to divide, they would still be unviable.[7]

    • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know why people are freaking out over this article. It’s pretty well known that lots of animals (especially within their own class) have eggs that can be fertilized by different species. It doesn’t matter like 99.99% of the time because the resulting cell is unviable and will not develop into anything because the merged DNA is incompatible and will fail to generate into a developed organism.

      The exception to this are hybrids (like a mule), rare cases where similar enough species can actually create a viable fetus, but the resultant hybrid is usually sterile and unable to reproduce its own offspring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      4 months ago

      This is something that I would liked to have gone my whole life without knowing about. Thanks for that.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        4 months ago

        I’d pronounce it in English about the same as I pronounce hamster in Estonian. Just based off how it’s written and ignoring how human is pronounced.

          • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
            8·
            4 months ago

            All something needs to have a wiki page is someone making it and not enough people complaining about it.

        • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          4 months ago

          I don’t get the criticism listed there. I get that the topic is highly contentious, but I don’t see how the comic comes across as anti-abortion. The opinion of the fox is OK to have, people are allowed to have opinions and to voice them. It’s just important that this doesn’t overrule the bodily autonomy of the mother. Which, to me, the comic makes quite clear.

          • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            4 months ago

            I agree, I’m as much pro-abortion right as one can get, and yet I understand the fox’s reaction. He speaks about sin just one time, and his reaction would be understandable even without it. I imagine a man, in love with his wife and who would love to be a father, be renounced to this dream because his wife is sterile, and he chose her over his own desire to be a father. And one day she announces him that she’s pregnant and want an abortion… you can be in favour of this right, and still feel very bad.

  • AgentOrangesicle@lemmy.world
    12·
    4 months ago

    Package it and ship it. That’s a wholesome-ass couple ride with the realistic controversies every couple should argue over. Plus, I have a thing for sizeplay.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
    9·
    4 months ago

    As a furry, one of the things I really would like to see in furry media like Zootopia are hybrids that don’t or can’t exist IRL. It’s fiction! Be creative!

    Like they don’t even have to be animals or humans, they can be an alien race that has animal species aesthetics the way we have races so you can make up whatever you want and have fun with it.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      3·
      4 months ago

      I’m actually thinking of the sociopolitical ramifications of both scenarios here.

      I feel like if physical attraction between species was common, then we’d end up with crazy purity culture, no matter if they could procreate or not; because members of a species would see a sharp decline in the population of their species in the younger generations, as most couples were either unable to produce offspring, or produced offspring of a new species.

      I’m curious what an animal that was like 1/16th 16 random animals would look like. With so much selection, would everyone tend to the average of all animals after like 10 generations? Would we end up with a single blended specie? Would it reduce into a handful of different blends that achieved critical mass?