McBell
Unbound
And you base this "knowledge" on what, exactly?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
Oh... This might have something to do with it. But you're smart. You can figure it out.
That's fact. Only biological females can get pregnant. So you disagree?
Show me pregnant biological male
Show me a pregnant biological male on any planet. Take your time
McBell
Unbound
We will see.
Though I am not going to hold my breath.
What does the fact that only females can get pregnant have to do with a males right to get pregnant?
You do know that the right to get pregnant is not the same thing as the ability to get pregnant, right?
We Never Know
No Slack
Lmfao! Can a bioloigal male get pregnant?
If not, then they have no right for something they can't do.
Does a biological male have the ability to get pregnant?
That needs clarified first before the right to get pregnant.
You are hard to figure out.
One time you will say a blastocyst is a person.
The next time you will say a fetus isn't a person.
One time you will say only females can get pregnant.
The next time you will say getting pregnant isn't female exclusive.
Why is that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sure, it can be done. And not only to controversial boxers that were born with a vagina and a uterus.
McBell
Unbound
When did I say this?
When did I say this?
Only females can get pregnant.
When did I say this?
Why is it you are making claims that I made statements I have not made?
I do not know.
Why are you claiming I made statements I have not made?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Internet searching is your friend:
"For reasons we don't understand, on very rare occasions, an XY female does have a uterus. But she still needs a donated egg, since she can't make one herself (no ovaries). There are a handful of cases where individuals with a Y chromosome, a uterus, and a donated egg have become pregnant and given birth to a child."
So yes, it has happened.
A biological man can't get pregnant any more that a biological woman can create sperm.
However, if a biological man by some means did happen to have a blastocyte implant itself within his body, no one would deny his the right to have it removed.
Let's go through the basic rights of people:
- bodily autonomy, even after death in regard to the person's wishes as to how to dispose of their remains.
- consent is required for anything that would breach their bodily autonomy (sex, organ donation, medical procedures, etc.)
- there are laws against breaching bodily autonomy without consent (assault, rape, slavery, desecration of a corpse, etc.)
- the person has the final say regarding their body
Calling women's reproductive rights personal rights in no way dilutes those rights. The only way to dilute those rights would be to deny her basic personal rights. This of course, is the basis of my preference for using the word person when it comes to speaking of pregnant people--so their basic personal rights do not get diluted.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
If a biological man is XY, then yes, it can happen.
Cool. If they can, fine. If they can't, that is also fine. It's their body.
Question: since when has there been a specific right to get pregnant?
Infertile women are certainly free to get help enhancing their ability to get pregnant, but there is no guarantee that it will happen, and no laws that would be violated if such efforts fail.
On the converse, laws against getting and/or being pregnant would certainly violate a person's basic bodily rights.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is the case that I was working up to. It turns out that one suspected way of growing a baby has also been observed that any man could do. I will have to see if I can find the article, but a woman with an ectopic pregnancy managed to give birth to a child. It was not noticed during her pregnancy since instead of staying in the fallopian tube it somehow became attached to her intestinal wall and grew there. That has been a proposed way that a man could give birth to a child, but wisely no one wanted to take the chance. This pregnancy was a proof of concept of that way of growing a fetus to term.Internet searching is your friend:
"For reasons we don't understand, on very rare occasions, an XY female does have a uterus. But she still needs a donated egg, since she can't make one herself (no ovaries). There are a handful of cases where individuals with a Y chromosome, a uterus, and a donated egg have become pregnant and given birth to a child."
So yes, it has happened.
EDIT:
I will have to see if I can find the article again.
I found more than one case and articles about them. The first is rather technical, the second one is more layperson friendly:
Term Abdominal Pregnancy with Live Baby: Case Report from Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital, Eastern Ethiopia
To present a rare case of term abdominal pregnancy with live baby.A 30-year-old gravida VI para V, all alive, woman who did not remember her last menstrual period but was stated amenorrheic for 9 months visited Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Baby is born alive after growing in mother's abdomen for 29 weeks
Most ectopic pregnancies, in which a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, take place in a fallopian tube, but in a rare case, a woman experienced one in her abdomen.
It looks like you might need a placenta to go with it. Though I could be wrong.
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
Start at post #58.
You start claiming a lump of cells is a person. Then a fetus is a person, etc.
Go from there. Read more of your own replies to others.
I will even help you with a screen shot
We Never Know
No Slack
And we can grow an ear on a mouse.Internet searching is your friend:
"For reasons we don't understand, on very rare occasions, an XY female does have a uterus. But she still needs a donated egg, since she can't make one herself (no ovaries). There are a handful of cases where individuals with a Y chromosome, a uterus, and a donated egg have become pregnant and given birth to a child."
So yes, it has happened.
If you want to manipulate it to what can be done, what we can do, we can do many many things.
McBell
Unbound
As I clearly (I thought) pointed out in that very post, according to the definitions presented, they are.
Guess you completely missed that part.
Wonder why?
Interestingly enough, no one was able to present a counter definition that states otherwise.
Wonder why that is?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you agree that an XY can be pregnant through IVF?
We Never Know
No Slack
We can do many many things that are other wise naturally impossible.
As I stated, you want to manipulate it to what we can do.
So if we manipulate things, yes.
We can also replace a vagina with a penis.
We can do many many things.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So we agree. It is possible for an XY to get pregnant and your argument doesn't hold as you claimed it originally.
We Never Know
No Slack
With medical and science help a lot of things are possible that wouldn't happen naturally.
As I stated you want to manipulate it. Go beyond naturally occurring. With that we can do lots of things.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You don't get it, do you?
"Swyer syndrome is classified as a disorder of sex development (DSD), which encompasses any disorder in which chromosomal, gonadal or anatomic sex development is abnormal. Girls with Swyer syndrome have an XY chromosomal makeup (as boys normally do) instead of an XX chromosomal makeup (as girls normally do)."
So a woman, which is also XY, can get pregnant with IVF. That's what I wrote. You think it is something else it appears.