Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
again, no it doesn't. biologically and physically, it does NOT take two when it comes to pregnancy. it takes only one, the woman. until men like you figure out this basic, biological fact, you'll keep chasing your own tails on this topic and make zero progress. sadly, it's always seems to be the clueless men who are trying the hardest to have abortion made illegal
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee
it currently requires two to create a baby (technically, though a male doesn't even need to be present or physically partake in the act), but it takes ONLY ONE PERSON to bring that person to viability.
YOU seem to be quite clueless about reproduction. there is ZERO point in reproduction if the offspring isn't viable. sperm is useless and serves ZERO purpose if a female doesn't bring the offspring to viability. viability is the key here, not the actual act of conception. no point in conceiving if the offspring won't even be able to draw in oxygen, reproduce, or do anything else that doesn't make it a parasite
The first quote is from your post 661 wherey you said no it does not take 2. Please get the facts of life right
a child could fee a baby. any human being that is not the mother can feed a baby. a wolf could feed a baby. machines via feeding tubes and IVs can feed a baby.
FAIL
A baby can not live on its own outside of the womb.
LOL, you're so condescending, yet you make NO sense! you really need to take a course in biology and reproduction. trust me, you'll learn something that will help you discuss matters of reproduction in the future
Again you made the claim it did not take 2 to make a baby
#1: your grammar is getting worse w/ every passing minute. please attempt to sound intelligible here.
#2: my statement is not 100% false. the possibility fully exists, however unlikely. the reverse is not true and have no precedent in nature that I know of that could ever make it true
really, go look up parthenogenesis. it's a fun topic. let's face it, in matters of biology, the male can become quite insignificant. no reason why the opinion of a man isn't less so when it comes to reproduction.
#2 Show me one woman other than Mary who has got pregnant without a man.
Man hating thread?
Where did that come from?
You seriously need to look at your life and your attitudes....I am deducing from the fact that you are going out on a Friday evening that you are single.
In that case, just remember.....dont be silly, wrap your willy!
yes your constant put down of men who you believe have no right to say in the bay they helped form.
Your egoistical hateful attitude to a mans right to fight for the life of his baby
I think it takes much more courage and dedication to ahead and bring the baby into the world to be adopted by one of the thousands of wonderful couples out there who really want a child.
Just getting an abortion so no one finds out or because it is inconvenient or maybe because you don't want to gain weight.....seems like a cop out when there is a better alternative.
Again.......carrying a pregnancy to term is much more than an inconvenience or gaining weight.
A woman should not be forced to suffer the PERMANENT physical damage, health risks{even death} and loss of income caused by pregnancy when she doesn't even want the child.
And as far as a father's rights are concerned............he doesn't have any.........why should his choice trump the choice of the person who will suffer ALL of the physical damage and risk? The idea is absurd.
A baby can not live on its own outside of the womb.
again are you playing dumb. a huge difference between a baby in a womb, not developed enough to live outside of the womb because their organs are not developed enough and getting nourishment from the "host" body.
a full term baby can live outside the womb. anyone can feed and take care of it. it does not require the "incubating body" it is a job anyone can do.
#2 Show me one woman other than Mary who has got pregnant without a man.
Your statement is false
"mary" was either not a virgin or she did not give birth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
