Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:50 amby Euronion
DaWoad wrote:Avenio wrote:Hormones don't enter into it. Female reproductive hormones deal with ovulation and the uterus, not the actual development of the baby itself.
not sure that's true. Didn't phalidomide do the damamge it did because it changed around the hormones essential to development in the fetus? Some other developmental disorders are also hormonally based IIRC (cretinism, the lack of iodine leading to insufficient thyroid hormones)
that said, artificial hormones and problem solved.
And yes, the baby would get enough nutrients; implantation can occur almost anywhere in the upper female reproductive tract naturally, (And other places in rarer instances) and the placenta will grow into existing blood supplies. In fact, an ectopic pregnancy is exactly what a male pregnancy would be; except instead of commonly occurring in the fallopian tubes, it would be in the abdominal cavity.
and, this. In fact there are a couple of cases where fetuses have grown to near-viability and, I think, even been delivered having grown on an abdominal wall/wall of the intestines in a woman.
that may work, if nothing was there but the fact is, there is something there, the penis and the muscles around it in the male body are not biologically designed to handle that, the woman is, Biology in humans has stayed the same for millions of years, who are we to be going around messing with genetics to make men have babies, its not natural, and it shouldn't be attempted, if you want to talk about this impossible idea further make your own thread
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:51 amby DaWoad
Euronion wrote:Avenio wrote:Hormones don't enter into it. Female reproductive hormones deal with ovulation and the uterus, not the actual development of the baby itself. And yes, the baby would get enough nutrients; implantation can occur almost anywhere in the upper female reproductive tract naturally, (And other places in rarer instances) and the placenta will grow into existing blood supplies. In fact, an ectopic pregnancy is exactly what a male pregnancy would be; except instead of commonly occurring in the fallopian tubes, it would be in the abdominal cavity.
no there are hormones that dictate the skin to stretch, there are hormones that screen out harmful chemicals to the baby, there are hormones for every function of the body, including hunger, and thirst, not to mention the bodies immune system would recognize it as a foreign invader and reject it, which would probably lead to death, and the baby would die because the hormones for pregnancy hunger are not present
well you didn't get it right either. Generally it's the liver that screens out harmful chemicals along with various cells in the intestines, lungs and etc. as well as the kidneys (to an extent) and the lymphatic system (sort of). Some of those process are hormone regulated others are not. Your immune system would likely reject the fetus but we have these nifty things called imunosuppresents and artficial hormones that could do the trick. Nor would the fetus die of starvation given that hunger would still occur if the neutrients were being taken from the intestine or blood (think tape worm, they don't introduce hormones to increase hunger, they don't have to and yet they do not starve).
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:51 amby The Kings Council
Shadow25 wrote:The Kings Council wrote:have you gotten anyone pregnant before? please tell me how easy it was for me to go through what i went through.
never know that ejaculating can be as hard as carrying a baby for 9 months
right cause i got all of the symptoms and she got none, gain no weight, slept regularly didn't thow up one time. When she left me i had no rights to even know how my child was doing. While she was on drugs and sleeping i stayed awake for 7 days in the hospital until my son was born. i was the one who had the hormone shift happen to me(my doctor was stunned). She said her c-section was easier then she ever expected. i moved her into my house and took care of her and my son. don't tell me all i had to do was ejaculate. you know nothing. to this day i'm fighting in court just to even see my son. reproductive rights extend past birth those same laws say i'm not as fit of a parent because i'm not a woman.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:53 amby Avenio
Euronion wrote:no there are hormones that dictate the skin to stretch,
Nope, skin is elastic normally. No hormones required. If you pull on the skin on your hand right now, it'll stretch all on its own.
Euronion wrote:there are hormones that screen out harmful chemicals to the baby,
Sorry, that's active/passive transport, not hormones. It's rather more like a static filter than a screening process.
Euronion wrote:there are hormones for every function of the body, including hunger, and thirst
Ehh, kindasorta.
It's way more complicated than that.DaWoad wrote:not sure that's true. Didn't phalidomide do the damamge it did because it changed around the hormones essential to development in the fetus?
I was more referring to the mother's own hormones, but yeah, I think that's right.
DaWoad wrote:Some other developmental disorders are also hormonally based IIRC (cretinism, the lack of iodine leading to insufficient thyroid hormones)
As far as I remember, I think most congenital hypothyroidic conditions are genetic in nature. I could be wrong.
DaWoad wrote:that said, artificial hormones and problem solved.
Heh, if males really want to go for the full experience, we can even give them the full hormonal swings associated, too.
DaWoad wrote:and, this. In fact there are a couple of cases where fetuses have grown to near-viability and, I think, even been delivered having grown on an abdominal wall/wall of the intestines in a woman.
Yep.
Even a set of twins was born from an ectopic pregnancy successfully.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:53 amby The Parkus Empire
Hathradic States wrote:The two are not alike. Rape is rape, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the rapist argues against that,
You'd be suprised how many people argue against that, especially with some justification like: "Well, if she were making it clear she has rape fantasies and is egging you on...."
but what does the opinion of scum matter?).
When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people.
The child isn't consensual if the woman doesn't want it during pregnancy.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:54 amby The Kings Council
The Black Forrest wrote:The Kings Council wrote:so i guess your against child support too
Ahhh what?
it's her choice if she keeps it so why should he be imprisoned for not taking care of it
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:54 amby Greater Americania
The Parkus Empire wrote:Hathradic States wrote:We have none. After all, what say should we have in our own offspring? We just did half of the work in creating them.
We carry the fetuses in our wombs for four-and-a-half months and gave half birth?
I'm so glad to be informed that this means they are no longer our children as well.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:54 amby The Parkus Empire
Shadow25 wrote:Hathradic States wrote:In most cases. However, I find it to be a good punishment for criminals, such as slave-traders and rapist.
are you serious?
He's a fascist, and very proud of it.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:55 amby The Black Forrest
The Kings Council wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:Ahhh what?
it's her choice if she keeps it so why should he be imprisoned for not taking care of it
*shrugs* You don't want children, get yourself cut. Problem solved.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:56 amby The Parkus Empire
Greater Americania wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:We carry the fetuses in our wombs for four-and-a-half months and gave half birth?
I'm so glad to be informed that this means they are no longer our children as well.
Of course they're still "your" (word is a little vague, here) children, but that's totally irrelevant.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:57 amby The Parkus Empire
The Black Forrest wrote:The Kings Council wrote:it's her choice if she keeps it so why should he be imprisoned for not taking care of it
*shrugs* You don't want children, get yourself cut. Problem solved.
That's a terrible argument.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:57 amby Old Koridai
The Black Forrest wrote:The Kings Council wrote:it's her choice if she keeps it so why should he be imprisoned for not taking care of it
*shrugs* You don't want children, get yourself cut. Problem solved.
or learn to get "dry orgasms"
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:57 amby The Kings Council
DaWoad wrote:The Kings Council wrote:he wants to have the child and she doesn't so why doesn't she have the surgery so she won't get pregnant and kill a child
1- it's not a child
2-it's her body, she can choose to get her tubes tied if she wants or an abortion if she gets pregnant and doesn't want the fetus.
there's the basic difference i believe it's a child even before it's born.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:58 amby DaWoad
Euronion wrote:DaWoad wrote:not sure that's true. Didn't phalidomide do the damamge it did because it changed around the hormones essential to development in the fetus? Some other developmental disorders are also hormonally based IIRC (cretinism, the lack of iodine leading to insufficient thyroid hormones)
that said, artificial hormones and problem solved.
and, this. In fact there are a couple of cases where fetuses have grown to near-viability and, I think, even been delivered having grown on an abdominal wall/wall of the intestines in a woman.
that may work, if nothing was there but the fact is, there is something there, the penis and the muscles around it in the male body are not biologically designed to handle that, the woman is, Biology in humans has stayed the same for millions of years, who are we to be going around messing with genetics to make men have babies, its not natural, and it shouldn't be attempted, if you want to talk about this impossible idea further make your own thread
oooo so much to poke holes in so little time.
okay
1- the physiological differences in males are far more than "having a penis". The problems with male pregnancy wouldn't actually stem from having a penis.
2-"biologically designed" is a contradiction in terms. Humans evolved a certain way, we were not designed.
3-biology in humans has certainly not stayed the same from millions of years. we change overtime just like every other species out there. A couple million years ago we were rather different than we are now.
4-We are the only species capable of "messing with genetics" and doing so is, generally, a good thing as long as we're very careful in how we do it.
5- "natural" isn't better. "natural" is living in a tree, eating raw food and dieing of generally rather nasty diseases before your 30ith birthday if you're lucky enough to make it that far. Natural has never been and should never become something to strive for, quite the contrary.
6-you brought it up.
Re: Male reproductive rights?
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:58 amby Alien Space Bats
The Kings Council wrote:DaWoad wrote:1- it's not a child
2-it's her body, she can choose to get her tubes tied if she wants or an abortion if she gets pregnant and doesn't want the fetus.
there's the basic difference i believe it's a child even before it's born.
Well, technically, it is - from around 24 weeks onward.
It's called "viability".
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:58 amby Hathradic States
The Parkus Empire wrote:Shadow25 wrote:are you serious?
He's a
fascist Weissist, and very proud of it.
Changed to keep up with the times.
The Parkus Empire wrote:Hathradic States wrote:The two are not alike. Rape is rape, and wrong no matter who the fuck you are. (of course, the rapist argues against that,
You'd be suprised how many people argue against that, especially with some justification like: "Well, if she were making it clear she has rape fantasies and is egging you on...."
If I had faith in humanity, it would be gone about now.
but what does the opinion of scum matter?).
Wait, is that you argeeing with me or did you just post that to take up space?
When I speak of "reproductive rights" I am speaking of when the child is consensual, as would most people.
The child isn't consensual if the woman doesn't want it during pregnancy.
Forgive me, I misstyped. I was refering to the sexual conduct in which the child was brought about.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:59 amby Carnatoa
This debate is ridiculous. The way I see it, we either give people an obligation to preserve their unborn children, or we do not. If we do so, then why stop at fetuses? Why not care for all those little sperm and eggs, shouldn't they get a chance to live too? If we're treating those with the potential for human life as humans, we have to take them into account. So let's run the numbers on this, shall we? To maximize the number of possible infants brought into this world, we must make sure that every egg a woman produces, from menarche to menopause, is fertilized. Now, fertilization is not a given, so to account for that, we'll use high-end estimates for the onset menarche, and low-end estimates for the onset of menopause. Let's say... 15 and 45. That's a thirty-year period (no pun intended). The average menstrual cycle is 28 days, but for simplicity, we'll bias it against my argument and make it a month. Thirty years times twelve months is three-hundred and sixty eggs, or three-hundred and sixty potential children. Now, again, for simplicity, and to avoid accusations of bias, let's use the low-end estimate of two billion women in the world. Three-hundred and sixty times two billion is seven-hundred and twenty billion people, in only thirty years. This shows that those who argue that a fetus, with the potential for human life, is a person, are either logically inconsistent (supporting fetuses, but not ovums) in which case their arguments should be disregarded, or planning to create a massive population boom that spreads the earth's resources incredibly thinly, in which case they should be executed for conspiring to commit crimes against humanity. As a result, all logical discussion must assume that people, specifically women, don't have an obligation to bear unborn children. Now, the man may want a child, but the woman has no obligation to carry it, either for him or at all, so if she simply doesn't want to go through the experience of pregnancy, birth, and either motherhood or child support checks, he has no right to stop her. However, as the man also has no inherent obligation to preserve the existence of this child, if he advocates an abortion, but the mother chooses to keep the child, he has no obligation to pay child support. There is no inherent obligation, and, by arguing for abortion, he has refused to take on the obligations of a father. He advocated a course of action in which there was no end result; he has quit the endeavor to reproduce.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:59 amby The Black Forrest
The Parkus Empire wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:*shrugs* You don't want children, get yourself cut. Problem solved.
That's a terrible argument.
How so? He is bitching about the results and responsibilities of unprotected sex. One vasectomy and he can have all the unprotected sex he wants
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:59 amby Greater Americania
The Parkus Empire wrote:Greater Americania wrote:I'm so glad to be informed that this means they are no longer our children as well.
Of course they're still "your" (word is a little vague, here) children, but that's totally irrelevant.
Oh, I see. They are our children, but just not as much as they are the mother's. Oh, wow. What an eye-opener. Here I was lost in the Dark Ages.
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:59 amby Geniasis
Hathradic States wrote:As in "be excessively cruel". Can you think of any a crueler torture than to be prepared for fatherhood, to be prepared to love and cherish your child. To be willing to marry the mother, only to have said mother decide one day that she didn't want it and she gets an abortion. To me, that is one hell of a bitch move. I watched it happen to one of my friends, and he was nearly destroyed by it. To me, that is not right, and it is not just.
Tough shit. A woman's body doesn't belong to you. Tell you what, when it's
your body carrying around the fetus for nine months,
then you get to call the shots.
I hate that people like you are having more sex than I am.
Alien Space Bats wrote:If you're that set on making sure you have a baby, go knock up some good Bible-thumper.
Or, and this is a novel concept I know, he could
adopt a kid. They're prefabricated! No need to deal with a pregnant women,
these children are already born and in need of a good and loving home.Seriously, there are ways to achieve your all-important dynasty
without the misogyny. How is that not a more tempting alternative?
Posted:
Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:00 amby Risottia
Euronion wrote:..., there is something there, the penis and the muscles around it in the male body are not biologically designed to handle that, the woman is, Biology in humans has stayed the same for millions of years, who are we to be going around messing with genetics to make men have babies, its not natural, and it shouldn't be attempted, if you want to talk about this impossible idea further make your own thread
Living past age 30 isn't much natural either.
Anyway, your point is that only women can bear babies, right? This means only women get a say. Simple.
The Kings Council wrote:there's the basic difference i believe it's a child even before it's born.
And you do that through wishful thinking alone, or through a substitution of dictionary?
