Not even a little bit. Nature doesn't intend anything, unless you happen to be into some sort of naturalistic religion. The historical and ongoing persecution of minorities on the basis that they are committing unnatural acts tends to be a form a bigotry largely associated with either religious fundamentalism or political totalitarianism. It runs contrary to scientific method, which seeks to eliminate bias.
you corrected someone who said people can get pregnant. no correction was required.
ovaries are not required for pregnancy.
Hmmm. So can men give birth?
nobody has said they can. though of course you have to clarify if you mean gender or sex.
Not in all circumstances for sure. 🙂
But I've yet to find a man with a womb. 😃
Not sure where you think I said that. From the previously linked article however, the combination of IVF and artificial wombs suggests we could being seeing new babies through artificial processes.
So we agree. Men can't give birth.
And, again, you are arguing against something that nobody has said.
Super stuff. 🤘
Now that is a whole other ecumenical question, given how advanced medical obstetrics and gynaecology science is now, probably worthy of a thread of its own.
The answer is no.
Go forth and be fruitful
"No" to the possibility that, with modern medical science, that men/man can give birth OR "No, the ecumenical question is a non-starter?
As nature dictates, men can't give birth
Uhh, what's this discussion about?
Seems like trolling only, we're talking abortion here not 'who can get pregnant'
I was wondering if you might post something indicative that you were a believer in the "You must accept what you were born with" nature-theory. Fortunately humans can be creative outside the parameters others try to limit them to.
So we agree. Women give birth. Not men.
Cancelled question to poster….
Nature rocks.
"You must accept what you were born with" nature-theory. Fortunately humans can be creative outside the parameters others try to limit them to.
Less 'nature-theory' than naturalistic-fallacy and its close cousin, Hume's Is-Ought problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
BTW, always fun to note the 'accept what you are' argument is wheeled out for issues related to sex, but never glasses, contact lenses, antibiotics, cars + planes etc, etc. Weird.
It matters that we acknowledge that only women get pregnant and give birth because if we don't acknowledge sex-based aspectsof women's lives, it is impossible to protect women's rights.
For example the laws protecting pregnant women in the workplace were brought in on the basis of sex discrimination: only women can get pregnant, therefore to fire a woman because of something related to pregnancy, such as her taking maternity leave, is discrimination against her because she is a woman.
Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, provides that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a type of unlawful sex discrimination.
Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, provides that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a type of unlawful
sex discrimination
.
https://www.commerce.gov/cr/reports-and-resources/discrimination-quick-facts/pregnancy-discrimination#:~:text=based%20on%20pregnancy%3F-,A.,type%20of%20unlawful%20sex%20discrimination.
Same in the UK:
The Sex Discrimination Act specifically prohibited discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity leave. Since October 2010, this type of pregnancy and maternity discrimination has been unlawful under the Equality Act.
The pretence that all "people" can get pregnant and not just women is a dangerous slope to head down for those of us who actually care about women's rights.
IMO protecting pregnant women's rights is as important to women's rights as protecting their right not to be pregnant.
Sadly I notice that a lot of men are interested only in the latter. I wonder why the woman's rights during her pregnancy are so much less important to them.
..
Agreed entirely. At the same time we have to be wary of those who hide behind a faux feminist agenda to excuse various other kinds of discrimination. Arguments that talk about what 'nature intends' for women, as opposed to what women choose for themselves, are basically expressions of anti-feminist religious conservatism. I say religious here, as the notion that nature has intent is a religious one.
Well Done, feed the troll.
Nature doesn't have an intent, that's obvious to me.
However interpreting one particular word - especially that one - to mean that the person is being dishonest is far too close to mind reading for my comfort. Frank Lloyd Wright said “I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.” And he was far from alone in that approach to the world. Does that make them all closet deists? Clearly not.
IMO someone could be using "Nature" as a hidden way to bring "God" into things, or they might be using it as a way to explain why they don't believe in God, or at any rate, not in any of the Gods of the major organised religions. And I know this is an abortion thread, but it's in the wider atheism section, and the claim we're discussing is relevant to that.
But even in terms of the abortion debate, IMO it's just as important to point out that someone saying "people (in general) get pregnant", never mind "men can be pregnant", can be just as anti-woman in practice as saying that it's "woman's role to be pregnant".
Because protecting women's right not to be pregnant is only one of the protections that women need for effective equality with men. Banning discrimination against pregnant women is just as important - and that can only be ensured when one acknowledges that pregnancy only affects women.
Because otherwise, pregnancy becomes just a lifestyle choice that men or women may choose, or not. And laws don't generally need to guarantee equality for lifestyle choices.
Trolling, IMO, is insisting that men can get pregnant. Or pretending "people can get pregnant" is a valid expression because women are people too.
And BTW, this is regardless of trans issues - I've always found men saying "We are pregnant' to be unbearably smug and dismissive of what it actually is to be pregnant. If men had to actually go through pregnancy, never mind childbirth and its aftermath, it would be valued far more than it is. Women, though, are just expected to get on with it.
Where planned/elective/requested abortions are concerned, are we agreed that it's a human-choice practice?
Can we also agree that it's the absolute personal right of any pregnant female to have more input on the choice-issue OR ARE a number of us debating the issue here still declaring that THEY WILL DICTATE on whether any pregnant female can access an abortion facility for the purpose of having an abortion, even after we held a constitutional referendum on the issue and decided nationally that pregnant females could access abortions here?
NATURALLY I will choose, as is my right, to ignore any posts responding to this in a "phishing" manner.
I disagree on this one. The notion that nature as a whole can express intent is essentially pantheism and a religious belief, albeit nothing to do with Christianity at a superficial level. More importantly perhaps, suggesting we do anything because that's what nature intends is essentially using an appeal to authority fallacy as a mechanism to disguise another deeper bias. We should protect the needs and rights of pregnant women as a society on the basis of being a caring and egalitarian society, not because it suits the biases of a given religious or spiritual point of view.
In the context of reproductive rights, would you say that nature 'intends' for us to use birth control? Similarly, would you suggest we persecute homosexuality on the basis that it is unnatural? While I've no doubt your answer is a strong no to both questions, ask yourself what type of people would answer in the affirmative? My money would be on those with a hard-line conservative religiously informed world-view.
nobody has said men can get pregnant. take your strawman elsewhere.
