you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is true that female bodies develop in a way that (presumably- if functioning properly) prepares the body for the ability to carry a child and give birth. That’s kind of what puberty does. Our hips widen, we menstruate etc, because female humans are the only humans capable of giving birth- as a sex, not on an individual basis. We don’t have to get pregnant or give birth, some of us can’t, but every single person in the world who ever has has been a female. This person chose interesting wording, but I don’t think they’re saying what you think they’re saying.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One of the issues in that post from Ovarit is the term "meant to," which I'd take issue with. There's a difference between "equipped to" and "meant to" - the former indicates a potential capacity, the latter indicates a purpose. I think evolution/nature equips us female humans with the possibility and potential for having children, but that does not mean it's our purpose.

But I am not gonna waste time arguing over something said on an entirely different forum here.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why I said they chose weird wording- but I think given what she says towards the end, that she’s not necessarily advocating for the idea that women have to give birth, to me it seems like poor phrasing but saying that females are the sex that have bodies capable of giving birth. Of course I don’t know her so I could be wrong, but I honestly think it’s possible it was just a poor choice of words.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.