Why Can’t WaPo Say Womb?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
"serves no specific purpose to her health or well being"
These ghouls clearly dont even understand why women exist in the first place.
No in this case they are correct, the womb does not really do anything for the health and biological function of the mother. This is why hysterectomies are so common.
The womb provides no organic function to the life of the mother, it is not a necessary organ to live a full life. This is not to say the womb is useless, but that it does not serve a vital function to the individual’s livelihood.
Reproduction is part of the biological function of the mother.
That’s not the argument, reproduction is not what is being talked about, the uterus itself is not an organ necessary to the survival of the woman. You’re literally taking wapos side because vagina goes brrrrr.
Well, that's true in the same way leftists don't need 9/10ths of their brain, and most people don't need a second lung, etc.
No, that all decreases living function, having 1 lung lowers your life expectancy, a hysterectomy does not.
Hmm, if you say so.
Sure, if you don't consider having someone to help you out in your old age as "vital".
Vital means required to keep functioning in current state. A womb is vital to an embryo until it matures. At no point during a woman’s life is the uterus necessary to the maintenance of the woman’s life. This does not negate the importance of the womb…. It simply defines ability to harm
So you're shifting goalposts here.
You claimed "livelihood", which I quoted and disagreed with. You even go so far as to say that having a decreased life expectancy from missing a lung supports your point. Well, I don't have the data handy but I'd be willing to bet that there's a correlation between motherhood and life expectancy. I'd also say that there's a world of difference between having kids that you establish a lifetime relationship with vs having random people take care of your deteriorating ass because they get paid.
But now you're changing the claim that it's not vital for her to stay alive. Ok, well fine. That's a different argument. Pick one.
I don't even understand what your point of this post is beyond, "oh hey, here's a piece of trivia: women can live normally (for some amount of time) without a uterus." Well, ok, but so what?
1 in 3 women have a hysterectomy by the age of 60, the longest lifespan for a parent is to adopt…… having a hysterectomy does not affect livelihood, under the definition of livelihood.
Well that's rather irrelevant, since she has already used her uterus to perform the function that I was claiming it would help with.
Y'know, that whole "my MOTHER" thing you were talking about.
Mysoginist and idpol people tend to want to erase women. You see it a lot here. We have a whole contingent of our own home grown SJW idpol people who hate women for the simple reason that they are women.
Actually, I'd argue the opposite. If not for their ability to bear children, women wouldn't have any value whatsoever and nobody would care if they lived or died.
Marxists/satanists/leftists are repeating the story of Cain. They believe reality is a prison created to intentionally inflict suffering on them personally. They seethe in an unrelenting hatred of God for imbuing them with the consciousness that contained the capability of experiencing that suffering, yet are too cowardly to end their own lives and face the unknown of oblivion.
This is two retarded arguments blasting past each other at the speed of light.
Their argument would either be some tranny inclusive nonsense or one of those "we believe in using the scientific names for body parts and not childish nicknames" schemes.
"Pear-shaped organ", last I checked, is not its scientific name.
It’s funny, they call it false then claim it’s “reproductive health”. But that’s not what was claimed is it? They said the organ has no point to the mother other than childbirth. You then argue it’s false because “reproductive health” which is what again?
... these mental midgets declare the claim is "false" before giving an explaination of how technically correct the claim was. Yes the womb is exclusively for reproduction.
Female mammals which fail to reproduce at least once have greatly increased incidences of psychopathy, ovarian, uteran and breast cancer as well as bone related disorders.
Female mammals who have 1 or more children have an extreme risk of hemorrhage, disease and death. I too can play stats, compare life expectancy and actual metrics and you will see there’s not a proven difference that having kids makes women live longer.
This isn't 1365 anymore. Maternity risks are extremely rare. There is no such thing as "extreme risks" in child bearing. If that were the case, the species wouldn't have survived for hundreds of thousands of years.
Why are you pushing to sterilize women ? What's your agenda with this thread ?
What mammals other than human beings experience "psychopathy"?
a lot of them. Parrots are known for psychological disturbances, and rabbits who don't reproduce become aggressive (and get cancer). Behaviour disturbances in primates and rodents are extremely well documents. And then there are cats....
The word "womb" should be replaced with "holding cell."
Might as well be "tomb" if they had their way.
Just looks to me they want to vary their word choice.