• XEAL@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The real analogy would be the chicken eating a human ovule, which would be a ridicoulsy small speck on the plate of less than 1mm of diameter.

      • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Most commercially sold eggs aren’t actually fertilised, they’re essentially chicken periods. As such the human equivalent would really only be blood, a barely visible ovum, and any visible remains of the uteral wall that was shed.

        There are definitely fertilised eggs sold (see the photo @65gmexl3 shared), but if you’re literally just buying normal eggs off the shelf, they aren’t going to be those ones.

        • BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Unfertilized chicken eggs come with amniotic fluids, nutrition (what the placenta carries) and connectors between them. I didn’t say fertilized

          • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sure that true for a chicken - but a human’s unfertilised egg/ovum doesn’t come with any of that. As such what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

            The human equivalent of an unfertilised chicken egg is their period, which is what I was referring to above.

            The only way you could get what you said is with a very well past fertilised human egg, and at that point you’re comparing apples to oranges.

            • BossDj@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              On the man’s plate are all the things that I listed, so I think it only fair that the chicken get the proportional features!

              • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                Sure, but then as I said you’re comparing apples to oranges. You’re comparing the product of human birth to a chicken period, which just aren’t equal.

                In any case, I think this is just gonna go round in circles, so I’m going to stop here - have a good one

                • BossDj@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Haha yes we are comparing these things! Only due to semantics are they apples to oranges. We lazily call the ovum “egg”, but also the shelled “reproductive body” laid by birds, reptiles, etc. The same word with two listed definitions in the dictionary.

                  You look at the human’s plate and your mind conjures the word egg (definition 1), and so on the second plate you believe there should also be an egg (definition 2)

                  I look at the plate and see the various necessities for reproduction, which exist in both humans and chickens. The ovum IS on the human’s plate already, but so is all the other stuff!

                  If it’s “chicken period” vs “human period”, then the other plate should also contain various other period stuff, too, if that’s what you like.

                  Also isn’t it odd the shelled object is an “egg” no matter if fertilized or how long the fetus has gestated?

  • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is funny in like an absurdist way, but I never really understood this argument. Human menstruation doesn’t end up with them popping out a whole fetus.