discuss.
2007-08-26 18:18:26 · 41 answers · asked by Thomas 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
they would have to sit on them for nine months
2007-08-26 18:22:31 · answer #1 · answered by Conan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You made me laugh. How big would the egg be?
Trust me, having a baby would be easier than laying an egg. A baby isn't a super big round thing that doesn't give in it's shape. Besides, I would hate to sit on the egg for months waiting for the thing to hatch. I'd much rather carry it around with me so I could go wherever I want. That's saying a lot--I have had some major problems with my pregnancies.
2007-08-26 18:23:58 · answer #2 · answered by Damsel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL
Oh my God, are you serious??? hahha
Well, that'd be great I guess, I mean, I've never given birth yet, but I'm sure that an egg coming out of the vagina (or the bottom if we have the chance:) would be a LOT less painful that a baby's body...well, it'd depend on the egg's size too!!!!
LOL
I had never imagined that in my life, how great!!! really
hahhaha
2007-08-26 18:25:27 · answer #3 · answered by Abbey Road 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it definitely would make the situation a whole lot easier and less painful..i dont know about these other women..but id take passing an egg through my female part..rather than a 9 pound human being!
2007-08-26 18:22:15 · answer #4 · answered by BooBell=) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would give a whole new meaning to the 'nesting phase', wouldn't it?
You wouldn't be able to breast feed. Would have to regurgitate half digested food, eat a LOT more calcium because the eggs would have to be a lot stronger to bear the weight (and I have seen some heavy women). You just leave the eggs alone if you don't want kids.
2007-08-26 18:26:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess there would be a better chance of multiple births then. But on the up side an egg (depending on size) can't hurt any more than a little person.
2007-08-26 18:21:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think of it would be marvelous: extra ease for women folk people who're notably plenty used as - definite, human incubators, much less drama approximately motherhood, like its being a hero. Which this is, yet extra suited to enable circulate of the burden and complex-earned feeling of conceitedness. Having infants in tiny eggs might no longer be a great deal.
2016-10-17 02:12:19 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a whole lot less painful. I think I would rather lay a ton of eggs then push a body out.
2007-08-26 18:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by ♥c0c0puffz♥ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could you imagine a woman having to sit on the egg for nine months for it to hatch? I think the baby in the uterus is a much better idea.
2007-08-26 18:21:18 · answer #9 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would be easier for the mom unless the egg was ginormous. It would be safer for the baby - no breach births or strangling on the cord.
2007-08-26 18:24:58 · answer #10 · answered by Georgie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They could save them up and hatch them all at once.
The husband could also help hatch the egg.
Eggs could be examined for flaws and if it wasn't a good egg it could be tossed. The human race would have fewer "bad eggs."
Women who couldn't lay eggs could get one from someone else much easier.
Women wouldn't have to have monthly periods.
2007-08-26 18:25:21 · answer #11 · answered by suigeneris-impetus 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋