| USE QUOTE TAGS WHEN PASTING ARTICLES wrote: |
In the years since the first "test tube baby" was born in 1978, physicians and scientists from RYT Hospital have been working to develop a viable technique for the successful impregnation of male individuals. Illustrated to the right is a recent radiographic image of Mr. Lee, the first human subject to attempt this procedure, which shows the healthy fetus developing in his abdominal cavity.
Please note that RYT Hospital is not accepting new patients for this procedure. Male pregnancy is still in its experimental stage and will not be available to the public in the immediate future.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques were used to induce an ectopic pregnancy by implanting an embryo and placenta into the abdominal cavity, just under the peritoneum (the surrounding lining). Please read below for the step-by-step process. |
http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a boy and I don't know what to say. It's all very odd. But I think there are plenty of women out there who would be more than happy to give that 9 month job to the Dad of the baby .
[Edit by Bockman]that is so awesome! If they perfect that, I might consider having kids after all.
now if they could only make it so my b/f can have my period for me...
or if they come up with a male birth control...I'd be set! 
Jeez, I am willing to bet that this will be experimental for a long, long time and have difficulty approaching the efficiency of natural pregnancy. Pregnancy is a very complicated symbiosis between mother and child with many, many elements of signaling and interaction that are still being investigated in labs across the country. I wonder, though, if the whole male pregnancy thing will really gather the support it would really need to become fully successful when test tube babies are perhaps a more feasible reality!
I think it's bloody gross. Why can't we just accept what we are and stop experimenting with life?
We should have more respect for life or it won't be long until we all go down the drain.
I suppose they could just skip the whole thing and keep on cloning | Master-of-Evilz wrote: |
| since [...] 1978, physicians and scientists from RYT Hospital have been working to develop a viable technique for the successful impregnation of male individuals. |
Does anybody else think that this is a colossal waste of time and effort? I hope they're not receiving government money for it. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Master-of-Evilz wrote: | | since [...] 1978, physicians and scientists from RYT Hospital have been working to develop a viable technique for the successful impregnation of male individuals. |
Does anybody else think that this is a colossal waste of time and effort? I hope they're not receiving government money for it. |
Breast augmentation was a colossal waste of time and effort. Male pregnancy is not. The current estimate for the minimum viable population for humans is 50 kpeople, if my memory serves. Male pregnancy would close to halve that. There are very few advancements in history that can boast that kind of accomplishment.It's not natural and it's just WRONG though in so many ways. Nature had NEVER intended for a man to carry a child, hence why the males have the external reproductive organs, and the females have internal reproductive organs.
I can see a commercial value to male pregnancy , but someone will have to point out the scientific value......this is where the alarm bells start to ring...... 
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I can see a commercial value to male pregnancy , but someone will have to point out the scientific value......this is where the alarm bells start to ring...... |
What was the scientific value of the first caesarean section? Figuring out how to safely deliver babies that would probably not survive (and might kill the mother) had no real scientific value. Once the technique was perfected, what exactly was added to human knowledge (other than the procedure itself, of course)? Nothing. Once we learned how to do c-sections, it didn't teach us anything new about... anything.
C-sections may not have any scientific value, but they certainly have a practical value (by allowing babies that would not have been born otherwise to be born), and a social value (by removing one more reason not to have babies - the health risk - more people might have been willing to try). Not everything worth learning has to have a further scientific value. Sometimes, the thing itself is value enough.
What - exactly - are the differences that make c-sections ok, and male pregnancies not?I've discussed this with guys before (not it actually being done but in theory) whether
they would be interested in having a baby if THEY could be the ones to cary it and give
birth...the answer? a resounding NO.
which honestly I feel the same way....I will never allow something to claw it's
way out of my body. reproduction is over-rated and the world is over populated.
(pregnancy reminds me of like invasion of the body snathchers)
BUT - if guys could carry the baby...I'd consider it.
| Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I can see a commercial value to male pregnancy , but someone will have to point out the scientific value......this is where the alarm bells start to ring...... |
What was the scientific value of the first caesarean section? Figuring out how to safely deliver babies that would probably not survive (and might kill the mother) had no real scientific value. Once the technique was perfected, what exactly was added to human knowledge (other than the procedure itself, of course)? Nothing. Once we learned how to do c-sections, it didn't teach us anything new about... anything.
C-sections may not have any scientific value, but they certainly have a practical value (by allowing babies that would not have been born otherwise to be born), and a social value (by removing one more reason not to have babies - the health risk - more people might have been willing to try). Not everything worth learning has to have a further scientific value. Sometimes, the thing itself is value enough.
What - exactly - are the differences that make c-sections ok, and male pregnancies not? |
C-sections were designed to save unborn babys and there mothers lives because there was a real need for lives to be saved...the bomb has allready gone off so knowledge is gained through the "necessity is the mother of invention" root ......... what exactly is the notion of male pregnancy designed to do ? , save mankind when all the women have left Earth for planet Harvey Nichols ? 
What can we learn from a male pregnancy that we can not learn from a natural if not perfect female pregnancy ?.
Why impregnate a man (run) when there are wombless women (walk ) in the world ?
Who said male pregnancys were not ok ? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| C-sections were designed to save unborn babys and there mothers lives because there was a real need for lives to be saved...the bomb has allready gone off so knowledge is gained through the "necessity is the mother of invention" root |
But my point is: what knowledge is gained? The only knowledge gained by inventing the c-section was the c-section. C-section technology does not lead to any further scientific or technological benefits, it is the benefit in and of itself. If you were implying that something should not be researched (if i correctly understood your reference to "alarm bells" as a warning about wasting research resources) simply because it does not have any scientific value (you already admitted that it might have commercial, and by extension social, value) - and it sure seems that way to me, because you go on to say "What can we learn from a male pregnancy that we can not learn from a natural if not perfect female pregnancy ?", to which i would reply "nothing, but then what can we learn from a c-section that we cannot learn from a natural birth?" - then by extension, it would have been a waste of time to research c-sections. C-sections also provide no further scientific knowledge; their only benefits are practical and social.
Now you imply that c-sections were worthwhile researching because they solve a practical problem (even though, of course, they still have no real scientific value). Ok, sure, c-section technology can save lives that are in immediate danger, whereas pregnant guys doesn't really save anyone. So maybe that fact provides the justification for researching c-sections. Fair enough.
But then what about other technologies that have absolutely no scientific value and do not solve life-threatening problems? Say, for example, fertility drugs, artificial insemination and so on? None of those technologies leads to further scientific discovery - all of them are simply useful technologies in and of themselves. None of them solve any problems where a life is threatened. Would it have been a waste of time to research them?
What is the difference between a technology that allows a woman who would otherwise have been unable to have a baby to get pregnant... and male pregnancy technology? Why is the former research ok (or, if you prefer, why would that not "ring alarm bells") while male pregnancy does? Or, would you have said that fertility drugs (for example) are also not worth researching?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| what exactly is the notion of male pregnancy designed to do ? , save mankind when all the women have left Earth for planet Harvey Nichols ? |
Possibly.
More likely, though, i would say that "the notion of male pregnancy" is "designed" to allow people who want babies but cannot to have them. That's all. That seems reason enough to me.
But if that is not enough to justify the existence of the technology, then what justifies the existence of fertility drugs or artificial insemination (or your suggestion: technology to allow women without wombs to have babies)?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Why impregnate a man (run) when there are wombless women (walk ) in the world ? |
So, you think we should just forget about the idea of making a man pregnant and just focus on the problem of sterile women because the former is probably easier to solve? Or in other words, that we should solve the easy problems first, and anyone attempting to solve a more difficult problem is just wasting time? You say to hell with what the scientists are interested in, they should solve the easy problems first? If a scientist wants to figure out how how to support life on Mars... no. That scientist should not be allowed to do that research. He should be forced to research ways to support life in a famine-stricken area on Earth. Does that sound right?
Or are you implying that the technology that could make a woman without a womb pregnant is the same technology that could make a man pregnant, except that the latter is a more far-out goal? Alright, let's assume that's true for now, and that in order to make a man pregnant, we must first be able to make a sterile woman pregnant. And let's consider this as a practical problem rather than as a moral or ethical one (simply because it sounds to me like your question is one of practicality, but if not, let me know).
So let's consider three different worlds. In each world, a group of scientists wants to research this problem. Of course, they need funding. In each world, there are 100 potential donors:
40 of them will fund the research to make sterile women pregnant.
40 of them will fund the research to make sterile women pregnant but will refuse to fund research if it is also used to make men pregnant (let's say for religious reasons).
20 of them will fund the research to make men pregnant.
You may tweak the numbers as you please. The actual values make no difference, as you will see, as long as they are not 0 (which is unlikely in any real world).
World 1: The group announces they will research male pregnancy
In this world, the group will get funding from the 20 who wanted that research done. They will also get funding from the 40 who have another goal, but realize that their goal will be met automatically during the course of this research. They will, of course, not get funding from the 40 who refuse to fund it.
Total donors: 60/100 - 60%
World 2: The group announces they will research making sterile women pregnant
In this world, the group will get funding from the 80 who wanted that research done. They will not get funding from the 20 who want male pregnancy, because this research will not give them that. It may lay the groundwork, but even if it succeeds there is no guarantee that anyone will go on to research male pregnancy. And if they do, they will need donors then and have much fewer donors (because 80 out of the hundred just won't care anymore, their problem is over and solved), so the 20 will have to carry the funding for that research alone. Logically, they would be wise to reserve their funding until that point.
Total donors: 80/100 - 80%
Well, so far it sure seems like a good idea to go the latter route. However....
World 3: The group is smart
In this world, the group splits into two (officially) independent teams. One announces that they will research male pregnancy, the other announces that they will research making sterile women pregnant. Of course, both teams will be sharing their research behind the scenes - that's what scientists do, after all. The team researching making sterile women pregnant will get funding from the 40 who only wanted that research done. The team researching male pregnancy will get funding from the 20 who wanted that research done. The remaining 40 will be split between the two (because their goals will be met either way).
Total donors: 100/100 - 100%
Clever, hm? So you see, from a practical perspective, it does make sense to research these far-out ideas, because (if you're smart about it), the "simpler" problems will get solved automatically in the process. Everyone wins.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Who said male pregnancys were not ok ? |
Are you kidding? In this thread alone, the idea has been called unnatural, wrong, a waste of time and effort, and "bloody gross".
You yourself said that it raised "alarm bells". Generally speaking, something that causes alarm bells to ring is not a good thing, but even when it's not bad, it's certainly not ok - because if everything was going ok, there would be no need for an alarm. Alarms don't sound when everything is ok. | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | C-sections were designed to save unborn babys and there mothers lives because there was a real need for lives to be saved...the bomb has allready gone off so knowledge is gained through the "necessity is the mother of invention" root |
But my point is: what knowledge is gained? The only knowledge gained by inventing the c-section was the c-section. C-section technology does not lead to any further scientific or technological benefits, it is the benefit in and of itself. If you were implying that something should not be researched (if i correctly understood your reference to "alarm bells" as a warning about wasting research resources) simply because it does not have any scientific value (you already admitted that it might have commercial, and by extension social, value) - and it sure seems that way to me, because you go on to say "What can we learn from a male pregnancy that we can not learn from a natural if not perfect female pregnancy ?", to which i would reply "nothing, but then what can we learn from a c-section that we cannot learn from a natural birth?" - then by extension, it would have been a waste of time to research c-sections. C-sections also provide no further scientific knowledge; their only benefits are practical and social.
Now you imply that c-sections were worthwhile researching because they solve a practical problem (even though, of course, they still have no real scientific value). Ok, sure, c-section technology can save lives that are in immediate danger, whereas pregnant guys doesn't really save anyone. So maybe that fact provides the justification for researching c-sections. Fair enough.
But then what about other technologies that have absolutely no scientific value and do not solve life-threatening problems? Say, for example, fertility drugs, artificial insemination and so on? None of those technologies leads to further scientific discovery - all of them are simply useful technologies in and of themselves. None of them solve any problems where a life is threatened. Would it have been a waste of time to research them?
What is the difference between a technology that allows a woman who would otherwise have been unable to have a baby to get pregnant... and male pregnancy technology? Why is the former research ok (or, if you prefer, why would that not "ring alarm bells") while male pregnancy does? Or, would you have said that fertility drugs (for example) are also not worth researching?
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | what exactly is the notion of male pregnancy designed to do ? , save mankind when all the women have left Earth for planet Harvey Nichols ? |
Possibly.
More likely, though, i would say that "the notion of male pregnancy" is "designed" to allow people who want babies but cannot to have them. That's all. That seems reason enough to me.
But if that is not enough to justify the existence of the technology, then what justifies the existence of fertility drugs or artificial insemination (or your suggestion: technology to allow women without wombs to have babies)?
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Why impregnate a man (run) when there are wombless women (walk ) in the world ? |
So, you think we should just forget about the idea of making a man pregnant and just focus on the problem of sterile women because the former is probably easier to solve? Or in other words, that we should solve the easy problems first, and anyone attempting to solve a more difficult problem is just wasting time? You say to hell with what the scientists are interested in, they should solve the easy problems first? If a scientist wants to figure out how how to support life on Mars... no. That scientist should not be allowed to do that research. He should be forced to research ways to support life in a famine-stricken area on Earth. Does that sound right?
Or are you implying that the technology that could make a woman without a womb pregnant is the same technology that could make a man pregnant, except that the latter is a more far-out goal? Alright, let's assume that's true for now, and that in order to make a man pregnant, we must first be able to make a sterile woman pregnant. And let's consider this as a practical problem rather than as a moral or ethical one (simply because it sounds to me like your question is one of practicality, but if not, let me know).
So let's consider three different worlds. In each world, a group of scientists wants to research this problem. Of course, they need funding. In each world, there are 100 potential donors:
40 of them will fund the research to make sterile women pregnant.
40 of them will fund the research to make sterile women pregnant but will refuse to fund research if it is also used to make men pregnant (let's say for religious reasons).
20 of them will fund the research to make men pregnant.
You may tweak the numbers as you please. The actual values make no difference, as you will see, as long as they are not 0 (which is unlikely in any real world).
World 1: The group announces they will research male pregnancy
In this world, the group will get funding from the 20 who wanted that research done. They will also get funding from the 40 who have another goal, but realize that their goal will be met automatically during the course of this research. They will, of course, not get funding from the 40 who refuse to fund it.
Total donors: 60/100 - 60%
World 2: The group announces they will research making sterile women pregnant
In this world, the group will get funding from the 80 who wanted that research done. They will not get funding from the 20 who want male pregnancy, because this research will not give them that. It may lay the groundwork, but even if it succeeds there is no guarantee that anyone will go on to research male pregnancy. And if they do, they will need donors then and have much fewer donors (because 80 out of the hundred just won't care anymore, their problem is over and solved), so the 20 will have to carry the funding for that research alone. Logically, they would be wise to reserve their funding until that point.
Total donors: 80/100 - 80%
Well, so far it sure seems like a good idea to go the latter route. However....
World 3: The group is smart
In this world, the group splits into two (officially) independent teams. One announces that they will research male pregnancy, the other announces that they will research making sterile women pregnant. Of course, both teams will be sharing their research behind the scenes - that's what scientists do, after all. The team researching making sterile women pregnant will get funding from the 40 who only wanted that research done. The team researching male pregnancy will get funding from the 20 who wanted that research done. The remaining 40 will be split between the two (because their goals will be met either way).
Total donors: 100/100 - 100%
Clever, hm? So you see, from a practical perspective, it does make sense to research these far-out ideas, because (if you're smart about it), the "simpler" problems will get solved automatically in the process. Everyone wins.
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | Who said male pregnancys were not ok ? |
Are you kidding? In this thread alone, the idea has been called unnatural, wrong, a waste of time and effort, and "bloody gross".
You yourself said that it raised "alarm bells". Generally speaking, something that causes alarm bells to ring is not a good thing, but even when it's not bad, it's certainly not ok - because if everything was going ok, there would be no need for an alarm. Alarms don't sound when everything is ok. |
Firstly the "alarm bells" reference of mine is not a derogatory statment aimed at the act of impregnanting men , rather my initial reaction to the obvious con/lie (as I saw it) that this is in general......I myself have not called it anything other than suspitious.
C-sections are here by necessity and are as of yet not a perfect operation so I would disagree that there is no more knowledge to be gained, would there be a real difference in C-sectioning a man as opposed to a woman ?, probably some differences but not as many differences as actually bringing a baby to full term, in this regard is'nt C-sectioning a pregnant man the easy part ? we can do it to a woman allready ergo we can do it to a man if need be.
World One , World Two , World Three would all still find funding, world three would be the ideal world financially but dont we have to take into account that these babys would be alive and real people, is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ? .
On a personal note I see no problem with wombless births for men or women if ever perfected, no-one would do it half heartedly by mistake or drunk for a start, I would imagine people who want to go through something like that would make great parents regardless of sex | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| C-sections are here by necessity and are as of yet not a perfect operation so I would disagree that there is no more knowledge to be gained, would there be a real difference in C-sectioning a man as opposed to a woman ?, probably some differences but not as many differences as actually bringing a baby to full term, in this regard is'nt C-sectioning a pregnant man the easy part ? we can do it to a woman allready ergo we can do it to a man if need be. |
That would depend greatly on the nature of male pregnancy. ^_^;
But anyway, you talk about there being more knowledge to gain with regards to c-sections... but what i've been pointing out is: "more knowledge to gain with regards to what?" Your answer: c-sections. So... the knowledge we gain from improving c-sections gives us: improved c-sections. It doesn't give us any other scientific knowledge.
Back to your original statement: you wanted to know the scientific value of male pregnancy. The answer is: there is none (that we can see now). But then, there is no scientific value to c-sections either. The only thing that we gained from inventing the c-section, was the c-section. The only thing we gain from improving the c-section, is an improved c-section. The same is true for male pregnancy. The only thing we gain from inventing a method for male pregnancy, will be a method for male pregnancy, and so on.
Now, obviously c-sections were worth developing - i don't see you even trying dispute that. Therefore, the lack of any scientific value for something is not grounds to rule out developing it. QED.
And in fact, there are countless things that have been developed over the ages that have absolutely zero scientific value... but loads of value by other measures, be it tangible or less tangible (for example, social benefits, like sanitation and indoor plumbing, neither of which had any scientific value either). So the next question then, logically, is: does male pregnancy solve any other (non-scientific) problems, by which it might be considered valuable?
It seems to me that the answer is simply "yes". It solves the problem of males not being able to bear children without requiring a female host. There are legions of social benefits that would come from that - do you want me to list some?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| World One , World Two , World Three would all still find funding, world three would be the ideal world financially but dont we have to take into account that these babys would be alive and real people, is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ? |
i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. One minute you imply that male pregnancy is an extension of making wombless women pregnant... then the next you imply that the latter research suffers because the former is being researched. How? If it is true that wombless women will automatically be allowed to have children as a by-product of allowing men to be pregnant... what's the problem? Researching either technology will benefit both goals.
Make this clear for me: you say that one must first know how to make wombless women pregnant before knowing how to make males pregnant, right? | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| C-sections are here by necessity and are as of yet not a perfect operation so I would disagree that there is no more knowledge to be gained, would there be a real difference in C-sectioning a man as opposed to a woman ?, probably some differences but not as many differences as actually bringing a baby to full term, in this regard is'nt C-sectioning a pregnant man the easy part ? we can do it to a woman allready ergo we can do it to a man if need be. |
| Indi wrote: |
| That would depend greatly on the nature of male pregnancy. ^_^; |
That was my point, lots would depend on the nature of male pregnancy, getting baby the out would be the easiest part for medical science to achieve, given that it is done every day by our none advancing medical science
| Indi wrote: |
| But anyway, you talk about there being more knowledge to gain with regards to c-sections... but what i've been pointing out is: "more knowledge to gain with regards to what?" Your answer: c-sections. So... the knowledge we gain from improving c-sections gives us: improved c-sections. It doesn't give us any other scientific knowledge. |
Post operative infection antibiotics improve all the time, granted not exclusively for c-sections but is not that the nature of science ?, one day one field advances another , you only know what the what is when you get to it.
| Indi wrote: |
| Back to your original statement: you wanted to know the scientific value of male pregnancy. The answer is: there is none (that we can see now). But then, there is no scientific value to c-sections either. The only thing that we gained from inventing the c-section, was the c-section. The only thing we gain from improving the c-section, is an improved c-section. The same is true for male pregnancy. The only thing we gain from inventing a method for male pregnancy, will be a method for male pregnancy, and so on. |
If you are so sure that no fields will cross and no other scientist will find any use of the science behind it I will take your word for it
| Indi wrote: |
| Now, obviously c-sections were worth developing - i don't see you even trying dispute that. Therefore, the lack of any scientific value for something is not grounds to rule out developing it. QED. |
You brought up c-sections ,so are you now proving your own point ? by restating c-sections have no room for advancement and even if they did it would not matter as it is only advancing itself, in a thread about male pregnancy your calling obstetrics scientifically valueless ?
| Indi wrote: |
And in fact, there are countless things that have been developed over the ages that have absolutely zero scientific value... but loads of value by other measures, be it tangible or less tangible (for example, social benefits, like sanitation and indoor plumbing, neither of which had any scientific value either). So the next question then, logically, is: does male pregnancy solve any other (non-scientific) problems, by which it might be considered valuable?
It seems to me that the answer is simply "yes". It solves the problem of males not being able to bear children without requiring a female host. There are legions of social benefits that would come from that - do you want me to list some? |
Please do , but as you have legions please only include the ones that benifit all walks of life collectively
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| World One , World Two , World Three would all still find funding, world three would be the ideal world financially but dont we have to take into account that these babys would be alive and real people, is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ? |
| Indi wrote: |
| i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. One minute you imply that male pregnancy is an extension of making wombless women pregnant... then the next you imply that the latter research suffers because the former is being researched. How? If it is true that wombless women will automatically be allowed to have children as a by-product of allowing men to be pregnant... what's the problem? Researching either technology will benefit both goals. |
Did I really imply that ? where ? ........
is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ?...here ?
| Indi wrote: |
| Make this clear for me: you say that one must first know how to make wombless women pregnant before knowing how to make males pregnant, right? |
Not quite, its more logical to work toward female wombless pregnancys with male pregnancys in mind ,rather than visa versa
Women are natural child bearers doe's it not make sense to stay as close to nature as possible while trying to emulate nature ?That is kinda nasty. I wouldn't want to have my own kids. Girls are built like they are to do what they are meant to.
| roboguyspacedude wrote: |
| That is kinda nasty. I wouldn't want to have my own kids. Girls are built like they are to do what they are meant to. |
i second that. i like being a guy.it is kinda un-natural eh....
but I'd still do it! just for the sake of saying "yyeaahh, I knocked him up" heh
| KronikSindrome wrote: |
it is kinda un-natural eh....
but I'd still do it! just for the sake of saying "yyeaahh, I knocked him up" heh |
Kinda unnatural? Umm... It's totally unnatural, 100% unintended by nature.
Did you read the page Master-of-Evilz linked to?
I'll draw your attention to these sections:
| The IMPLANTATION section wrote: |
| There is a severe risk of massive hemorrhage when the ectopic ruptures; this is also the most common cause of women dying in pregnancy. |
| The DELIVERY section wrote: |
| The delivery will requires open surgery (Cesarean section) ... Removal of the placenta is the real danger because it forms such intimate connections with surrounding vessels that massive hemorrhage is likely ... parts of other organs may need to be removed |
Okay, so firstly there seems to be quite a large chance here that the male will suffer some of the following effects:
• Death
• Massive hemorrhage
• Organ damage
I just thought I'd highlight the most severe unwanted side-effects that this would cause. Not to mention the scaring the male would receive, probably a large scar across the abdomen area?
Have you not considered the baby? Remembering that the most important person in a pregnancy is considered to be the baby and not its parent (except in cases where the mother can be saved at the cost of the baby). The child would be terribly bullied at school for having a male father and would probably feel out of place or different to other children. I can imagine they would undergo a period of depression at some point during their teenage years.
It's not natural or necessary, not even in extreme cases (as a woman can be 'used' as the carrier). Physicians have wasted 29 years studying this when they could have been making good use of their skill and knowledge. I know that knowledge is gained from this, and see that it is interesting and an addition to human knowledge. But it is not as important!
Evidently I appear wholeheartedly against the concept of male pregnancies. This is because I think they are too unnatural (to the point where the male is damaged by the pregnancy), and an unnecessary risk. But Indi brings up an exceedingly good point.
| Indi wrote: |
| What is the difference between a technology that allows a woman who would otherwise have been unable to have a baby to get pregnant... and male pregnancy technology? |
Both are basically about giving people the satisfaction of having what they want, a child, when they could otherwise not have it (is this not then a marvel of humanity? - in both cases). I think it would be quite an unusual thing if single males began to have children on their own, I'm quite (but not totally) against this but for reasons irrelevant to this argument.
Your question does flag up an important issue, Indi. The reason male pregnancy is considered unnatural whereas helping women who are unable to become pregnant have a baby is not as women - this is women in general - can naturally give birth to young. Quite frankly, it is unnatural for women who are infertile to become pregnant; yet it is far less unnatural than it would be for a man to become pregnant.
Do not forget that women's wombs have specially suited cells that can stretch to I think it's 8 times their normal size without being permanently damaged (they will slowly shrink back to size once the pregnancy is over). Men do not have this. So I can imagine men who have been pregnant will also have an excess of skin hanging loose for quite some time (unless it is removed after the pregnancy). My point here is that while both cases are unnatural in their own way, male pregnancy is far more unnatural than helping infertile women become pregnant. Do you not agree?
Also remember that the children of male pregnancies will be likely to be bullied to a point of extremes - I would expect the suicide rate of male-born teenagers to be far higher than that of female-born.
Oh, and your example with the 3 worlds was good, Indi. It proves another good point. Personally, I am not against the research itself (despite how I may have sounded earlier in this post) but more the concept of this being available to the public. If it does become available (all that's stopping it is the arguments religion would throw up, so we'll see) then I think one should have to pay for it (as I think people should have to pay for IVF and such treatments that are for happiness and not health). Furthermore, it won't be widely available for a very long time - if ever. This will mean (of course I recognise other reasons; people being against it and so forth) that only a very small group of people will go in for this treatment. Thus, it will not be commonplace and male-born children will come under the spotlight for increased bullying (I can imagine jokes would occasionally made about it, not necessarily directed towards male-borns but still affecting them).Oh come on,
What the hell are doing now for research?? A man pregnant of a baby? I heard lots of wacko stuff but this is totally unacceptable.
A man's body is not good enough to bring a baby forth. This is a way of playing God.
I think that a lot of people will agree with my statement that this completly unacceptable and that such research should be forbidden.
Now i sounds like a science hater, but i am not.
Jeezes, what is the next that are going to investigate??
What the hell? 
Why don't they leave this stuff for works of fiction, like that Arnie movie Junior? hmm..i think it is still best if woman bear the child. a man's body is not built for that purpose. for the sake of science, it is enough to show that it is possible. but actually doing it. nah, i disagree with that!
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
| I think that a lot of people will agree with my statement that this completly unacceptable and that such research should be forbidden. |
I disagree.
If you'd read my post you would have seen that I believe, along with dac_nip and others in this thread, the research to have some importance and interest; it should be carried out. I am however adamant that this should never be a procedure available to the general public.why not to the general public? just curious.....
| KronikSindrome wrote: |
| why not to the general public? just curious..... |
Did you or did you not read my previous post, the first that I added to this debate?
For your convenience, it is right here.
You must read it in its entirety to understand. If you still do not, I will see that I have not made clear enough what I had to say and endeavour, for you and others, to clarify my thoughts. | ninjakannon wrote: |
| KronikSindrome wrote: | | why not to the general public? just curious..... |
Did you or did you not read my previous post, the first that I added to this debate?
For your convenience, it is right here.
You must read it in its entirety to understand. If you still do not, I will see that I have not made clear enough what I had to say and endeavour, for you and others, to clarify my thoughts. |
I missed the why to..... after re-reading is it single males having children specifically ?
What would we call them ? Mum ? Dad ? ...probably a bit of both...my vote goes to Mad
If women can go and get a sperm donour, and IVF , then it only stands to reason that a man would and should be able to do the same (obviously swapping sperm for egg) if technology allows , the result is the same a parent plus a child is it not ?
I wonder what your thoughts (or anyones) are on a set of rules to govern male pregnancy | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| ninjakannon wrote: | | KronikSindrome wrote: | | why not to the general public? just curious..... |
Did you or did you not read my previous post, the first that I added to this debate?
For your convenience, it is right here.
You must read it in its entirety to understand. If you still do not, I will see that I have not made clear enough what I had to say and endeavour, for you and others, to clarify my thoughts. |
I missed the why to..... after re-reading is it single males having children specifically ? |
Oh, I'm sorry then. With posts like that I just let my mind meander around the topic, trying to learn something while I'm at it.
Basically, I don't think that it should be available to the public for a number of reasons. Firstly and quite importantly I think, the risk of harm coming to the father. I gave a list of the worst types of harm listed in the original article that the male may receive: death, massive haemorrhaging and organ damage; all of these are considered highly likely. Furthermore, I think the child will feel outcast out of place in society (amongst other things) and suffer, as a direct result of this, depression and bullying. Personally, I am of the view that having the influence of both a mother and a father during childhood is best for child - better over having only one parent's influence.
Just to dismiss the obvious argument towards this, that a couple could quite easily have this treatment and the child would still grow up with a mother and a father around them. I would say that in a relationship where there is love and the want of a child, the mother would be the one to bare that child. Why? I do not see why a woman would put the man she loves through such a traumatic experience when she could go in for that same treatment and suffer far less. This, amongst other reasons, would cause the mother to have the child (even if treatment / 'unnatural' methods were required). I also recognise that there are many single parents bringing up children nowadays; making this treatment available for the general public would only increase this.
I think those are the main reasons I pose against it being made publicly available.ok, so first off: I'm personally against men birthing children.
There are several reasons for this. One is that I believe that there are reasons that men don't have children naturally... They weren't physically built to house a living creature inside of them. And because of all of the side effects there seems to be from having a male birth a child, I don't think that their body wants it, either. I could understand if there was somewhat of an inclination of the male body to carry a child, like an area of the abdomen that it wouldn't cause harm to expand or that could physiologically house a child without much more intervention by science, then it would make more sense. But the problem is that the body wants to reject the fetus, and even if the body is forced to accept and "grow" the fetus it does immense harm to the body itself. A woman's body is built to nourish and sustain a child. It just doesn't make sense to me to harm the body in such a way when there are *much* safer alternatives.
Another problem that I have with the procedure of making a male body produce a child is that it is entirely useless. What is the point of having a male carry a child? Yes, I understand that *some* men would like to know what it is like to feel life growing inside of themselves, but that comes back to my first reason. In the end the male's relationship to the child is pretty much the same as that made during in vitro fertilization... the male supplied the sperm, while a woman (be it someone they know or just a random donor) supplied the egg.
In the end, I just do not see a practical reason to have men bear children. I have no religious beliefs that cause me to be against it... I just don't see a viable reason for it.
While this debate is quite fascinating...
It's a hoax!
There is no such place as the RYT. No man has been impregnated. No broadway dancer has tiny nanodoctors in her blood, and no mouse is as smart as a human.
mmm... is it? I won't be surprised, because it is really out there, but it does make for interesting conversation. 
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| That was my point, lots would depend on the nature of male pregnancy, getting baby the out would be the easiest part for medical science to achieve, given that it is done every day by our none advancing medical science |
? Ok? And why is that relevant to the question of whether or not the research should be done?
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | But anyway, you talk about there being more knowledge to gain with regards to c-sections... but what i've been pointing out is: "more knowledge to gain with regards to what?" Your answer: c-sections. So... the knowledge we gain from improving c-sections gives us: improved c-sections. It doesn't give us any other scientific knowledge. |
Post operative infection antibiotics improve all the time, granted not exclusively for c-sections but is not that the nature of science ?, one day one field advances another , you only know what the what is when you get to it. |
No, that is incorrect. The development of c-sections did not lead to the development of better antibiotics. The development of better antibiotics led to improvements in c-section procedure.
i say again, c-sections have added nothing to human knowledge except the c-section procedure itself. It would probably the same for the case of male pregnancy - male pregnancy will add nothing to human knowledge except the procedure to allow male pregnancy.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Now, obviously c-sections were worth developing - i don't see you even trying dispute that. Therefore, the lack of any scientific value for something is not grounds to rule out developing it. QED. |
You brought up c-sections ,so are you now proving your own point ? by restating c-sections have no room for advancement and even if they did it would not matter as it is only advancing itself, in a thread about male pregnancy your calling obstetrics scientifically valueless ? |
i brought up c-sections as an illustration of a process that was developed by "research" (such as it was), but that has no scientific benefits beyond the process itself. Try as you might, you will not be able to find a way that developing the c-section added anything to human knowledge outside the process itself. However, you wouldn't call the c-section research wasted effort simply because it had no scientific value - the c-section procedure developed has lots of value, just not scientific value. Therefore, it must be true that researching male pregnancy can still be worthwhile, even if it has no scientific value, as long is it has other value (cultural, social and so on).
And for the record, you are the one apparently calling obstetrics scientifically valueless - because you will find i have said no such thing anywhere. Obstetrics is hardly scientific valueless - observing the development of babies in the womb via things like ultrasounds has lots of scientific value. The c-section, however, is scientifically valueless. Just like the band-aid. Sure, they're useful in practise, but neither will open up any new scientific doors.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | And in fact, there are countless things that have been developed over the ages that have absolutely zero scientific value... but loads of value by other measures, be it tangible or less tangible (for example, social benefits, like sanitation and indoor plumbing, neither of which had any scientific value either). So the next question then, logically, is: does male pregnancy solve any other (non-scientific) problems, by which it might be considered valuable?
It seems to me that the answer is simply "yes". It solves the problem of males not being able to bear children without requiring a female host. There are legions of social benefits that would come from that - do you want me to list some? |
Please do , but as you have legions please only include the ones that benifit all walks of life collectively |
Don't be absurd. That would be impossible for anything.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | World One , World Two , World Three would all still find funding, world three would be the ideal world financially but dont we have to take into account that these babys would be alive and real people, is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ? |
| Indi wrote: | | i'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. One minute you imply that male pregnancy is an extension of making wombless women pregnant... then the next you imply that the latter research suffers because the former is being researched. How? If it is true that wombless women will automatically be allowed to have children as a by-product of allowing men to be pregnant... what's the problem? Researching either technology will benefit both goals. |
Did I really imply that ? where ? ........
is it a scientific approach to over complicate things then work backwards to a simpler solution when real life is at stake ? should male wombless pregnancys be concidered experimentally viable untill female wombless pregnancys are at a obtainable level ?...here ? |
Yes, of course. It's right there in what you wrote, explicitly.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Make this clear for me: you say that one must first know how to make wombless women pregnant before knowing how to make males pregnant, right? |
Not quite, its more logical to work toward female wombless pregnancys with male pregnancys in mind ,rather than visa versa
Women are natural child bearers doe's it not make sense to stay as close to nature as possible while trying to emulate nature ? |
"More logical"? You have curious definition of logical. If the researcher doesn't give a squat about wombless women but is passionate about male pregnancy, why is it more logical for them to dedicate their lives to researching something that holds no interest for them rather than something that does?
No one's life is at stake here. If wombless women have to wait a little while longer so that males can get pregnant a little sooner... who's to say that's wrong? You? Why do you value the wombless women who want to have children above the men who do? Why are the latter of lower priority?
In places, it sounds like you're giving the answer to that question as: "because the first problem is probably easier to solve". Do you really think that's a valid answer? Do you really believe that we should put the kibosh on all research into "hard" problems in favour of "easy" ones? Let's consider a real example, and see how that would work. Suppose that there are two kinds of blindness, type A and type B. Type A is "hard" to solve, and type B is "easy". So now, you are a researcher who has a family member with type A blindness, and you want to start researching the cure for that. But no, you are told that you cannot do that research, you must research type B. Now, suppose if you research type A, there is a chance - however small - that you could grant your family member a chance to see before they die. But if you research type B... then start of type A, there is no way you will be able to figure it out in time, and your relative will die without ever seeing. What would you say to someone who told you that you had no right to research type A over type B? i'd tell you what i'd say, but Frihost's word filters would take most of the fun out of it. Can you seriously defend that position and deny a researcher the right to try and research the cure for someone he or she cares about?
But anyway, you're jumping around without any coherent pattern to your argument. Make this crystal clear for me: are you saying that when we develop male pregnancy we will have solved the problem for wombless women, too? Because, if the answer is yes... what's the problem? Everyone will benefit in the end. If the answer is no, then why do you say the wombless women are more important than the men who want to bear children? | Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| It's a hoax! |
You're right too. Just checking Wikipedia appears to prove this.
Check out this section of their page and more precisely this section.
In the latter section linked (External Links) it says the following:
| Quote: |
| http://www.malepregnancy.com/ - A hoax site monitoring the world's first male pregnancy, mister Lee is "expecting" since December of 1999. |
Yeah, it is hoax. Thanks for that.
However the discussion is fascinating, as you say, and I would not mind it continuing. I feel like I have learned something already from this thread. I do think it would be wise to edit the first post to state that this is not actually real though. | ninjakannon wrote: |
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: | | It's a hoax! |
You're right too. Just checking Wikipedia appears to prove this.
Check out this section of their page and more precisely this section.
In the latter section linked (External Links) it says the following:
| Quote: | | http://www.malepregnancy.com/ - A hoax site monitoring the world's first male pregnancy, mister Lee is "expecting" since December of 1999. |
Yeah, it is hoax. Thanks for that.
However the discussion is fascinating, as you say, and I would not mind it continuing. I feel like I have learned something already from this thread. I do think it would be wise to edit the first post to state that this is not actually real though. |
Well sure, i didn't realize that anyone actually believed that this was actually going on. i'd actually forgotten about Lee - read about him years ago in the Star when i was still in uni, and i remember us all chuckling about how silly it was - but as far as i'm concerned, the question is still valid. Should male pregnancy be researched? Should it be done? These are the things i am discussing. | Indi wrote: |
But anyway, you're jumping around without any coherent pattern to your argument. Make this crystal clear for me: are you saying that when we develop male pregnancy we will have solved the problem for wombless women, too? Because, if the answer is yes... what's the problem? Everyone will benefit in the end. If the answer is no, then why do you say the wombless women are more important than the men who want to bear children? |
I didnt bring up c-sections , you did , and they are by far the least relevent part of the procedure, maybe you can restate (again) why you think there relevent to a procedure that would need much much more than a scapel ?
In some countrys up to 1 in 5 childeren are born by c-section, post operative infection is historically common.....a 5th of the population is in need of better anti's , hmmmmmm no incentive there I see
As to making things crystal clear I have more than once 
if you want more circular arguing keep repeating yourself I need the points to LOL!!!! I've been laughing my ass off at KronikSindrome's contributions to this thread you rock lol | Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I didnt bring up c-sections , you did , and they are by far the least relevent part of the procedure, maybe you can restate (again) why you think there relevent to a procedure that would need much much more than a scapel ? |
Again? This is the fourth time. At least. Please try to pay more attention to the conversation.
First, the complexity of a procedure has nothing to do with whether or not it was worth researching. i don't even know where you got that idea from.
You asked for the scientific value of male pregnancy: "I can see a commercial value to male pregnancy , but someone will have to point out the scientific value......this is where the alarm bells start to ring......"
i responded: It has no scientific value, but that means nothing. Many things worth researching have no scientific value, but have other value. C-section technology, for example, added no scientific knowledge, but has other value. Band-aids have no scientific value, but they do have other value. Cell phones have no scientific value, but they do have other value. All of these things were worth researching even though they offered no new scientific knowledge. Therefore the fact that male pregnancy might not add new scientific knowledge does not mean it's not worthwhile to research.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| In some countrys up to 1 in 5 childeren are born by c-section, post operative infection is historically common.....a 5th of the population is in need of better anti's , hmmmmmm no incentive there I see |
What in the world are you talking about? You are quoting random facts with no explanation of your point. Try to be clear about what you think... but even if you can't manage that, at least say what you think. i am not a mind reader.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| As to making things crystal clear I have more than once |
Obviously not, if the above is an example of you making yourself clear.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| if you want more circular arguing keep repeating yourself I need the points to |
i keep repeating myself because you keep asking me to (see above). If this is the only way you can make points, that's truly depressing. | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I didnt bring up c-sections , you did , and they are by far the least relevent part of the procedure, maybe you can restate (again) why you think there relevent to a procedure that would need much much more than a scapel ? |
Again? This is the fourth time. At least. Please try to pay more attention to the conversation.
First, the complexity of a procedure has nothing to do with whether or not it was worth researching. i don't even know where you got that idea from.
You asked for the scientific value of male pregnancy: "I can see a commercial value to male pregnancy , but someone will have to point out the scientific value......this is where the alarm bells start to ring......"
i responded: It has no scientific value, but that means nothing. Many things worth researching have no scientific value, but have other value. C-section technology, for example, added no scientific knowledge, but has other value. Band-aids have no scientific value, but they do have other value. Cell phones have no scientific value, but they do have other value. All of these things were worth researching even though they offered no new scientific knowledge. Therefore the fact that male pregnancy might not add new scientific knowledge does not mean it's not worthwhile to research.
|
Where have I said its not worthwhile ? , I said I could not see any scientfic value but I think my other answers/opinions show I believe such a procedure would to some people bring great joy ,for the record I think that alone would make it worthwhile, you have stated there is none but continue to justify it through c-sections which to me is no more than saying if its good for the goose its good for the gander or in this case visa versa, then you call c-sections and the knowledge gained from them to be exclusive to c-section surgery not good for anything else, as this procedure is performed on women can we count men as different and assume c-sections are exclusive to women making c-section knowledge we have now null and void when concerning men ?, the more I read the more you seem to say all science is valuless and can only improve upon itself ,which of course I must be reading wrong because thats absurd.Hmm, Impregnating a male was NEVER intended in Nature so I dont know why scientists insist on trying to make this happen.Its a act of stupidity IMHO,are scientists so bored that they have to try and change ANYTHING that they can..its sad.Really is a waste of a Brain.
As for a male already pregnant I Highly doubt it. Bullshit I believe you all bought it.
Any way, I think this have caused more controversy than human clonation. Interesting.
| polis wrote: |
I believe you all bought it.
Any way, I think this have caused more controversy than human clonation. Interesting. |
Not everyone did, actually.
And yes, it is interesting that it caused more controversy than human cloning, so long as your fact here isn't as incorrect as your previous belief.
| polis wrote: |
| Hmm, Impregnating a male was NEVER intended in Nature so I dont know why scientists insist on trying to make this happen.Its a act of stupidity IMHO,are scientists so bored that they have to try and change ANYTHING that they can..its sad.Really is a waste of a Brain. |
Read the thread and you'll find out why, or at least you'll get some proper reasons for and against doing it. If you still have any questions then perhaps you could join the debate; there's no act of stupidity here and the scientists certainly aren't doing things because they're bored. | jadeyfalconis wrote: |
| Hmm, Impregnating a male was NEVER intended in Nature so I dont know why scientists insist on trying to make this happen. |
Male seahorses are impregnated by the females, so it does happen in nature. Also, scientists aren't really that interested in male pregnancy (at least, not more so than the general public). I'd be amazed if there were any real research being done in that area.I'm going to chime in with the typical male response; SICK!!!!
I've never heard of a scientific idea that has seemed more repulsive to me!
Let me just say I find the whole idea of birth pretty gross as it is, but male pregnancy... you'd have to be a weirdo or dumb as hell to be a man and want to get pregnant.
The only way I can see this being as a real benefit is if some freak virus killed off all the women, but then life really wouldn't have a point anyways so might as just let the human race get snuffed out. Wow? Male impregnation,,, I didn't even know science could do that lol
It's a good idea I guess for gay couples who want kids or women who can't have any.
| flutter-nutter wrote: |
Wow? Male impregnation,,, I didn't even know science could do that lol
It's a good idea I guess for gay couples who want kids or women who can't have any. |
Male couples can adopt without damaging their bodies. Women in relationships with men can either use another scientifically devised method to become pregnant or adopt if that isn't possible. At any rate, it would be healthier if a similar process to male impregnation was done to a women who could not naturally conceive a child as her body is designed to take a child.i think these images are just artificial... its been more than 22 years since i have been living on this plane and i have never heard of such thing know n as male pregnancy
This is stupid.. this is against the laws of nature...
Remember Nature shows its fury to such things... and who know what it will like.
Till date we have many other probs to solve like Cancer, AIDS, Terrorism.. why not put our energy into it rather than making males fertile.
May be the research will do it posible. But I prefer the natures research which is more perfect.
Viraj
Topic Rule: Read the rest of the topic before posting.
Why? Because it will stop irrelevant posts such as many of those after Tumbleweed's last post here. I'm putting money on the vast majority of people ignoring this, but I'm trying to make a serious point here, the matter has been discussed and does not require posts such as these, they add nothing to the topic.
