Pregnant men and such..
What bothers me most about this issue is that there a lot of people out there who think men were never meant to have babies and therefore must not. How does this reasoning work though in this day and age when we put so much money and effort into finding ways and means of prolonging life and comforting bodies that don't wish to go on?
There are those who think Peter Singer is the devil's incarnation for his views on euthanasia - for all life is special and no one has a right to decide to take it by will and anyone who believes otherwise is damned. Peter Singer is a blog post by itself (which I will get to at a date in the near future cos yes, I'm a big fan!), but why I thought of him now is cos he says some "lives" are not worth living and the (huge) opposition to that statement say oh, but they are so very worth living. Then my question in this context is, is life so very special only when it is brought about by those things with which we are famailiar with or taught as "right"?
There's the (very common) religious argument against men having babies - cos it's against what God/ Bible said. Perhaps, but I can't really answer that question seeing as I don't know enough about God/ Bible to say what He said or didn't say. So I'll leave that as it may and go on to the other) argument that I can not understand.
This protest runs along these lines (got off the comments on the website): "..wondering why you would want to mess with human life? If males were meant to have children they would have been able too have them. If a man wants a child he can adopt there are enough poor children in the world already with out a home that need one. Leave the human body they way it is suppose to be. Don't mess with it..."
Firstly, does this mean then that we must not research and find new medicines/ procedures, etc? Or maybe even, throw all those medical researchers, doctors, nurses and medicines (yes, even the panadols!) into a bottomless pit so they will stop "messing with human life" so we can all die of disease seeing as the body was meant to be prone to disease and hence we must leave it be? But even if I were to be less extreme, this attitude still throws out IVF and other such procedures cos some men/ women have bodies that are not "meant" to produce children. Wtf?!?
Secondly, should we also perhaps ban any more women from having children seeing as there are so many poor children in the world already without a home? At least till all the homeless children are adopted? Would not that be the "moral" and "ethical" thing to do ? 
Of course there is some hope for (possible future) pregnant men for there are men who actually think it would be a beautiful enough experience if it could be done successfully. But I wonder how many Lankan men would be threatened by share this thought? Boys?? Men??
On a serious note though, what I'm curious about is (and on which I couldn't find info during my cursory reading of the website)>> "Oral doses of female hormones were administered to Mr. Lee to make him receptive to the pregnancy."
(1). Would this be the same as hormones taken by men who undergo gender changes?
(2). After the birth of the baby (fingers crossed), would the man still be a "male" hormonally?
(3) Is "hormonally" a valid word?!? ;o)
Anyway, at the end of the day, the common reaction seems to be - men shouldn't have babies cos it's "wrong" or just plain unconventional and therefore must not be attempted. At some point in history, wasn't a woman choosing to ride her man thought to be unconventional (not to mention sinful!) too? Do men regret this "unconvenionality" now? Do they still believe 'missionary' is the best way?
the Only way?
Lee Mingwei's site here.
9 comments:
You do realize that the "pregnancy" is a hoax? That's it's "art" and not at all possible?
There is no where in the male body that carries the capability of growing a child to viability.
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that this story is true and authentic. The only concern I have is for the child – who is going to be at the butt end of many jokes at school. Apart from that, why the hell can’t people ‘live and let live’!!!
Telstra refuses to steam the bits that make up mr lee’s website saying that it has “provocative attire”!!! what thaaa???
Really? Really?!? Must be influence from all the liberal shares Telstra's selling off these days! he he heh
To all above: I find it quite disturbing that ppl seem more concerned with whether Lee's pregnancy is real or not rather than anything else raised in the post. This wasn't a post about his pregnancy per se - it was about ppl's reactions to the possibility of male pregnancy (I have faith that science will get there at some point if it's not already there!).
But then, that's something best left not talked about I guess, at least till it's more "real", huh? ;o)
:) if i may put in my twocentsworth:
what a pregnancy needs above all is a placenta to support it. the embryo itself is capable of forming most of its coverings and so on... so any fertilised embryo should be able to manage that part by itself... but the host's (mother's) tissue is needed to set out the placenta.
now comes the interesting part. it isnt absolutely essential to have a uterus in order to have a placenta. there have been rare cases of what's called primary abdominal pregnancy: pregnancy that has been extrauterine from the beginning of conception.. which means that somehow a placenta has managed to grow outside the uterus. and even more rarely these have gone to term and been delivered through surgery, in spite of various difficulties.
so, to cut it short, all you need is a viable placenta. the right hormornes and the right kind of receptive cells together can form what's called an endometrium; the inner lining of the womb that the placenta begins from.
so if you can hromornally create endometrium, you can have a placenta... and there you are!
Molto interessante! ;oD
http://www.genochoice.com/, since you seem interested
Jokerman: Tnx! :o)
To all above and ESP to the nitwit “ksdm06” who took the liberty of having a one-sided looonnnggg convo thru my gmail: Err..tnx for ur time?? Before the advent of this post, I found much more interesting info HERE (ESP the change of tenses from future to past which were reflected HERE) than all the info u blabbered on about put together.
Phew
And to re-iterate what I said above, very disappointing to see that we so doggedly insist on seeing only what is here and now. Sigh
Post a Comment