Poll: Should men be given the option to have babies?
This is just fucking embarrassing. I put up a post at iDiva approximately 12 hours ago but so far I am the only person on the planet to have voted in the little poll (I'm sure you can guess which response I voted for). I think as soon as people see my byline over there, they keep scrolling or something.
So go read the post and vote, wouldja? At least make it look like what I've said is worth consideration.
And then come back here and consider this:
It's a given that medical research into the arena of male pregnancy makes a lot of people feel icky. Conservatives are probably particularly put off by the thought, because of its completely revolutionary and non-traditional essence. Male pregnancy turns all of human history on its head.
BUT — if men were given the option of carrying pregnancies to term, could it be spun as a way to reduce abortions? If, say, a couple found out the woman was pregnant, and she wanted to abort but he wanted to keep the child, could it be worked out so that the fetus could be transplanted into the man and carried to term as he wishes?
Assuming fetus transplanting in this hypothetical is safe and routine, where is the drawback to such a scenario? Presumably the woman would be bound to the same child-support obligations as a man would have been in a traditional pregnancy.
It's science fiction (for now) and it's controversial, but it's damned interesting.
So go read the post and vote, wouldja? At least make it look like what I've said is worth consideration.
And then come back here and consider this:
It's a given that medical research into the arena of male pregnancy makes a lot of people feel icky. Conservatives are probably particularly put off by the thought, because of its completely revolutionary and non-traditional essence. Male pregnancy turns all of human history on its head.
BUT — if men were given the option of carrying pregnancies to term, could it be spun as a way to reduce abortions? If, say, a couple found out the woman was pregnant, and she wanted to abort but he wanted to keep the child, could it be worked out so that the fetus could be transplanted into the man and carried to term as he wishes?
Assuming fetus transplanting in this hypothetical is safe and routine, where is the drawback to such a scenario? Presumably the woman would be bound to the same child-support obligations as a man would have been in a traditional pregnancy.
It's science fiction (for now) and it's controversial, but it's damned interesting.
Labels: gender, iDiva, male pregnancy, men, pregnancy, women
posted by theogeo | 8/24/2007 12:55:00 PM
6 Comments:
I've seen four births. Men couldn't handle it.
And yet ... even via C-section?
Let me rephrase, men couldn't handle pregnancy, we're not strong enough.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think another element in the debate among religious conservatives is they think scientific advancements are tinkering with God's natural order. They aren't merely miffed with the supension of gender roles.
I think it has more on par with their feelings on stem cell research and cloning. Of course, the supension of gender roles plays a dual role in the debate. These are the same people who think being obedient to your husband and taking a motherly hearth and home is the proper role for womankind.
Lindsey,
Unlike certain cultural-feminist commentators who dub themselves deacons of the disenfranchised gender voice (cough: TN Guerilla Women), I applaud the fact that you present gender issues in hyper-intelligent terms, instead of regulating the "menz are evil" trump card. That said, could you please tell me what this post at TN Guerilla Women has to do with feminism?:
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/08/lorena-bobbitt-gets-around.html
My bet's on jackass-shit.
Post a Comment
<< Home