Man vs. Machine: Pregnancy Wars – BrightSci

Which is more feasible: male pregnancy or robot pregnancy?

Junior or The Matrix: place your bets.

Can a natal male get pregnant? Can we gestate a baby outside of a human body at all? Let’s discuss recent advances in uterus transplants, biobags for premature baby (lambs), and more!

About Sursum Ursa

Ursa presents Stuff You Like, where fangirls + analysis + awesome examples of media = good times for all.

10 comments

  1. I could certainly see the benefit of the blue option as a way to bring back extinct animals that we have genetic material for like the Tasmanian tiger or insure that endangered animals are brought back from the brink of extinction.

    but I don’t think growing humans would be a good idea, because then we get into debates on what makes a human, human, supclasses of humans grown to be slaves or to fight our wars for us. Galicia, clones, primarchs. racial purity. cats and dogs living together mass hysteria

    • Those aren’t real issues, but more a paranoid Trump’ist issues. Growing humans for utilitarian use is as much possible with use of females, so I don’t see any real issue here. The main point is that it is mostly not needed, as most females still want have a baby and exceptions can be go around with hiring someone else to carry a child instead parent.

      • I wouldn’t really call it paranoia per say (or anything to do with Trump as I didn’t mention him nor had him in mind) as people have be talking about using genetic engineering to remove ‘flaws’ for example diabetes for years.

        (and yes while that’s sounds nice in theory, just look at our society and tell me that people wouldn’t want to make their ‘children’ better, stronger, smarter , tougher so on and so forth or do the opposite and create a factory like setting to create dozens of humans at a time so their viewed as not really human or expendable).

        (and personally as someone with a disability though a minor one, I am more concurred for the former than the latter. again I bring up Gattaca {I misspelled it before, my bad}. as I could certainly see a future were natural born humans are seen as second class citizen’s or are just unable to compete with ‘so called designer children’)

        but back to the point at hand true nothing has come off these discussion yet. mainly because the science isn’t there yet and because there are a lot of moral implications. for both parent and child. but humans have being known to ignore moral high grounds many many times.

  2. Yeah, I think that Robot Pregnancy makes more sense since you can build some sort of mechanical tubes and womb, etc. With males, they weren’t created to bear children. Plus, what dude would want to go through that? Ouch, x3000.

  3. Blue for me, as happymel pointed out, why would a man even WANT to carry a baby?! It boggles the mind… Men evolved the way they did specifically to not carry or nurse children, and as you pointed out, physically there are many limitations (pelvic angle, tolerance for hormonal changes, no space in the abdominal cavity, etc.), and it would basically destroy a man’s body.

    Not to say that I don’t see the appeal of being that close to ones own child, but with all of the risks and drawbacks, I just can’t understand that particular want.

    I saw that article about the lambs as well, and I am genuinely stoked to see the progress we are making, and to think that in 15-20 years neonatal intensive care will be vastly different, and that fewer parents will have to go through the heartache of losing a child due to a premature delivery. Score one for Science!

  4. neither. we already have too damn many people on this planet making them the old fashioned way.

  5. While I don’t doubt that somewhere out there in the wide, wide world, there are men who yearn to be able to bear children (poor fools), I can’t ever see it actually happening. Even if we figure out the hormone levels, a place for the baby to grow, and all the things that were needed to sustain the pregnancy… can you imagine how EXPENSIVE it would be?! You’re talking serious invasive surgery, constant doses of medication, frequent medical observation, and round out the whole thing with /another/ invasive surgery to get the baby out again. You’d need a budget the likes of Bill Gates to even make the attempt.

    Artificial wombs, on the other hand? That’s a science that could go somewhere. It would have practical application, pose no risk to the parents (aside from financial), and could be used numerous times and easily replicated, making it a good return on investment. I’m not saying I expect to see it in our lifetime, but I certainly do think we’ll hear more about it in the next few years.

    I think the moral/social issues it raises are a moot point. Until the technology exists, no one will want to debate those issues outside sci-fi and lofty philosophical discussions. And useful though they might be, neither of them can prepare us for what we’ll actually face should this become a reality.

    • It should be pointed out that most “issues debated by SF” regard to “artificial life” are flawed by presumption that such human don’t have civil rights when with all logic they have. For example, clone is not property of doner, it is obviously a separate person and have full rights as person (primarily to sue those who created him if they mistreat him).

      Also it is totally possible to grow womb from male DNA. Obviously there would need to remove Y-chromosome from cell, and as such we would have issue with one version of X-chromosome (issue similar to reason why incest is illegal), but with proper care it could work (there is no risk of inheritance after all).

  6. I would say that mechanical wombs are the wisest option. Not only is it a technology with real life saving potential and potential to help people with existing fertility issues. Making the tech worthy of immediate investment. If you project the potential use for such technology out you could see it doing more.

    Imagine a “Brave New World” in which all eggs are stored in secure facilities, allowing people to live their sex lives without worry of pregnancy, when they desire children one can be grown for them from their genetic material.

    Male pregnancy strikes me as useful to trans people, to more completely take on the characteristics of the female gender, but since it is not life saving, appeals to such a small number of an already small population, and would be seen as unholy/unnatural/whatever by bigots who would oppose such research on the grounds of gods whim, you can bet that will not go anywhere without substantial gains being made in tangential related fields of research (hormone treatment and organ transplant being the most likely).

  7. Male pregnancy is profound in its philosophical implications. On the one hand, taking part in the miracle of life in a very personal and intimate way. On the other hand, no beer for *months*. Kind of a toss up, really.

Leave a Reply