(no subject)

[ewx]

But cloning humans for reproductive purposes remains illegal and is punishable by a 10-year prison sentence and unlimited fines.

Actually, the relevant act only prohibits it where the host is a woman. So they'll have to change it if anyone figures out how to create a womb in a man, or construct an artificial womb...

Comments

[gerald_duck]

It's been conjectured that an ectopic pregnancy might just work if you castrated a man, fed him HRT, and didn't mind a 70% risk of death for all concernted.

I'd like to say there's obviously nobody that bonkers, but I fear I might be proved wrong.

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

http://www.malepregnancy.com/

[kjaneway.livejournal.com]

That's just disturbing.

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

I think it's kinda funky :) Come my 35th birthday, if I get saddled with some bloke who wants kids, I can just point him there and tell him he's welcome to carry 'em himself :)

[crazyscot.livejournal.com]

I remain skeptical. (http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/malepreg.htm)

[liv]

To be fair, a couple of hundred years ago pregnant women were at reasonable risk of dying from complications of the pregancy, the birth or its immediate aftermath. Maybe not as high as 75%, but certainly non-trivial. And that didn't stop people from trying. It's not unimaginable that technology to support male pregancy relatively safely may eventually be developed, although I agree it certainly doesn't exist now.

[rmc28]

[risk of dying from pregnancy in the past] didn't stop people from trying.

Not that they had much choice, if they wanted to have sex, but to risk pregnancy. Humans are heavily wired to want sex.

[the-aviator.livejournal.com]

Foolish humans. Mwahahaha.

[liv]

Not that they had much choice, if they wanted to have sex, but to risk pregnancy.
<pet rant>Contraception is not a twentieth century invention!</rant>

I don't think one could seriously argue that every single pregnancy before the industrial revolution was an unintended and unavoidable consequence of sex. Yes, people getting pregnant because they didn't have any reasonable choice happened (and still does happen, perhaps more rarely), but at least a proportion of people deliberately chose to get pregnant. There are plenty of historical examples of rituals and proto-medicines designed to increase one's chances of conceiving, for a start.

That wasn't really my point anyway; I was arguing against the view that male pregnancy will never happen because it's currently too dangerous to be practical. Plenty of things are very dangerous until you have the technology to support them.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Necessity can be the father of invention as well as the mother, then...

[rmc28]

Contraception is not a twentieth century invention!

I'm vaguely aware that condoms existed well before the last century, though I don't know how far back. I've also been told that Bedouin tribes put pebbles in the uteruses of camels, so the principles behind IUDs have probably also been understood for centuries. I'd be interested in other examples, if you have them.

What I feel changed radically in the 20th century was the availability of reliable, reversible, individual contraception (i.e. not requiring the co-operation of a sexual partner), suitable for the majority of women. There has been a huge growth in the choices available to women who don't wish to get pregnant, temporarily or permanently. I think it would be great if the 21st century could do the same for men.

[the-aviator.livejournal.com]

...that condoms existed well before the last century...
I'm told the Romans used intestine (presumably not their own).

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

"Natural Family Planning" (or NFP) as it is now known has been around for centuries and is, I'm told, still routinely taught in Ireland (and presumably other places where religion prevents use of artificial contraception).

It relies on the woman monitoring her fertile signs (position and shape of cervix, consistency of cervical fluid, and basal body temperature, although the latter presumably wasn't accurately measureable until relatively recently).

Do NOT confuse this with the rhythm method which assumes all women ovulate on day 14 of their menstrual cycle.

Oh, and withdrawal as a not-very-reliable method of contraception has been around for as long as sex itself has :-)

I do agree with you though, in general. Our (women's especially, as you point out) options have radically increased in recent years.

[liv]

Not a great expert on the history of contraception, but, off the top of my head: Rhythm method, magic anti-fertility rituals, non-vaginal intercourse, homosexuality or other sex with infertile people (pregnant women, post-menopausal women, castrated men), premature withdrawal, vaginal pessaries, vaguely diaphragm-like barriers, herbal contraceptives (may have worked because some plants produce substances not dissimilar to female hormones), prolonging breastfeeding to extend the contraceptive effect of lactation hormones, inducing abortion either physically or chemically.

I agree that not all of those are reliable or safe or easily available to all women. But the idea of having sex while deliberately avoiding pregnancy is well attested from ancient times. Yes, we do have it better now (though not everyone does; there are plenty of women in the world who do not have the knowledge or access to contraception that they could do with). But I'd say we do have a way to go with contraceptive technology. Developing a 'male pill' is only part of what's needed though.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

Err, yes. If it were true, Lee Mingwei's pregnancy would have lasted for several years - the site seems to have appeared in 2000! (Though it seems to carefully avoid any exact dates on the pages themselves.) The site also has a section about how the same "medical centre" has created a mouse with human intelligence :-)

[gerald_duck]

Not nearly as high as 75%. So far as I can tell, the chance of a mother dying during pregnancy was less than 0.05% before the advent of modern healthcare. Infant mortality was something like 8%.

One obvious problem, though, was that with such high infant mortality, and similarly great child mortality, women had to risk pregnancy a greater number of times in order to achieve a stable population.