Maggie A's Meanderings




 Dec 20, 2015

An Open Challenge for the Men of the Pro-Life Movement

The movie Junior which came out in 1994 was about a male scientist studying human fertility who made himself pregnant by implanting an embryo into his abdomen and giving himself female hormones, carrying the baby until it was full-term and giving birth through a surgical procedure. When I first saw the movie my reaction wasn't "This is impossible." My reaction was that it seemed theoretically possible though highly unlikely to result in a healthy baby. But the idea of having a baby without having used a uterus had been around in science fiction for a long time. In some scenarios growing a baby outside of a female's uterus was the standard way of having a baby in the society being depicted.
(The Aldous Huxley novel Brave New World is probably the most well known example.) Now, I'd never read a book where the human male grew the baby, and I wasn't convinced a baby could grow in a human body outside of the uterus..........but I wasn't convinced it wasn't possible either.

Then one day I found out it was possible. I was watching a medical show about rare pregnancy complications and, it turns out, it's well known to physicians that babies can grow to full-term outside of the uterus.

It's called an abdominal pregnancy. And, at this point, I might as well just quote from the Wikipedia article about it:

"An abdominal pregnancy can be regarded as a form of an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo or fetus is growing and developing outside the womb in the abdomen, but not in the Fallopian tube, ovary or broad ligament.

While rare, abdominal pregnancies have a higher chance of maternal mortality, perinatal mortality and morbidity compared to normal and ectopic pregnancies but, on occasion a healthy viable infant can be delivered."

"Implantation sites can be anywhere in the abdomen but can include the peritoneum outside of the uterus, the rectouterine pouch (culdesac of Douglas), omentum, bowel and its mesentery, mesosalpinx, and the peritoneum of the pelvic wall and the abdominal wall.The growing placenta may be attached to several organs including tube and ovary. Rare other sites have been the liver and spleen, giving rise to a hepatic pregnancy or splenic pregnancy, respectively. Even an early diaphragmatic pregnancy has been described in a patient where an embryo began growing on the underside of the diaphragm."

Ever since I've known that a uterus isn't necessary in the human body for growing an embryo into a full-term baby, there's something I've wanted to say.....................


That's my challenge to all the pro-life males out there --- especially the male legislators who've passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion in recent years.

Either put up by every pro-life adult male who's not a virgin volunteering his abdomen for carrying babies...........or shut the hell up.

Since they believe that human life starts with conception, we can start with all those frozen embryos, the so-called "snowflake babies." Every embryo that's in limbo (because biological parents don't want them/are no longer paying their storage fees) or is scheduled for destruction gets implanted into the male pro-life population ---- starting with the male pro-life legislators. They want that human life to be born..................this is their chance to make that happen.

While they're taking care of the snowflake baby issue, medical science can develop a way to vaginally remove a living fetus with placenta from the uterus of a woman who wants to be rid of the fetus and transplant the baby into the abdominal cavity of a pro-life male. They're willing to force women to carry that human life. Now it's their turn.

It wouldn't surprise me if the process required the males to undergo preparatory hormone therapy and a pre-implantation procedure to move blood vessels to where they can be attached to the placenta and to make space for the fetus, but I think it's theoretically possible.

I think it's theoretical possible, but like with the abdominal implantation of an embryo, I think it's highly unlikely to result in a healthy full-term baby. I think most of the fetuses, excuse me, babies are going to die after the transplantation -- at least at first. (Medical science may eventually turn the transplant into a successful, routine procedure.) But even if the baby does die, hey, it's a chance. And any chance is better than no chance which is what these babies would have had. And when they lose the baby, well, they've still got an abdomen. They can try again and again and again. The great thing about this is menopause doesn't come into it. Pro-life men who are in their fifties, sixties, and seventies can undergo the procedure and put their health and lives at risk in service of this innocent human life. After all, they've been so willing to put women's health and lives at risk, even young girls' health and lives.

Now in the pro-life lexicon, pregnancy doesn't equal parenthood. As they say, "Adoption, not Abortion." So after the pro-life man gives birth he can decide whether he's going to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. That's why even older pro-life men who don't want to raise a child could still be pregnant with that child.

The recipient will cover all expenses for the removal, implantation, prenatal care and birth. That's because pro-life people (especially pro-life legislators) tend to be small-government types, the people who don't believe in government handouts, particularly handouts for medical care. (Excepting, of course, any elderly relatives of theirs who are on Medicare --- because these people aren't going to pay their elderly relative's medical bills and, also of course, excepting themselves when they get old enough for Medicare because they're not going to pay all their own medical bills. But, you know, except for that they think people [who aren't vets] should be responsible for their own medical bills via their own insurance and/or their own pockets.) 

For decades, in fact, up until Obama's Affordable Care Act, "only about 12 percent of the health care plans sold in the individual market offered maternity coverage." It took Obamacare to force those companies to offer maternity coverage. Because those pro-life, small-government legislators didn't believe in that kind of government interference in private businesses, they were fine with that lack of maternity coverage. Now I'm guessing (actually I think you could bet your bottom dollar on this) that legislators who didn't believe in forcing insurance companies to cover female pregnancy expenses because it was big government interference in private business will rapidly require their insurance companies to cover their male pregnancy expenses. You won't hear any talk about government interference in private business when the expenses start coming out of their own pockets, especially because these are high risk pregnancies which means high expense pregnancies.

And, remember, when the inevitable complication does arise and the doctor says, "It's the man's life or the baby's," there's no's the baby. It's always the baby. From the moment this innocent baby is placed into the man's abdomen, his life is secondary to that of the baby's. It is only the baby growing inside him that matters. The pro-life man's just a walking incubator.

So my challenge is that any pro-life man who's ever had vaginal sexual intercourse take on the risks of pregnancy as women who've had vaginal sexual intercourse throughout history have risked pregnancy. Since these pro-life men are willing to force women into carrying those babies, now those same men can carry those babies. (Forcing doesn't come into it with pro-life males as these men should be willing volunteers in the service of the innocent human life they want to protect.) My challenge is PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Either option works for me. What doesn't work for me is the continued arrogance of men believing they have the FULL AUTHORITY of forcing women to become/stay pregnant while not having the FULL RESPONSIBILITY of those pregnancies. This way, they want those pregnancies......................they can have them. Literally.

Pregnant man

If you like this piece, you might enjoy "The Marriage Contract -- Marriage and Government Activism," "Sometimes Free Speech Is Ugly Speech But It's Still Supposed to Be Free," or "A True Christian "

Please take a moment to check-out
the Archive.



Home                     Archive                    Email Me