Subscribe to the newsletter
&Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Can A Man Really Get Pregnant?
Sure, But It Might Kill Him
Oprah Winfrey introduced the so-called &first pregnant man& to viewers of her April 3rd show this past week. Thomas Beatie appeared, six months pregnant, with his wife Nancy and his obstetrician, Dr. Kimberly James (by satellite hookup). You can see the. But many viewers thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion because Thomas was born with a perfectly normal uterus. At the end of , I said I would post another piece discussing the actual science of male pregnancy. Is it really possible today? The answer, as I abstract from my 1997 book, , is "almost certainly yes, but . . ."
With the birth of Louise Joy Brown in 1978, Steptoe and Edwards demonstrated the feasibility of fertilizing human eggs in a petri dish and placing embryos back into women where they can gestate to term.
To date, several million children have been conceived through in vitro fertilization and born from women.
From the outset, scientists have mused aloud about the possibility of maintaining a pregnancy within the abdomen of a man. Tabloids routinely publish stories of success and in the popular 1995 film
Arnold Schwarzenegger played a scientist who uses hormones and in vitro fertilization to make himself pregnant and ultimately &give birth.&
Movies and novels that mix real science with science fiction often lead to confusion in the public mind as to what is medically possible and what is not.
Usually, scientists and physicians can be counted on to sort it all out.
With male pregnancy, though, something funny happens: Some say it is possible while others say it isn’t.
To understand how different professionals can reach such opposite conclusions, we must delve into the thought processes of ‘the scientist’ and ‘the clinician,’ respectively. The first question is whether a human fetus could develop to term in an environment other than a uterus.
Surprisingly, we already know the answer, and it's yes.
Every once in a while – in one pregnancy out of 10,000 – the fertilized egg doesn’t make it to the uterus, and ends up instead in the wide open space of the abdomen, also known as the peritoneal cavity.
This happens because the ovary is not actually attached to the fallopian tube (or oviduct), as is commonly thought.
Instead, after ovulation, the egg must make its way into the nearby opening at the end of the tube in order to begin its journey toward the uterus.
Occasionally, when conception occurs very close to the opening in certain women, the newly fertilized egg may actually fall back out of the tube and into the abdomen. Now you might think that once an egg has fallen into the abdomen, its chances of survival are nil.
Surprisingly, at the appropriate time of development, an embryo can implant itself into almost any living tissue that it happens to alight upon. And the abdomen is filled with all sorts of tissues – from the intestines to the kidney, to the liver and the spleen.
With successful implantation and sufficient placental formation, the embryo can develop normally into a fetus that can be carried through a full nine months of pregnancy.
At the end, of course, it has nowhere to go unless it’s delivered by a modified Cesarian Section.
The medical literature is filled with sporadic reports of healthy live-born babies that were carried by mothers pregnant in this unusual way. Here's an amazing picture of a late-state pregnant woman on her belly with a fetus facing up.
So let’s come back to the third ingredient required for pregnancy: a living womb within which the embryo can implant and attach a placenta. If a woman’s abdomen can act as womb, a man’s abdomen could do just as well.
“Clearly,” the scientist would conclude, “I’ve now proven that human male pregnancy is possible, and it’s possible today!” “Wait just a minute,” the clinician would implore, “let’s look at all of the reported cases of abdominal pregnancy again, this time with a greater eye to the clinical details.
And let’s start out with some of the general statements made by the reporting physicians”:
“Abdominal pregnancy is a rare but life-threatening condition.”
“Morbidity and mortality for both the fetus and the mother are considerable... Once the diagnosis is established, immediate surgical intervention is usually advisable.”
“Care of the patient afflicted with it may present formidable challenges.”
Abdominal pregnancy is considered a “life-threatening condition” because of the placental connection that the embryo must set up between itself and the body within which it lies.
In a normal pregnancy, it is set up with the specialized internal lining of the uterus known as the endometrium.
Endometrial cells are recruited along with embryonic cells to form the placenta, but at the time of birth, the entire placenta detaches itself easily from the intact uterine wall to follow the baby through the birth canal.
The ability to create a detachable endometrial lining that can be incorporated into the growing placenta is a unique property of the uterus. Unfortuntately, when an embryo implants into an abdominal tissue, detachment is not so simple.
The problem is that the development of the placenta can cause complete intermixing between embryonic and host tissues so that there is no clean boundary between the two. The more extensive the intermixing is, the more problematic it becomes to remove placental tissue.
The physician has to cut between the wholely placental tissue, and the intermingled placental-‘maternal’ tissue.
Large blood vessels must be severed, and as a consequence, difficult-to-control internal bleeding can take place.
Problems are not just confined to the stage at which a pregnancy is terminated.
Long before the final event, a placenta can cause severe damage to an organ that it’s invaded with the possibility of spontaneous hemorrhaging that can quickly result in death. So is male pregnancy possible?
Probably yes.Is male pregnancy safe?
No, not at the present time.
But at some point in the future, it’s likely that reproductive biologists will figure out how to direct the growth of the placenta away from vulnerable abdominal organs and onto an easily detachable, but blood-rich, surface for growth.
And then, pregnancy will be possible for men who are 100% men, although it's certainly not something that I would want to do.
More Articles
Professor of molecular biology and public policy at
, Silver has a Ph.D. in...
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/29/08 | 07:30 AM
Caesarian.
| 05/29/08 | 10:18 AM
Cari (not verified) | 07/09/12 | 14:17 PM
Ricky (not verified) | 02/21/11 | 12:51 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/06/11 | 14:33 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/19/11 | 11:29 AM
Chill Out (not verified) | 12/14/11 | 19:56 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 03:13 AM
Actually what's not natural, are those people with the unrelenting desire to keep telling others what isn't natural.& Get over yourself.& Your opinion just isn't worth what you think it is.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 03:30 AM
JACINTO (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 04:55 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 05:10 AM
What screws up kids isn't whether their parents are gay.& It's the morons that use drugs, are alcoholics, and instill violence as a staple of existence.& I don't give a damn as to whether you think being gay is natural or not.& But I would much rather see gay people as parents, than the average nitwit that is one.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 08:37 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 19:47 PM
LRP (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:20 PM
JACINTO (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 04:49 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 05:27 AM
Mary (not verified) | 02/07/12 | 17:55 PM
Sheogorath (not verified) | 03/14/12 | 12:14 PM
Feefee (not verified) | 03/31/12 | 06:08 AM
Chayse (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:36 PM
EL (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:42 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 23:46 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/03/12 | 03:37 AM
(not verified) | 05/01/12 | 07:04 AM
Why would you want to go to the same place as Hitler and rapists and serial killers and child pornographers?To get away from the self-righteous pompous jerks that think they can judge others.
Mundus vult decipi
| 05/01/12 | 07:12 AM
(not verified) | 05/01/12 | 09:48 AM
Be as critical as you like, but anyone that can equate homosexuality with Hitler and child rapists is truly viewing life in a perverse way. All you want to do is throw rocks at others who don't share your views.If it were simply a matter of disagreeing on a point, then there could be a discussion even if it got heated.& However, when you propose that the opposing viewpoint is evil ... then you're way out of line and don't think for a minute you can drag my attitude or viewpoint into that cesspool you call a brain.
Mundus vult decipi
| 05/01/12 | 11:07 AM
R.D. Shag (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:36 PM
Daniela (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 22:11 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/15/12 | 22:00 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/02/12 | 22:47 PM
Oh .. and just when I promised myself I would try to be nicer ... oh well.You're an idiot.& Worse than that you're a hateful, spiteful idiot.It is truly laughable when you say that "god loves all of y'all", so I guess that means don't take it personally if you rot in hell?& You're a pathetic excuse for a human being and as a Christian you should be ashamed of yourself.& You bring shame and disgrace to all the good people that are Christians.
Mundus vult decipi
| 08/02/12 | 22:51 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/02/12 | 23:11 PM
Then you're an even bigger idiot.& Fair warning.& Any more of your bullshit and I'm simply going to delete it.& I don't have the time or patience for dealing with bigoted idiots like you.
Mundus vult decipi
| 08/02/12 | 23:47 PM
JACINTO (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 02:21 AM
Echo6Nova (not verified) | 03/05/12 | 20:50 PM
JACINTO (not verified) | 03/05/12 | 22:01 PM
Callum butler (not verified) | 03/14/12 | 20:32 PM
As a student, you are only learning what you are taught today. &Relying on other psychologists is spotty because there is no science in the field. &Until DSM III homosexuality was a mental illness and then they placed it as a&Sexual Orientation Disturbance. Your claiming, as a student, to be able to remotely diagnose someone on the Internet, is equally silly.&
| 03/15/12 | 10:45 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/02/12 | 23:03 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/28/12 | 18:01 PM
Shaunda (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:37 PM
Shaunda (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:37 PM
Daniela (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 21:53 PM
yawn (not verified) | 05/10/12 | 11:51 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/25/12 | 20:57 PM
Billy (not verified) | 08/22/12 | 21:07 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/02/12 | 17:54 PM
You could've saved yourself the trouble of this post.& The fact that you're an idiot was apparent within the first sentence.& My greatest concern is that stupid people like you do reproduce.BTW... loved the little biological interlude.& It definitely demonstrated that you know even less about biology....the fact that something happens in nature doesn't make it normal...Yeah ... look at you.& I suppose that if someone met you they might mistakenly assume that you had a brain [at least until you started talking].Oh ... do you think I'm being mean to you?& Well, let's just say that I can't tolerate such bigotry and hatred, so be advised.& If I hear any more of your garbage I will simply delete it.& I have no patience for this level of idiocy.
Mundus vult decipi
| 09/02/12 | 19:16 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/24/12 | 04:36 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/05/12 | 12:45 PM
diana (not verified) | 03/23/12 | 20:43 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/26/12 | 03:03 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/26/12 | 04:01 AM
(not verified) | 05/01/12 | 09:26 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/01/12 | 11:07 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 00:22 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 02:45 AM
Chayse (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:49 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 22:00 PM
R.D. Shag (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:45 PM
Feefee (not verified) | 03/31/12 | 06:18 AM
(not verified) | 05/01/12 | 09:33 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 19:57 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 21:04 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/26/12 | 11:05 AM
Amberamaris (not verified) | 04/27/12 | 01:09 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:50 PM
Shaunna (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 21:09 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/03/12 | 07:36 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/03/12 | 11:38 AM
(not verified) | 06/02/12 | 16:01 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/04/12 | 11:25 AM
(not verified) | 06/12/12 | 15:44 PM
Anonymousity (not verified) | 06/24/12 | 20:05 PM
Anonymous | 02/15/12 | 16:15 PM
diana (not verified) | 03/23/12 | 20:38 PM
Reiko (not verified) | 04/27/12 | 15:01 PM
R.D. Shag (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:26 PM
Daniela (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 21:39 PM
August (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 23:21 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/07/12 | 08:23 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/30/12 | 04:26 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/07/12 | 23:48 PM
Actually you're the one that is disturbed and sick.I hope when you try getting pre go and that day you deliver it fails because you made God extremely mad about being a male trying to have a baby!So you would rather see the man and a baby die as an act of vengeance by god?& It's no wonder most Christians are so annoying.& You should be ashamed for even invoking religion with all the hatred you have in you.
Mundus vult decipi
| 05/08/12 | 00:01 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/06/11 | 14:33 PM
William (not verified) | 09/10/11 | 04:14 AM
Savannah (not verified) | 09/17/11 | 21:36 PM
seeker home (not verified) | 09/25/11 | 22:14 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/23/11 | 19:41 PM
mom of 3 (not verified) | 05/03/12 | 08:45 AM
zoey (not verified) | 08/20/12 | 18:05 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/21/11 | 11:28 AM
(not verified) | 09/03/11 | 22:50 PM
bound2plzz (not verified) | 11/08/11 | 08:51 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/19/12 | 15:35 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/14/08 | 14:12 PM
I think the discussion is patently absurd and stretches the definitions of the words being used.A man CANNOT get pregnant, since by definition a man doesn't produce eggs so there is nothing to fertilize, nor any place for an embryo to implant and grow.Any other discussion invariably involves twisting terms around so that, in effect, we are asking whether we can produce a sufficiently female "environment" into the male anatomy to replicate the pregnancy and birth process.& At this point words like "man" and "woman" lose all meaning since they would've been manipulated into circumstances that could not occur without intervention.
Mundus vult decipi
| 11/14/08 | 15:05 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/12/09 | 09:24 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 01:12 AM
Anonymous /b/ (not verified) | 08/31/10 | 14:17 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/02/11 | 05:13 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/15/12 | 03:52 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/10/11 | 21:52 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/10/11 | 21:52 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/23/11 | 02:48 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/14/11 | 10:59 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/24/11 | 15:54 PM
Sandy (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 10:01 AM
Did your mother have to have organs transplanted to provide a place for the fertilized egg to implant?& Did your mother have to undergo hormone injections because her body didn't produce them naturally?& When you say your mother was impregnated by donation, you're leaving out a fair amount of detail.& If it was "no different for a man", the first and most obvious question, is where would you implant the fertilized egg?& That question was already answered for your mother.& Far more complex are the range of questions that would affect what changes are necessary in the male's body to ensure that the developing embryo doesn't spontaneously abort.& In short, your mother's body was completely prepared for pregnancy and becoming pregnant.& There is simply no such thing for a man.& Everything must be changed, and it must be changed in such a way as to make it compatible with what the female body does naturally.& If you can't see that then you simply aren't paying attention.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 17:39 PM
Sandy (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 18:20 PM
Sandy (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 18:28 PM
Fine.& Even at the end of the article when the question is raised again, the only answer is "probably", but if you want to interpret that as a definite, then have at it.The reality is that no man has ever gotten pregnant, nor will they ever get pregnant without serious medical intervention.& While some people may think that's all fun and games, it still indicates that men cannot get pregnant despite all the semantic wordplay people wish to engage in.It only means that they can't do it naturally, which was not in question at all.They can't even do it unnaturally at this point.& That's the whole conclusion.& It is purely supposition that it could be done based on the placental separation issues.& However, even that presupposes that the pregnancy could be carried to term.& Your glib conclusion about hormones ignores the obvious point ... without them there is no pregnancy.& Therefore, the point remains ... men cannot get pregnant.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 20:02 PM
Sandy (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 21:34 PM
Well, if your only criteria is the implantation of a fertilized egg, then virtually everything can "get pregnant".& You could plant a human embryo into a dog and it would be "pregnant" with a human baby.& The fact that it wouldn't succeed is no deterrent if you're not picky about terminology.That's the situation we're dealing with when it comes to men.& So, if that's where you want to split the definition, then go for it, but it changes nothing in terms of the reality regarding male pregnancy.&
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 22:00 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 11:36 AM
Charlious (not verified) | 09/17/11 | 19:00 PM
Please provide links, otherwise I expect this is simply more nonsense.
Mundus vult decipi
| 06/12/12 | 16:18 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/08/10 | 10:52 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 05:34 AM
Victoria (not verified) | 09/16/10 | 20:27 PM
It seems that you don't understand what a Hermaphrodite is.& Hermaphroditism is the condition where both male and female organs are present.& It isn't some arbitrary third gender.& The sexual distinction between male and female still exists, except that in this case it would be in a single individual.The point being, that it changes nothing in the discussion, because even if you assumed that both sets of sexual organs were fully functional, the pregnancy would still require the female sexual organs to do the work (regarding hormones, etc.).&
Mundus vult decipi
| 09/16/10 | 22:50 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/16/11 | 00:48 AM
R.D. Shag (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:57 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 03:29 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 20:19 PM
(not verified) | 12/11/10 | 19:34 PM
It already looks like you're screwed up enough.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/11/10 | 21:20 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/11/11 | 21:10 PM
Wow ... that would be a first, to have a baby implanted in a woman's stomach.
Mundus vult decipi
| 10/11/11 | 23:18 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/01/12 | 23:09 PM
Coline Voges (not verified) | 12/15/11 | 19:27 PM
Chayse (not verified) | 05/02/12 | 21:05 PM
brodie (not verified) | 11/18/08 | 18:03 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 09:29 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 09:36 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 09:37 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 09:37 AM
kalen brennan woodard (not verified) | 05/10/11 | 03:05 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/17/12 | 09:00 AM
kalen brennan woodard (not verified) | 05/10/11 | 03:05 AM
Kayleigh (not verified) | 04/04/11 | 18:23 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 03:35 AM
OK, it's pretty obvious that you are fundamentally clueless and apparently like to run your mouth about things you don't understand, with the added problem of not even being able to stay on topic.You're trying to turn this into a gay issue, and your sense of what's right/wrong in that is simply irrelevant.& Also, if you want to advocate violence, I'll simply delete any future posts.&
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 03:40 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 05:40 AM
Oh, you must be so proud when that little alleged brain kicks in, and you feel like you've been so clever.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 08:46 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 05:47 AM
(not verified) | 12/18/08 | 15:47 PM
Jeff (not verified) | 01/12/09 | 07:53 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 01:36 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/15/10 | 18:48 PM
The placenta and umbilical cord form upon implantation, moron. Women don't just have those floating around in their body. As the fetus forms, those form. And technically a fetus isn't implanted, it's a fertilized egg, also known as an embryo.What are you babbling about?& All this requires a uterus, which men don't have.& They also require an egg, which men don't have.& So in fact, women DO have those things floating around, because it is encoded in their genes, that when fertilization occurs a whole series of biochemical changes occur which causes the egg to adhere to the wall of the uterus and begin developing.& This isn't something cobbled together from spare parts and men are simply incapable of doing this unless their physiology, anatomy, and chemistry is altered to be that of a woman.Therefore if any of this is going to happen, then a man must have female organs implanted in order to maintain a viable pregnancy to term.& Not to mention the hormones that need to be present and regulated.& At that point, what makes this individual a man?& This is simply foolishness.This entire discussion is based on the most trivial definition of male and female that exists.& It's like arguing that long hair = woman, while short hair = man.& It's simply nonsensical.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/15/10 | 19:28 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/23/10 | 20:09 PM
Whether you've borne three children or a hundred, you clearly don't understand parasitism.&& "They" don't create their own environment... you do.& To argue that the uterus just makes it "easier for them" is tantamount to proclaiming that the only reason to have a head is to make seeing easier.& While there might be a slight possibility of becoming pregnant with a partial hysterectomy, there is little likelihood of a viable pregnancy in a woman that has had a full hysterectomy.& Instead of considering men, this would be a much more likely achievement and still has little chance of succeeding.& However, the bigger point is being missed.& Being pregnant isn't as simple as carrying around a few extra pounds.& The hormone changes and the required biochemistry to maintain a fetus to term would result in a man having to essentially be female.& This isn't sleight of hand, but a radical departure from what is normal.In addition, don't be so quick to judge "normal" as some mere social convention.& Women don't become pregnant because of sociology or culture.& The argument seems to be that if a man has the necessary hormones and then essentially replicates the female reproductive system then it would be possible.& However, at which point does this render the term "man" meaningless.Whatever technological absurdities may be possible in the future, it is equally absurd to behave as if female pregnancy is some sort of global conspiracy.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/23/10 | 22:23 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/23/10 | 23:43 PM
It's simply another example of nonsensical, pointless technological thinking.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/23/10 | 23:55 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/24/10 | 00:29 AM
It's relevant because we already know that a man can't get pregnant.& There isn't a single historical incident of a man ever becoming pregnant by any means, and modern science confirms that conclusion.Therefore the discussion shifts to making modifications to the "man" so that they can support a fetus and give birth.& Well, it should be obvious that this "modification" throws into question whether the individual is still technically (biologically) a man, but more importantly the reality is that they still haven't gotten pregnant.& The "getting pregnant" occurred externally to the man.So from this point the discussion simply degenerates into how "female" a man must become in order to carry a fetus to term.This isn't simply a semantic argument.& This is on par with claiming a dog is a wolf.& While one can see how a dog evolved from a wolf, it is no longer a wolf.& Similarly a male that has been modified to the extent that he can replicate female physiology may have derived from a male, he can no longer be argued to be a male.& It is simply an engineered variation.& In the end, the simple truth is that no male can get pregnant without an engineered solution.& To the argument that the same thing occurs with infertile women, it should be obvious that this isn't the case since women routinely get pregnant and medical involvement is on a completely different level in those cases.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/26/10 | 12:32 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/27/10 | 00:03 AM
Oh please!& I'm just tired of technological zealots thinking that mouthing politically correct platitudes can simply invent new definitions and change whatever scientific data is available to their own agendas.In reality what is being described is more akin to converting a male into a hermaphrodite than anything else, and it's the casual attitudes about biological manipulation that get under my skin.& I'm no less tired of women that think that pregnancy is some sort of protected constitutional right.& The only thing more annoying is watching women give birth to litters of humans and then thanking God for the blessing (minus all the medical technology that actually made it possible).
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/27/10 | 11:37 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/27/10 | 17:20 PM
Actually I would consider perpetual "anonymous" posting to be a shortcoming.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/27/10 | 17:55 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/08/10 | 09:12 AM
TainnaHay (not verified) | 09/08/10 | 11:46 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/30/11 | 09:13 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/08/10 | 09:10 AM
...then you should be producing hard scientific data stating this is all not possible...What hard scientific data do you want?& Has a human male EVER become pregnant?In this discussion even the remote possibility of its occurring would only be with significant medical intervention and a lot of hormones/drugs to facilitate the process.& You think that somehow makes male pregnancy plausible?How about if we attach a third arm to the middle of your chest (which is certainly surgically possible), does that suddenly render it plausible for humans to have three arms?Sounds more like you are just afraid of the idea.Actually it's much, much simpler than that.& I think it's a STUPID idea, and certainly one of the least responsible I've heard in some time.& At a time when people find getting basic medical care difficult enough and the costs of medical treatments rising, I can think of nothing more irresponsible and ridiculous than considering the costs and research time invested in doing something that already occurs in humans and simply replicating it in the other gender, because some think it's kind of a "neat idea".
Mundus vult decipi
| 09/08/10 | 11:52 AM
As it is, you are not doing so and thus you are just a scared little boy.Actually, I'm not the one posting anonymously, so I'll let that pass.& However the scientific reality is that there is no medical evidence to suggest that a male can become pregnant and carry a child to term without significant intervention to render the development environment as female as possible.& Therefore to argue that one is still a man is twisting the language beyond recognition.I personally don't care if men want to become women, or if people want to invent a third gender, but stop calling it something that it isn't.& At least have the creativity to invent a new term to describe it, but it's the epitome of bad science to abuse words because it sounds politically correct.& A man cannot become pregnant.& That is biology.
Mundus vult decipi
| 09/08/10 | 11:57 AM
Lexi (not verified) | 02/22/11 | 13:25 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/26/12 | 15:35 PM
lusanda (not verified) | 07/18/11 | 08:04 AM
Rob (not verified) | 02/26/09 | 17:34 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/23/09 | 15:42 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 01:42 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/23/10 | 20:14 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/20/10 | 09:32 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 01:32 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/26/10 | 14:41 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 04/04/10 | 22:00 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/08/10 | 18:27 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/08/10 | 11:45 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 04:08 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/27/09 | 11:47 AM
(not verified) | 03/06/09 | 10:48 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 01:58 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/09/09 | 12:57 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/07/09 | 23:10 PM
Jeremy (not verified) | 06/21/09 | 11:27 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/12/09 | 02:08 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/25/09 | 10:28 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/17/10 | 15:38 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 02:10 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/12/09 | 02:05 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/13/09 | 17:48 PM
melissa (not verified) | 08/14/09 | 09:11 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/10/09 | 23:02 PM
baconator (not verified) | 03/24/10 | 18:03 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/20/09 | 06:02 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/13/09 | 14:47 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/10 | 07:29 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/21/10 | 16:48 PM
(not verified) | 11/04/10 | 12:32 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/10/09 | 01:31 AM
Dee (not verified) | 11/22/09 | 14:36 PM
Don Aris (not verified) | 11/25/09 | 10:22 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/13/09 | 14:44 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/13/09 | 14:46 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/22/09 | 15:36 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/22/09 | 18:14 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/02/10 | 18:20 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/10/10 | 09:06 AM
Wow so this could be as simple as say... Sewing the embryo into a pouch of specially prepared skin with a good enough blood supply then taking the whole thing out at 9 month's? &I am transgender, let me say to my gay&breatheren, that there would be more to getting pregnant that just the above. &To make a human body really ready to give live birth&requires&a body which has been through some changes. The kind of changes a young woman goes through at puberty. &What I am trying to say is... it's possible that you would have to end up going through a process not so different from a SRS free gender transition. &I mean, even a small&amount&of hormones could encourage breast growth. &My own grew by a cup size in response to a relative being pregnant, so if I actually was pregnant.... I'd end up needing breast reduction. &
Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
| 01/18/10 | 01:10 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/18/10 | 02:21 AM
I can only imagine such systemic changes would have to be take place that they would be equal to a sex change when all is said and done. &Not to mention such men would end up expressing the universal feminine gender role in society. &Most gay men are pretty macho&believe&it or not... pregnancy could really mess with their minds.&
Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
| 01/18/10 | 10:37 AM
Walt K (not verified) | 12/16/10 | 20:58 PM
(not verified) | 01/18/10 | 18:21 PM
JAC E. PLAGE (not verified) | 01/21/10 | 08:02 AM
Lopes (not verified) | 02/08/10 | 17:43 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/07/10 | 11:17 AM
lehlogonolo (not verified) | 03/10/10 | 09:30 AM
Raven (not verified) | 03/17/10 | 01:41 AM
(not verified) | 05/03/10 | 15:11 PM
(not verified) | 05/13/10 | 18:18 PM
Despite what was said earlier what you want is not a greedy unreasonable thing or an abomination. &If we believe all life is sacred than any life God wills to exist is, weather it spends 9 month's in a womans womb or not. & The very fact that you would want a baby is admirable however I would have to warn you of a few facts.&1.) The body of a woman is suited from birth, then prepared at puberty to carry a fetus and nuture it in and out of the womb. &For example, women do not have breast and higher body fat because it jiggles and appeals to men. &They have those things so that they will have the stored nutrients for a fetus and to produce milk.2.) The body of a male can go through much of what a female does at puberty the result of this is a transsexual woman. &(Obviously this is not what happens with all transsexuals). &They too grow breast that can if prompted by hormones produce milk, and their body also stock piles nutrients in body fat deposits as if a baby were possible.&3.) Once a fetus were implanted in the abdomen of a biological male the placenta would emit hormones which would prepared the body of the male to sustain a pregnancy and to nurture the baby afterwards. &In light of the above would you be mentally ok with seeing your body go through some mighty changes almost equal to a sex change (Without the final operation) ? &I personally think most men no matter how maternal they may feel could not&handle&that. & While even a transsexual woman would think "Well I'm supposed to be a woman and this comes with the territory." & A gay man would think "Ahh what the hell is this thing doing punching my kidney's... OMG I have man boobs!!"&
Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
| 05/23/10 | 10:21 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/23/10 | 11:27 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/09/10 | 14:02 PM
So who made God?
My 5 min film 'Hidden Dangers for ALS' entry in the AAN #2015Neurofilm Festival is listed no. 21 of 65 entries at
| 07/09/10 | 14:12 PM
&Big Vic& (not verified) | 09/14/11 | 05:04 AM
&Big Vic& (not verified) | 09/14/11 | 05:29 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 04:28 AM
foxdog (not verified) | 07/23/10 | 07:44 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/31/10 | 23:21 PM
You forgot about INVITRO fertilization.
Donor sperm are mixed with donor eggs outside the body.
Then selected embryo's are implanted in some area of the body with sufficient blood supply and superfluous tissues.
Then at the end of the term, the child is delivered by a cesarean section.
The hard part is not getting the baby in, it's ensuring that the child could be delivered without killing the biological male it was tried in.
The even harder part is justifying the procedure Ethically given the danger and the number of unwanted children looking to be adopted world wide.
Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
| 08/09/10 | 18:31 PM
The hard part is not getting the baby in, it's ensuring that the child
could be delivered without killing the biological male it was tried in.I would submit that neither of those elements are the "hard" part.& The "hard" part is in knowing what role the female hormones play in ensuring the viability of the fetus until it gets to term.& The exchange of hormones across the placenta and all manner of other interactions that seem to be totally glossed over.
Mundus vult decipi
| 08/09/10 | 21:02 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 08/05/10 | 13:14 PM
... but that doesn't mean that I want to get married or need to be in a committed relationship...Not to pick on this post, but I find this statement baffling.& You don't get any more committed than having a child and yet people seem to treat it as if they were buying a puppy.
Mundus vult decipi
| 08/05/10 | 13:19 PM
It's an opinion (not verified) | 08/26/10 | 22:31 PM
Tony O'Brien (not verified) | 09/05/10 | 18:37 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/25/10 | 09:12 AM
Celine (not verified) | 09/26/10 | 09:56 AM
Alex (not verified) | 09/29/10 | 15:22 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/08/10 | 11:43 AM
In some places, female foeticide is a common phenomenon, because of which the Female:Male ratio is declining. If this continues, females will be extinct and Male in order to propagate their race will have to depend on their own pregnancy with stored eggs.&
| 12/28/10 | 02:07 AM
Elton John (not verified) | 02/07/11 | 08:18 AM
Courtney (not verified) | 02/22/11 | 11:18 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/23/11 | 12:21 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/27/11 | 20:27 PM
Brittney (not verified) | 03/29/11 | 14:18 PM
(not verified) | 04/01/11 | 04:08 AM
Anthony Bliss (not verified) | 05/05/11 | 11:25 AM
Teri (not verified) | 05/13/11 | 19:01 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/14/11 | 02:49 AM
Gabby Hage (not verified) | 05/24/11 | 13:27 PM
Gabby Hage (not verified) | 05/24/11 | 13:27 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/27/11 | 18:32 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 05/03/12 | 05:58 AM
barry (not verified) | 05/29/11 | 12:53 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/12/11 | 16:26 PM
barry (not verified) | 06/21/11 | 17:11 PM
Anonymous77 (not verified) | 06/27/11 | 02:31 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/11 | 11:17 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/06/12 | 04:46 AM
You may have a right to believe whatever you like, but you don't have a right to express it.& So, let me be clear on this.& If you insist on posting comments that continue to be off-topic by focusing on your own particular gay issues, you will be deleted.So stop your bluster, and either comment on something that is pertinent or take your bias someplace else.& I don't think anyone is actually interested in what you believe.
Mundus vult decipi
| 02/06/12 | 09:07 AM
Anyone who is disagreeing with this is absolutely stupid.Sure ... and if an egg gets fertilized in a petri dish are you going to claim that the dish got pregnant?A man CANNOT get pregnant.& A man can have all manner of things implanted in him (including an embryo), and made to grow, but he cannot now nor ever get pregnant.& Why is it that nobody has a problem recognizing that some women can't get pregnant and yet when it comes to men everyone suddenly runs off on this speculative nonsense.There is no gender mixing when you put an egg in a man, do women become men when they shoot their sperm into us?What does gender mixing have to do with anything?& A baby requires female hormones which a man lacks.& So you're simply being silly here.And here's the thing, MEN ARE ALIVE AND HAVE ORGANS! Huh, go figure that a living being would have organs, it's crazy!What's crazy is that you would make such a ridiculous comment and think that it is relevant.& Do you think that merely possessing "organs" is sufficient?& If so, then why not implant an embryo in a dog (it has organs).& Geeze, there's no limit to the number of places one could implant an embryo.You should also learn something about the ten commandments and stop your goofy rant by abusing the terminology simply to make your point.& To use "kill", "steal", and "lie" in this context is disingenuous and ridiculous.& And if you must know yes I am a catholic so I do know what I'm talking about.Well, that explains it.
Mundus vult decipi
| 06/29/11 | 12:17 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/29/11 | 22:59 PM
jen (not verified) | 10/12/11 | 03:30 AM
I certainly don't hate Catholics, and I have friends that are very religious and I respect them a great deal because they actually try to live their lives according to their beliefs.& My comment was only aimed at the individual that claimed that merely being Catholic carried with it the "authority" to declare that they must know what they are talking about.&
Mundus vult decipi
| 10/12/11 | 12:45 PM
...technically yes, you could implant it in a dog, that would be slightly unethical but it is technically possible, in order to live and grow all a fetus needs is embryonic cells and living tissue in which it can obtain sufficient nutrients..Perhaps it's time to study a bit more biology before you make comments like this.
Mundus vult decipi
| 06/30/11 | 00:09 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/11 | 23:22 PM
Just a brief example:Channels of hormonal communication between the embryo and the mother are established early in the conceptual process. The preimplantation embryo exerts local uterine and systemic effects on the maternal organism to provide a suitable environment for embryonic development, to enable the development of a receptive endometrium for implantation, and to maintain corpus luteum function. In primates, implantation can be induced with progesterone alone if the proliferative effects of estrogens on the endometrium have a estrogens may have a priming effect for progesterone on the endometrium, but it is not obligatory for implantation. Progesterone secretion from the corpus luteum is essential for the maintenance of early pregnancy until the placenta takes over the major role of steroidogenesis. This luteo-placental shift is completed at about the 50th day of human gestation. Withdrawal of progesterone effects by the administration of the competitive progesterone antagonist, RU 486, within 24 days after conception will terminate 85% of human pregnancies. Other nonsteroidal functions of the corpus luteum have been recently suggested. Relaxin and prorenin are peptides secreted by corpus luteum of pregnancy but their role remains putative at the present time.Another one relating to the thyroid:or just general pregnancy information:In short, you've completely failed to recognize that one of the most common symptoms women experience are the hormonal changes that accompany their pregnancy.& A male has no such mechanisms nor pathways for delivery of such changes.& In addition, the male body produces hormones in different quantities (which is what makes them male).& To alter this to the point of where it would result in a viable pregnancy would raise the question of whether the individual can truly be considered a male any longer.After all ... we aren't growing bacteria, so to suggest that an embryo simply behaves as if it were some tumor attached to the abdominal wall is clearly incorrect.& While the gist of this article was that with significant medical intervention it might be possible for a male to carry a pregnancy, your simplistic response demonstrates that you understand nothing about the process.I'm also not clear about whether you actually read the article or not, because it would be hard to miss this statement.Abdominal pregnancy is considered a “life-threatening condition” because of the placental connection that the embryo must set up between itself and the body within which it lies.
Mundus vult decipi
| 07/01/11 | 23:48 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 07/18/11 | 23:29 PM
Micky T Dick (not verified) | 12/15/11 | 23:53 PM
Black Kid (not verified) | 08/24/11 | 05:06 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/13/11 | 19:54 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/26/11 | 17:08 PM
Keisha (not verified) | 10/25/11 | 17:32 PM
A variety of documentary evidence was provided to allow visitors to track the progress of Mr. Mingwei's pregnancy, but in fact all of the evidence was false.Perhaps it's time to get a new High School Research Project and probably do a bit more research before claiming that others are wrong.& It's a hoax, it's been known for years, and you're a bit late to this particular party.Guess what? You're wrong!Nope... guess again....
Mundus vult decipi
| 10/25/11 | 17:45 PM
swathika (not verified) | 10/29/11 | 08:54 AM
(not verified) | 11/06/11 | 14:07 PM
Fireflower19 (not verified) | 11/10/11 | 00:13 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/15/11 | 22:55 PM
Christine (not verified) | 11/19/11 | 22:54 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/03/11 | 15:23 PM
Well, then as a 14 year old girl, perhaps you need to watch your mouth, and pay attention before you make comments.& The issue isn't about being gay, or about same-sex couples raising a child.The question is simply whether there is a biological mechanism and safe process by which a man could get pregnant and deliver a child.& Despite all the wishful thinking, it simply isn't biologically possible without significant medical intervention.& In addition, with the huge medical risks involved it seems like a tremendous amount of resources would have to be used for someone to simply be able to indulge themselves in a fantasy about having a child.No man has ever delivered a baby.& The individual mentioned in the article was still a woman (i.e. with female organs), so to pretend as if this were a man is simply incorrect.& It has nothing to do with being gay or anything else about the person.& A uterus is NOT a male organ and never will be.Even the points about a female having an abdominal pregnancy are irrelevant since a man cannot produce an egg.& So the only way this could happen is with medical intervention.& So call it what you like, but if a man can't produce an egg, then it can't be fertilized, and it can't implant itself anywhere.& Therefore a man can't get pregnant.& It really isn't any more complicated than that.& However, too many people want to argue about whether they should have a right to get such a procedure performed medically which may be worth discussing philosophically and ethically, but it is no longer biology.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/03/11 | 15:44 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/05/11 | 17:56 PM
Oh, you're quite right.& I'm not your father.& I'll bet he'd be so proud to see the wise-mouth on his daughter, the disrespect she shows others, and her lack of spelling ability.& Yep ... he'd be proud.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/05/11 | 18:08 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/05/11 | 18:55 PM
It's interesting that you think people are hurt by my comments.& You think people are basically stupid and won't mind being lied to simply because it will make them feel good about their "dreams".& So, you've concluded that if people's feelings are hurt because of the truth, then its acceptable to tell them whatever fairy tales make them feel better, no matter how much it will hurt them later when they've discovered the lie.Do you like it when people lie to you?& Having someone say they like you when they don't just so you aren't told the truth?& Being told you're good at something while they laugh at you behind your back, because they don't want to tell you the truth?& You think this is a good way to do things?Do you think it would be good if someone went to some doctor someplace that promised them they could get pregnant and then they die because of complications, because no one wanted to tell them the truth about such risks?& There are hundreds of thousands of children that need adoption that would benefit from many of the people posting here.& If they want children, there are numerous opportunities.& If the only point in getting pregnant is for some self-indulgent fantasy reason ... then I have no sympathy because it isn't about having children, it's simply to satisfy some selfish urge in themselves.If you think I'm wrong, then demonstrate it with arguments.& If your only point is that people may have their feelings hurt, then that will only occur when they choose to believe fantasies over reality.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/05/11 | 19:47 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/05/11 | 19:56 PM
Of course you do, and I think it's important that children should be allowed to be children.& So, by all means go play while the adults continue their conversation.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/05/11 | 20:22 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/14/11 | 21:17 PM
As I've said elsewhere ... an individual can believe whatever they like and harbor whatever dreams they like.& However, when you want to come onto a scientific site looking for endorsement of those ideas, or attempt to make those dreams become "facts" then you will experience disappointment.I find it interesting that so many people think that it is more important to lie to people than to inform them.& ...better yet for them to find out..............Which they can't do, because you're willing to lie to them about it.& Good circular argument.
Mundus vult decipi
| 12/14/11 | 22:08 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 12/18/11 | 10:40 AM
Reece (not verified) | 12/20/11 | 02:35 AM
JMW (not verified) | 01/20/12 | 16:32 PM
Before medical advancements, 1 in 3 women died from pregnancy complications.That figure is completely made up.
| 01/20/12 | 20:10 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/21/12 | 00:13 AM
Reiko (not verified) | 04/27/12 | 15:17 PM
natasha (not verified) | 02/02/12 | 20:20 PM
Michelle-Nokoma (Fuck Off) (not verified) | 08/18/12 | 23:20 PM
Current Topic:The best writers in science tackle science's hottest topics.
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
571 guests