Assuming the assumptions listed below are made, would this be ethicaly/moraly permissible?
Yes
No
0voters
Assuming that there was a way to successfully implant a fertilized egg inside a male (the kind born with a penis and testicles and a prostate gland), give him the right combination of hormones, and have him carry a child to term, and give birth (obviously it would have to be removed via c-section) to a fully healthy baby…
Would such a thing be morally/ethically permissible?
Keep in mind the assumptions:
Naturally born male,
Successful implantation,
No health risks,
Fully healthy baby.
Also assume that we KNOW that it WOULD work biologically.
If you don’t make this last assumption, then we’ll go round and round in circles trying to figure out whether or not we should test the hypothesis that it could work. So just assume it CAN work for this discussion. Which i know would end up in a wide spread “why bother?” So… Why bother debating the testing of the hypothesis; just pretend we know it will work.
Another think to keep in mind is that there are many*** (see EDIT) cases of ectopic pregnancies in females, where the fetus grows either inside the fallopian tubes, or in the abdominal cavity (outside the uterus), AND the babies end up fully healthy. So this shows that a uterus is not required. Only a host. (kinda makes a fetus sound like a parasite )
It would be morally permissible yes, but I’m not convinced it would be necessary or wise?
Why have men being pregnant when many places are over populated as it is?
A woman has a right to bear children, because she has the necessary child bearing apparatus. A man does not have those things so doesn’t have the rights. I don’t know if you can simply implant new rights along with new biology.
Why do men need to have children? Why does the human race need to become asexual in a sense?
She is lucky she lived - she needed extensive internal/bowel surgery.
Males are not genetically equipped for pregnancy - their bodies might not be apt to cope with complications that a females should be able to, and they get enough complications as it is…
There is most definitely a difference between rights and abilities. Rights are societal. Abilities (in this context) are biological. Would it be society preventing a man from having babies? Or would it be biology?
I said yes. But what about the child who has to grow up without a mother? Might be phychologically a bit messed up. I mean having a mother is an important part of growing up. I think an argument along this line would deem it unethical. I guess this has less relevence to the fact that its a pragant man.
I’m confident in saying that the life of ANY child (regardless of pregnancy circumstances) who grows up with 2 parents (regardless of the combination of sex or gender) will be better than that of a child with only one parent. No matter how you slice it, 2 parents are better than 1. Assuming that the parents are COMPETENT parents.
There have been plenty of people that grow up with one parent and turn out fine. So the fact that a pregnant male (who is genetically male) may or may not have a spouse to help raise the child - while it is an important factor - is not the most relevant. Nor is it even part of the hypothetical in the OP.
Men can adopt children if the wish. Men whose wives have died and left him to raise the children are all over the place. The only difference here with this hypothetical is whose body the child came out of.
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
So… Why bother debating the testing of the hypothesis; just pretend we know it will work.
)
