Bioethics

Is It Immoral for Men to Gestate? Transgender* Women?

Recent advances in uterus transplantation will soon make this possible

|

Schwarzenegger Pregnant
Junior

The first child ever successfully gestated in a transplanted uterus and brought safely to term was born in Sweden in September. The healthy baby boy's 36-year-old mother had been born without a uterus. The transplanted organ was donated by a 61-year-old family friend who had herself given birth to two children.

Eggs were extracted from the woman's intact ovaries and fertilized in vitro using her male partner's sperm. This produced eleven embryos that were then frozen. A year after the transplant, physicians installed a single embryo in the woman's new womb which resulted in the pregnancy that led to the birth of the baby boy.

The Swedish woman who gave birth last year is one of nine women into whom researchers transplanted donated uteruses in 2013. Two of the recipients had to have their transplants removed due to infections and blood clots. There's no news of any pregnancies so far from the other recipients.

As it happens, there are other human beings who are born without uteruses: males and transgender women. Is there any reason—biological or ethical—why they should not be considered as possible uterus transplant candidates? With regard to biology, it is already quite common to successfully transplant solid organs such as kidneys, livers, and hearts between different sex donors and recipients now.

More research will be doubtlessly be required, but there do not seem to be any insuperable physiological barriers to figuring out how best to connect up the proper blood supply to the donated organs and manage relevant hormonal issues in men and transgendered recipients. In the case of transgender women, they will already be following a supplemental hormone regimen. The supply of organs could be quite large since post-menopausal women can be donors.

So are there any moral reasons why men and transgender women should not be permitted to gestate? One handy ethical rule of thumb with regard to deploying a novel reproductive technology is that it should be about as risky as conventional procreation. As a reference point, note that in the United States about 3 percent of babies are born with a major structural or genetic birth defect. The Swedish infant got a near perfect APGAR score, demonstrating that it is possible to safely bring a baby to term in a transplanted womb.

In the December 2014 issue of Bioethics, University of Illinois College of Medicine bioethicist Timothy Murphy asks if uterus transplantation becomes routine and effective, "would there be any morally significant reason why men or transgender women should not be eligible for the same opportunity for gestation?" He concludes in his article, "Assisted Gestation and Transgender Women," that the answer is no. 

Murphy is mainly arguing against Australian bioethicist Robert Sparrow who asserts, "Because pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation in men, men who wish to become pregnant are not capable of establishing that this desire should be granted the same moral weight as women's desires to become pregnant." Both philosophers are fixated on the question of whether the state is obliged by the interests of some of its citizens in giving birth by means of the assisted gestation to pay for research and the medical provision of the technology. Murphy thinks that the answer is "yes," but he is wrong. Sparrow is wrong for different reasons. He thinks that the answer is "yes" for women, but "no" for men. It should be "no" for both.

Setting public health conundrums aside, one citizen does not, in general, have a moral claim on the money and time of another citizen merely to benefit himself and his interests. Thus there is no moral justification for the public funding of assisted gestation research and treatments for either men or women. 

Sparrow goes badly astray when he claims that "no negative right to male pregnancy exists." As conventionally defined, a negative right is a right to be free to hold and practice a belief, to pursue an action, or enjoy a state of affairs without outside interference. Sparrow rather convolutedly comes to his perplexing conclusion largely because he thinks that male pregnancy will only be possible if there is a corresponding positive right requiring that the government pay for the development of assisted gestation technologies applicable to men. Women have a positive right to research funding and treatments, but men do not. Since Sparrow believes that assisted gestation for men will necessarily not be developed without government funding then it doesn't matter if male pregnancy is outlawed. Thus one cannot have a negative right to do something that in fact one cannot do. This evidently passes for sophisticated philosophical reasoning nowadays.

Murphy is, however, right when he notes that Sparrow's "analysis of assisted gestation would not cut at all against privately-funded research, since private parties are, in general, free to spend their money according to their own lights. It is therefore entirely possible that private funders could support and bring to successful completion a program of assisted gestation research for men and transgender women." This point is bolstered by the fact that privately-funded research is largely responsible for most of the advances in assisted reproduction made during the past four decades.

Assuming that uterus transplants can be made to work in men and transgender women who would be happy to pay for the surgery and follow up treatments themselves, are there any ethical reasons that they should be denied the joys and pains of pregnancy and childbirth? The 2013 update to the authoritative Montreal Criteria for the Ethical Feasibility of Uterine Transplantation suggests that given the current concerns over safety and efficacy, it is premature to offer uterus transplants to men and transgender women now. However, the update acknowledges that this is likely to change and observes that "there does not seem to be a prima facie ethical reason to reject the idea of performing uterine transplant on a male or trans patient."

In support of this judgment, the authors of the update point out that the principle of autonomy is not sex-specific. They argue that a man or trans patient who wants to bear a child does not have a lesser moral claim to that desire than do women. The Montreal Criteria update makes this intriguing analogy: "A male who identifies as a woman, for example, arguably has UFI [born without a uterus], no functionally different than a woman who is born female with UFI." The authors then observe that "such a person's right to self-governance of her reproductive potential ought to be equal to her genetically female peers and should be respected." If it is moral to offer this technology to a genetic female without a uterus, why would it be immoral to provide it to a genetic male without uterus? The answer is that it wouldn't be.

"All people, however sexed in body, have interests one way or another about whether to have children and about how to have them," observes Murphy. "Not only do those interests vary widely, the interests will in some measure be artifacts of the technologies available."

Murphy is right. People's procreative decisions are increasingly made in the context of proliferating reproductive technologies. Technologies that now enable people to pursue their interests in how and when to have children include contraceptive pills and injections, gamete donation, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, freezing eggs, sperm, and embryos for later use, surrogacy, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, cytoplasmic transfer of mitochondria into eggs, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and freezing ovarian tissue. All of these technologies were once widely considered to be ethically problematic, but are now accepted as moral by most people.

Novel reproductive technologies over the horizon are cloning, the generation of sperm and eggs from somatic cells, tissue engineering to grow new uteruses, editing the genomes of embryos prior to implantation, and artificial wombs. Sometime later in this century it will be possible to transform skin cells taken from a single person into both eggs and sperm. In vitro fertilization could combine those gametes to generate an embryo that might then be gestated in an artificial womb. By that time people will regard uterus transplantation as the technological equivalent of bear skins and stone axes.

For the foreseeable future the vast majority of people will continue to pursue their interests in having children in the conventional way. It's fun and a lot cheaper.

Ultimately, uterus transplantation will be a niche reproductive technology sought by very few people who have been born lacking that organ—be they genetic females or genetic males. There is no moral reason to deny the option of uterus transplantation to those who have an interest in using it and are willing to pay for it. In other words, individuals do have the negative right to pursue assisted gestation.

Disclosure: I am a cisgender male with no current interest in gestating.

*Correction: Changed from "transgendered" to "transgender" to conform to AP style.

Advertisement

NEXT: California Declares E-Cigarettes a 'Community Health Threat'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How’s the fetus gonna gestate? Are you going to keep in in a box?

    1. “It’s nobody’s fault you can’t have babies – not even the Romans’.”

      1. Why are you always on about women, Stan?

        1. Because I want to be one.

          I want you to call me Loretta!

            1. Will men who become pregnant have full abortion rights under government sponsered Obamacare ?

    2. I will not gestate in a box

      1. I will not gestate with a fox.

        1. I will not ingest botox.

          1. AlmightyJB sucks fat cocks

    3. Bahahahahaha that’s exactly what I was thinking. Actually, no, I lied. I was thinking, “Where’s the fetus gonna get state, you gonna keep it in a box?!” “Don’t be daft, I go in next week to get a uterus transplant!”

  2. Ron Bailey: Great troll or greatest troll?

    1. Beat me to it 🙂

    2. Richman took the lead back yesterday. I can only assume from this that Ron was paying attention.

      1. You got that right.

        http://downtrend.com/71superb/…..adam-lanza

        1. Awesome comment from that link:

          drattastic ? 17 hours ago
          There is no doubt that Sheldon Richman is a lowlife scum, coward and all around POS.
          There is also no doubt that Chris Kyle is an American hero.
          But there is a great deal of doubt that Sandy Hook was ever real and if you think that’s crazy then you’ve never researched the Sandy Hook hoax, if the tons of evidence there doesn’t raise reasonable doubt in your mind that it was a complete fraud then I have some swamp land in Florida for sale you might be interested in.

          1. wow

            That is….something.

          2. Kinda makes you rethink your position on Richman, huh?

            1. Kinda makes you rethink your position on Richman, huh?

              Why would it? He remains a scumbag, regardless of internet comments in support or against.

          3. Um, Florida has swamp land. I think this gentleman’s rhetorical device sucketh a fat one.

            1. I was thinking about making an inquiry.

            2. Yes, but why would you want to purchase a swamp? To build a castle on? More Monty Python references….

          4. “Writing for the ultra-alliterated liberal rag….”

            Bitch I’ll …

            …oh, he’s talking about FFF

            should i be upset he can’t at least differentiate between actual “liberal” douchebags, and our very own libertarian ones? I’m not sure whether or not i should care.

          5. When Neocons vote, Kyle is a hero. When libertarians do, not so much

          6. Please tell me that’s a Moby. For the sake of my faith in humanity.

            PLEASE!

  3. “This produced eleven embryos that were then frozen. A year after the transplant, physicians installed a single embryo in the woman’s new womb which resulted in the pregnancy that led to the birth of the baby boy.”

    I know y’all are going to hate this question, but: What happened to the other ten embryos?

    1. They keep them in case she wants to have more children—if she pays.

      1. What if she doesn’t want 11 children? What happens to the remaining embryos then?

        1. Get to the point you already have in your head.

          1. That I don’t like the idea of killing living human beings?

            I’m funny that way.

            The good news is that once the law recognizes the right to life at all stages of development, it will be like France after WWII, when it turns out *everyone* was in the Resistance.

            1. The good news is that once the law recognizes the right to life at all stages of development, it will be like France after WWII, when it turns out *everyone* was in the Resistance.

              I’m confident that will never happen.

              1. You mean you don’t think it’s a good idea to have a murder investigation every time someone has a miscarriage?

                1. what about in-vetro? they implant 2 out of 8 viables… it’s murder to destroy the other 6?

                  1. Eddie thinks an un-implanted zygote is a human being. Take a guess.

                2. I think that’s something of a canard trotted out in every abortion debate tbh, but I’m confident that the self interest of the humans involved will ensure that abortion is with us for a long, long time into the future as it has been with us a long, long time past.

                  Even if science develops sufficiently to harvest and gestate every unwanted fetus, there’s no guarantee anybody is going to want to commit the personal and financial resources to see it through and raise it – particularly if it’s genetically abnormal (although presumably science will be able to eventually address that as well).

                  It wouldn’t surprise me if abortion is more limited to earlier stages of pregnancy in the future as what constitutes “viability” changes, but I’m certain that the law recogniz[ing] the right to life at all stages of development is not going to happen any time in my lifetime, and probably a good deal after.

                  1. Well, Eddie seems to be saying that fertilized eggs are human beings. So it seems to follow that miscarriages would require criminal investigations or at least some investigation to rule out foul play. You don’t just find a child dead in the road and say “oh well, it must have been natural causes”.

                    1. You don’t just find a child dead in the road and say “oh well, it must have been natural causes”.

                      I’d like to think that finding a dead child in the road would result in some type of investigation under any circumstance and any legal regime.

                      However, I don’t think a miscarriage would be likely to result in a criminal investigation even in Eddie’s utopia, anymore than the natural death of an adult or born child is likely to result in a criminal investigation now. Most often a doctor is directly involved in that process, and if not, a cursory examination of the facts is usually sufficient.

                    2. Maybe the doctor is in on it. Who knows what sort of sneaky, hard to detect abortofacients people might come up with.

                      Of course it is impractical to legislate. Which is why it is a good illustration of the absurdity of considering a zygote a human being.

                    3. Which is why it is a good illustration of the absurdity of considering a zygote a human being.

                      It’s just too frickin inconvenient. Murder shmurder.

                      Did I mention many libertarians don’t really understand justice? It goes hand in hand with NAP.

                    4. Well, until people can agree on a definition for justice, that’s an open question.

                    5. Think of an accounting balance sheet. Eye for an eye.

                      Justice defined.

                    6. Justice or revenge ?

                    7. There ain’t no justice here. There’s just us.

                    8. Maybe the doctor is in on it. Who knows what sort of sneaky, hard to detect abortofacients people might come up with.

                      I still don’t think this is appreciably different from the way natural deaths are handled currently. Of course there’s always that possibility, but in practicality it’s not often a concern. Who’s to say that the palliative nurse overseeing the care of your geriatric family member didn’t intentionally set the PCA machine for a potentially-fatal dose of morphine to allow them to choose to end their suffering? I’m sure that’s happened at least once before, but I doubt it’s very rigorously investigated given the context. If your obstetrician punches you in the gut and then signs off on the death certificate for your “miscarriage”, I suspect the result would be similar. Which, as you say, is an example of why it would be so close to impossible to legislate and effectively regulate.

                    9. I have no problem considering a zygote a human being.

                      I also don’t think that someone who happens to have a job working for the government should have the right to tell someone what they can do with, or inside, their body.

                      Just because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal.

                    10. I have no problem considering a zygote a human being.

                      I also don’t think that someone who happens to have a job working for the government should have the right to tell someone what they can do with, or inside, their body.

                      Just because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal.

                    11. And I think that profundity is worth repeating.

                      Damn squirrels.

                      Somebody shouda aborted them.

                    12. I resemble that remark!!!

                    13. Just like we investigate every death for murder? Not all miscarriages are going to be suspicious, especially if your doctor is in on it.

                  2. Part of the problem is that we are pretty close to the point where anyone access to a microbiology lab will be able to take a skin cell and transform it into a zygote. To be more precise, they will be able to transform thousands of skin cells into embryonic stem cell equivalents. Those cells can be implanted into a specially prepared blastocyst, and the resulting baby will be a (epigenetically abnormal and highly unhealthy) clone of the skin cell donor. Before you scoff, note that we can already do this with mice.

                    The question of when life begins and what exactly constitutes a person is going to get more murky, not less

                    1. You seem to know of which you speak.

                      (that’s a rait around here )

                      Tell me why the baby nedessarily be highly unhealthy please ?

                      Only one set of dna and not a mix ?

                      I am an avid reader of non fiction narratives covering the Age of Sail and the Age of Discovery. It’s kind of interesting to me that some isolated cultures welcomed some newcomers to breed with their women as if they already had some understanding of the need for genitic mixing.

                    2. So when you brush your teeth or eat ANYTHING other than the most harmless of thin fluids, you are knocking living human cells (“human beings, human souls”) off to their DOOM in the sink or in your digestive system!!!! Mass murderer are ye, now!!!

                3. You mean you don’t think it’s a good idea to have a murder investigation every time someone has a miscarriage?

                  Is there a murder investigation every time someone dies? Science you can be really stupid sometimes.

            2. I’m basically pro-abortion, anti-infanticide. What I would call an abortion is essentially when it’s a clump of cells or even one that more closely resembles a tadpole. Though at a certain point that clump of cells does become a person and it’s destruction necessarily becomes infanticide.

              I’d reckon some decent scientific minds and moralists out there have made a reasonable case for where that line is exactly, but I’m also certain that reasonable argument has been drowned out by a cacophony of retards on both sides of the issue yelling overtop of one another.

              1. Though at a certain point that clump of cells does become a person

                I don’t see how you can’t recognize that allowing the definition of “person” to change changes the definition of murder and NAP.

                If the Dred Scott decision declared that blacks were non-persons instead of non-citizens, then would slavery be OK? Yes, that is somewhat disanalogous, but why the obsession over what “person” means? Why not just define it as “human” and make your life easier?

                So a prog takes over the government and declares all people who don’t support big government as “non-persons”, then it’s OK to kill them?

                Why pick an apparently subjective term instead of an objective term?

                1. I don’t see how you can’t recognize that allowing the definition of “person” to change changes the definition of murder and NAP.

                  I’m not violating the NAP when I freeze off a wort.

                  If the Dred Scott decision declared that blacks were non-persons instead of non-citizens, then would slavery be OK?

                  If it were literally true that they weren’t people then it wouldn’t even be slavery anymore than it would be slavery to have a mule pull your wagon. But thankfully the Supreme Court’s decision was pertinent only to the legal status of slaves, not their moral status as humans which is not something that can be repealed or legislated out of existence.

                  1. Human. A wart is not a human, it is part of a human. If you want to cut off a part of yourself, go ahead. The “zygote” is not a part of a human, it is a whole human.

                    OK, then let me rephrase the second part. If the supreme court ruled that certain people were “non-persons”, then would it be a violation of NAP to enslave them (treat them like a mule)? You’d have to say yes, unless you want to give an objective definition of “person”.

                    1. The “zygote” is not a part of a human, it is a whole human.

                      It’s a potential human at that stage of development. Just like an egg and sperm cell is a potential.

                      If the supreme court ruled that certain people were “non-persons”, then would it be a violation of NAP to enslave them (treat them like a mule)?

                      How could the Supreme Court possibly change what constitutes a violation of the NAP? If the Supreme Court ruled that murder didn’t violate the NAP (a thing they have no duty to uphold anyways), would murder cease to be a violation of the NAP? It’s just a government court, not a pantheon of 9 gods.

                      You’d have to say yes, unless you want to give an objective definition of “person”.

                      If a being can be logically deduced to not be a human, then it’s not slavery. What the courts say about it is irrelevant to the moral issue at hand.

                    2. It’s a potential human at that stage of development. Just like an egg and sperm cell is a potential.

                      You’re a potential human being. Prove me wrong.

                      It’s got its own human DNA and it’s alive. It’s a total human, though very small.

                      How could the Supreme Court possibly change what constitutes a violation of the NAP?

                      You think it does, I don’t. You think murder depends on if it’s a “person”, not a human.

                      If a being can be logically deduced to not be a human, then it’s not slavery.

                      Exactly. You’ve messed up your terms. You should have said “if it’s not a person“. The zygote is a human, just one you don’t often see.

                      You don’t understand that if you can only murder a “person”, then you must firmly define what is a person. You don’t even make the attempt.

                    3. ace_m82|1.30.15 @ 5:54PM|#
                      “You’re a potential human being. Prove me wrong.”

                      I have just now done so.

              2. Roughly my stance. I think the Roe v. Wade got it basically right for shitty reasons. The brain waves generally associated with thought start around 5-6 months after conception. Rights have traditionally been seen as a consequence of human moral agency. Our moral agency derives from our ability to reason. Hence the 5-6 mark-off seems appropriate to me.

                1. I think for you to abort a baby inside you is wrong.

                  However, I will fight to the death anyone who works for the government telling you what you can put into or take out of YOUR body.

            3. Lacking any sort of metabolic activity, a frozen embryo is not alive. Do you worry about the fate of ?tzi the Iceman too?

              1. Do you worry about the fate of ?tzi the Iceman too?

                Yes, actually. If we let him thaw too much he’ll decay. Though if we can find viable DNA in the corpse, he should be cloned.

                1. Cloning /= living forever. Identical twins are not the same person.

              2. Lacking any sort of metabolic activity, a frozen embryo is not alive.

                So the choices are:
                It was alive and is now dead.
                It’s still alive but frozen.
                It was always dead.
                It’s in some sort of state between alive and dead. Schrodinger’s cat.

                Which one? Let me know if it’s the last one.

              3. And if he thaws, he’ll just become another lawyer, which we really don’t need.

            4. An embryo is not a person. It has no capacity for thought or action or experiencing anything whatsoever.

              It has the potential for becoming a person, but so does every sperm cell and every ovum, billions of which are disposed of naturally every day.

              I am as anti-abortion as you are NGKC, but lets not be silly animists please.

              1. “an?i?mism noun \?a-n?-?mi-z?m\
                : the belief that all plants, animals, and objects have spirits

                “1: a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit”

                I don’t believe that *all* plants, animals and objects have spirits.

                “An embryo is not a person. It has no capacity for thought or action or experiencing anything whatsoever.”

                By that standard:

                -Neither does a sleeping person.

                -Neither does someone in a coma.

                -Neither does an elderly person in the advanced stages of dementia.

                Do you really want to go down that road?

                1. “I am as anti-abortion as you are NGKC”

                  “We are personally, in feeling and principle, as opposed to slavery in any and every form as Mr. Sumner and his party…”

                  Orestes Brownson, justifying the Fugitive Slave Law.

                  (from Google Books)

                  http://ow.ly/If57v

                2. I don’t believe that *all* plants, animals and objects have spirits.

                  So do you believe some creatures do have ‘spirits’?

                  “An embryo is not a person. It has no capacity for thought or action or experiencing anything whatsoever.”

                  By that standard:

                  -Neither does a sleeping person.

                  -Neither does someone in a coma.

                  -Neither does an elderly person in the advanced stages of dementia.

                  Do you really want to go down that road?

                  Do you? First off you’re flat wrong about a sleeping person not qualifying on that standard. A coma patient may or may not be braindead. And a person with advanced dementia may still have capacity for thought and all that, it’s just not in coherent shape.

                  But suppose someone is braindead or has dementia, do I become a slave to that person’s continued survival? The fact that families and voluntary institutions do generally provide for the continued care of people that can’t help themselves, is a testament to their moral generosity, not a debt they owe by virtue of being of sound mind.

                  1. Your law is “Cogito ergo sum”. Not exactly anything you can legislate off of… whereas mine is.

                    The only time a live human being has no rights is when the mother (and only the mother) decides it doesn’t until an arbitrary and moving line is crossed.

                    Live and human are not arbitrary.

                    1. If the father WANTS an abortion but doesn’t get one since he has no say, is he liable for child support ?

                3. Probably not the best analogy but killing an embryo vs killing a sleeping person is like the difference between closing an empty word doc and closing one you’ve been working on for days without saving…

                4. Now you’re getting into a religious argument. Religion does not define this country’s laws as we are all entitled to our own beliefs. Legally, those embryos are not defined as alive. A fetus is not defined as a person until it is viable outside of the uterus, I believe at 24 weeks gestation.

            5. Two things I’d like to point out here:

              A) Do you have any idea how many times in a woman’s life an egg can get fertilized, never implant, and she has a normal period? Theoretically, it could happen every time she ovulates. What about all those natural “abortions”? What about every natural miscarriage?

              B) (And more to the point) those unused embryos can always be donated to other couples.

            6. SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE EMBRYOS!!!1!

        2. Sell them as a delicacy to the secret cabal of cannibal diners that live in skyscraper penthouses.

          1. They make caviar “to die for”

            Yuk Yuk

            See what I did there?

        3. Limbo of the Unbaptized Infants, I suppose.

          Or this: Put That Fetus to Good Use!

        4. They get brutally murdered by evil murdering murderers. Happy?

    2. Stem Cells, duh.

    3. They got baked into a wedding cake.

      1. Or a deep dish pizza to be served at a gay wedding.

        1. Everybody knows you only serve New York style pizza at a gay wedding.

    4. She can always donate the embryos to other infertile couples who can’t make their own embryos for some reason.

    5. GKC, Some couples choose to donate their remaining embryos (after they have completed their family) to other couples who for whatever reason can’t produce their own but who can carry a baby to term.

      They call them “snowflake babies” and it’s an increasingly popular option.

  4. “As it happens, there are other human beings who are born with uteruses: males …”

    I hope this is a typo.

    1. “As it happens, there are other creatures who are born with uteruses: sub-women, or as they are sometimes called, males …”

      /SJW off

    2. hm: Damned typo. Fixed now. Thanks.

      1. I thought you were more enlightened Ron. That disclosure should have clued me in though – cisscum and all.

        There really is a set pushing that line though. That like gender, one’s biological sex is also fluid. So yes, plenty of biological males, have uteruses.

        1. “plenty”?

          I do not think that word means what you think it means…

          1. I don’t think you’ve spent enough time reading the claims of the radical gender critics.

            Oh how I envy you…

  5. Ugh. Giving birth is so gross I can’t believe how often it happens.

    1. Well, who says the uterus has to be transplanted to the typical spot you’d find it in women? You culd, in fact, stack multiple cloned uteri on one host and grow a great many people. Sure they’d have to be birthed via caeserian, and you’d probably have to pump a lot of extra blood into the host to keep it alive, but that’s the norm for mad science.

      1. Or skip all that shit and go straight to Axlotl tanks.

        1. The one-per rate on those is terribly inefficient.

        2. We could just go straight to a Brave New World scenario and douse some of the babies with alcohol throughout gestation so we can keep our different classes.

    2. If your parents don’t have children, neither will you.

      1. Holy crap. I never realized infertility was hereditary.

        1. +a google

          Bravo!

  6. The future is going to be awesome, if the luddites don’t get in the way.

    1. Considering how much my wife hates being pregnant, but wants a second kid, I’m not so sure about that.

      1. If you were a real man and loving husband you would volunteer.

  7. Is It Immoral for Men to Gestate? Transgendered Women?

    I was expecting a Eugenics article.

    1. I think that it would have been more awesome if the first question mark was deleted.

      1. yes. agreed. Is it moral to gestate transgendered women?

        Then, if we find markers for this: is it moral to change the sex of the embryo in utero?

        1. It is if you live in Aristos Gabriel’s domaine.

      2. I larfed.

  8. Who’s paying?

  9. Do.
    Not.
    Care.

    1. I don’t either, but man is humanity a weird fucking species.

      1. what if I had the procedure JUST to have an abortion?! who would care then!?!

        1. I think we all know the answer to that.

          1. I stand by my original assessment.

          2. yes. they would want me to swear an oath that if I had the surgery I would never, ever, ever abort.

      2. It’s what makes us such a popular Galactic show.

        1. as evidenced by all the abductions?

        2. Yes, it must be true. The human race was genetically engineered for entertainment on a galactic scale. Homo galacticus hospitalitatem.

          1. What, no one is going to correct my bad Latin? You know, it used to be that Latin would be immediately corrected around here, followed by insults from the original Planet of the Apes and Dune (the book, since no movie has ever been attempted), and a posting of an entire episode of Monty Python.

            1. We’ve gotten lazy. Plus I don’t know Latin.

              1. You need to correct this curious omission.

            2. If Postrel were still here…

              1. You’d all be damned well conjugating Latin verbs if she were here. Oh, yes, the whip would be cracking. She knew how to keep commenters in line, she did.

                1. You are skilled in the ways of kanley

                  1. Exactly. In the old days, comments were like virtual hunter-seekers, homing in on their prey.

        3. We have been number one in the SPIgglegax17 galactic ratings for 2 millennia. Why stop now? (there is some argument whether during the middle ages the Schnoron system took the lead but I think it is a conspiracy).

          1. This reality televisor cube fad has gone one for much longer than expected. It almost ended but for the very popular “World War II” arc.

            1. Yes but WWII was simply a ripoff of WWI as we all know so it gets a -2 for creativity.

              Much like Star Wars is a character by character rip off of the Voyages of Exploration of James Cook.

              James Cook became Jim Kerk. The sailing ship Endevor became the star ship Enterprise etc etc down to almost the last detail. Even Cpt. Kirk’s orders follw Cooks real life orders.

              Just thought ya’ll might like to know.

              Rodenberry is almost a plagarist and certainly a copy cat. Certainly not a creative genious as some propose.

            2. Yes but WWII was simply a ripoff of WWI as we all know so it gets a -2 for creativity.

              Much like Star Wars is a character by character rip off of the Voyages of Exploration of James Cook.

              James Cook became Jim Kerk. The sailing ship Endevor became the star ship Enterprise etc etc down to almost the last detail. Even Cpt. Kirk’s orders follw Cooks real life orders.

              Just thought ya’ll might like to know.

              Rodenberry is almost a plagarist and certainly a copy cat. Certainly not a creative genious as some propose.

      3. Mostly harmless.

        1. Beat me to it.

    2. Do.
      Not.
      Care.

      I agree… conditionally.

      And I think Ron and I might be on opposite sides of this conceptualization.

      Given the steady climb of medicare/medicaid/Obamacare/disability, I’m compelled to care. If not for me, then for my kids.

      1. Yeah, I can’t wait for ObamaCare to include “free” services for male fertility and prenatal care.

        1. Don’t forget abortion !

        2. Don’t forget abortion !

      2. “conceptualization” Heh.

        1. I find Ron to be much more sensible/intelligible if I put the phrase “Setting aside the State’s involvement…” or “Hypothetically speaking…” in front of his messages as though a *everything* is detached from reality and just abstract rhetorical moralizing.

          “Setting aside the State’s involvement Is It Immoral for Men to Gestate? Transgendered Women?”

          “Hypothetically speaking, Why Would A Store Think Cisgendered Women Don’t Want to Share a Restroom with Transgendered Women?”

  10. I suspect the market of men and transgender women insane enough to want to gestate a fetus is so infinitesimally small as to make this a practical impossibility given the cost. Consequently, it should be of negligible concern to anyone.

    1. Like I said above. I agree. But I can see “men” claiming special protections from their employers, getting tax exemptions to gestate fetuses, filing for disability, and popping out exemptions left and right.

      1. So if they are still XY, still have penises but have a uterus (no vag) they are not men?

        1. *Sigh*

          The question asked about men and transwomen. The permutations of the possible scenarios, esp. through time, contain more possibilities than I care to iterate other than “men”.

          And, hilariously, of XY, penis, uterus, vagina criteria you listed, *none* are the classic/basal criteria for male/female/hemaphrodite/eunuch.

    2. “practical impossibility given the cost.”

      Not if it’s a “free” service provided under ObamaCare. And you can bet that there are weirdos out there who will clamor for it.

      1. SLD, of course. Presuming no outside funding, I don’t think the development costs could possibly be recouped.

    3. men who think they’re women are already insane.

  11. The question presumes the point of contention is the political-issue of “Who”-gets-to-gestate…

    ….rather than the actual ethical question of whether its moral to make ‘someone else’s life’ the consequence of your unfortunate fetish.

    1. Isn’t that question the same for those that have genetic defects?

      1. Similar, anyway. And people with easily inheritable conditions like Huntington’s worry about it a lot.

        I think the question is closer to that of human cloning. If you can do it well, fine. But at least when starting out, there is always a chance that you might be making a defective person (or whatever nicer way you want to say it).

        1. In any case, you’re dealing with a risk/reward scenario. If you allow the government to start determining what risk is acceptable, it quickly devolves into a utilitarian argument that I’m not comfortable with.

          1. I don’t think there should be a law against it. But the ethical question is interesting.

            If there is going to be an amazing, technological future, I think bio-engineering has to have a lot to do with it. So I think the risks have to be taken at some point.

            1. The question is already passe.

              Almost ten years ago we had the debate concerning the morality of Deaf parents requesting their embryos be genetically screened for genetic signs of deafness. That is, they only wanted to birth a baby if they knew it would be deaf.

              I consider that to be closer to Gilmore’s actual moral question than curmudgeonly grumbling about father-mothers.

            2. If there is going to be an amazing, technological future, I think bio-engineering has to have a lot to do with it.

              I disagree. At least, not the soft/wet “playing in the mud” bioengineering that we do today.

              Inorganic bodies that run on photons/electrons don’t give two shits about the Goldilocks Zone and a lot of the amazing future stuff we have already achieved was pretty much just to put our own fleshbags and the fleshbags we rode in on to shame.

              1. The intrinsic problems associated with having a hardware soul< will cause this avenue to be slowly abandoned–but not before there is quite a bit of conversion.

                Not many will survive wholly intact to be reconstructed once nanitic perpetual reconstruction is initiated.

                Of course all this will be moot in the 4000’s, when the folly of corporeal immortality is worked out.

      2. “Isn’t that question the same for those that have genetic defects?”

        Close, but not exactly.

        People with genetic “defects” (anomalies?) had no choice in the matter and consequently duck any personal responsibility for their ‘condition’. Choosing to put someone else at risk by choosing to breed certainly has issues, but it reverses the matter from one of “Taking ridiculous risk by choice” to one of “how to minimize the potential risk with the situation we’re given” (if possible)

        One could argue that its fundamentally the same, but i think there are some dicey issues between risks that you “create” versus risk that is forced upon you.

        I believe that TV show was called, “Life Goes On

        1. “how to minimize the potential risk with the situation we’re given”

          I would think that a man trying to gestate would put it exactly that way. They have a situation too, not of their own making. They didn’t choose to be born male.

          1. “They didn’t choose to be born male.”

            You’re turning ‘choice’ into a meaningless mush.

            If a person wants to reproduce, the issue should be to take into the consideration of the progeny *first*

            A healthy male choosing to attempt to give birth to a child when they could otherwise opt to do it “the old-fashioned way” is not (*ethically, at least) same as a down-syndrome couple choosing to breed while doing everything possible to “reduce the genetic risk they were handed”

            As noted = I believe this this was all clarified in season 4 when corky gets a girlfriend

            Call me crazy, but i think people who have objective genetic defects are categorically-different than people who simply ‘believe’ they are actually women when they’re not.

            1. If a person wants to reproduce, the issue should be to take into the consideration of the progeny *first*

              That sentence does not agree with this sentence.

              A healthy male choosing to attempt to give birth to a child when they could otherwise opt to do it “the old-fashioned way” is not (*ethically, at least) same as a down-syndrome couple choosing to breed while doing everything possible to “reduce the genetic risk they were handed”

              You are either prioritizing the “potential” health of the child and enabling the government to determine who can be parents and how or you are giving deference to the prospective parents.

              1. “You are either prioritizing the “potential” health of the child and enabling the government to determine who can be parents “

                I don’t recall saying anything about “Government” in any way.

                The point was basically assuming that people have the biological right to attempt to procreate

                the ethical priority should be placed on doing it in a fashion that has the best potential possible outcomes for the child

                an otherwise healthy male choosing to do it “the hard way” is not the same as people with genetic defects doing it the only possible way available to them.

                Is that clear?

                1. in addition =

                  there isn’t even an assumption being made here that the

                  “male choosing to attempt to gestate a baby”

                  ..is even in any way the biological ‘parent’ of the baby.

                  The question was simply about whether “if a male could… would it be ‘immoral'”

                  It doesn’t require that there be any genetic connection to the child in any way.

                  Whereas the ‘genetic defect’ parent… has only the choice about whether or not to attempt to pass their genes along at all. which, as I noted, I am assuming as a fundamental biological right.

                  Trying to make an ethical comparison of the two is weak because the former has the option to pass on genes with reduced risk. The latter has only the choice whether to try at all. Whether they should – or not – is a separate matter entirely.

                  1. Also: Gattaca

    2. Exactly that. The question is “is it ethical to create a life for the purpose of indulging your fetish?”

      The problem here is that Ron is a crude materialist and thus really can’t justify why people should not be a means to end and just bends over backwards pretending how people who are doing so really are not.

      1. What’s the indulgence of? That the man thinks of himself as a woman? Or that the man/woman wants to do something most women find important, bear a child?

      2. Ron is a crude materialist

        I’ve got my own bones to pick with Ron from time to time, but what exactly is it that makes him a crude materialist?

        As for materialism, we do live in a material universe. Is there some other abstract universe you can show me?

      3. “is it ethical to create a life for the purpose of indulging your fetish?”

        Well, it’s what a lot of people do who reproduce in the usual way. Wanting to make a baby in your own body really isn’t the sort of thing I’d call a fetish. Unless you think that parental instincts are a communist conspiracy or something. I mean, forget about the trangender thing for the moment. Is the woman born without a uterus “indulging a fetish” or following her natural instinct to want to have children?

        In any case, I don’t think whether or not you are indulging a fetish is relevant to the ethics of it. The only relevant question as I see it is: does it pose an unacceptable risk to the person being made this way?

        1. This.

        2. does it pose an unacceptable risk to the person being made this way?

          Who’s going to determine that?

          1. Hopefully the doctors/scientists and the person who wants to make a baby in an unusual way.
            I don’t think a law restricting it is a good idea. And even if it was, the law would almost certainly fail to keep up with technological and scientific developments.

            1. Market laws would arise naturally. In a freed market, malpractice insurers would either not write those risks at all or charge policyholders an appropriately high premium. Similarly the private health insurers of patients would limit it’s own liability exposure to potentially unethical or (too) high risk medical procedures.

              Those high insurance rates and restrictions would drive medical researchers to improve safety and lower the risk that causes higher insurance premiums. Political bureaucracy, legislatures, kings and democratic majorities couldn’t even hope to match the free market’s capacity to produce ethical and optimal outcomes.

          2. maybe the question is who gets to determine the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable. There is risk when women of a certain conceive, but no one is looking to make it illegal.

            1. The bookies who put up their own money.

            2. The bookies who put up their own money.

        3. When my fiance was pregnant, I said quite often that I would have a baby if I could. I still feel that way.

  12. I have no ethical concerns with any of this. I mean, if you can, who am I to tell you if you should.

    That’s right, screw you Goldblum.

    1. DINO DNA!

      1. Spared no expense.

  13. This is an interesting question. Ordinarily I’m all for people modifying themselves in whatever way they want. But when it involves creating another person, I think it becomes more complicated morally. Assuming it can be done well and produces healthy children, I have no problem with it (SLD, etc.).

    1. I don’t think it’s so much an interesting question based on face value, but it’s interesting that of all the problems that have faced humanity throughout our evolutionary history we’re down to such trivial matters as this.

  14. She’s not real. She was made in a cup. Like soup. $130,000 cup of soup. How do you like them egg rolls, Mr. Goldstone? All I know is, it took an extra year before we could add a den.

  15. Bioethics is generally one long, boring discussion founded on denial of human agency.

    If I want a fucking uterus implanted in me and I pay for it with my money, there’s no goddam ethical issue. Period.

    1. For sure. It is when your actions start affecting another person, ie your child, that it becomes a problem

      The real question, besides child birth, is whether it is ethical for me to take your money to indulge your insanity.

      1. Do you think of plastic surgeons this way? To a lot of people their business involves taking people’s money for non necessary procedures sought out to give the patient some sense of identity that many people think can’t be achieved that way.

        1. Yes.

          I think most agree that, say, the surgeon giving an anorexic woman liposuction does so unethically.

          Do you not draw a line somewhere?

          1. Do you not draw a line somewhere?

            we tend to draw that line when force enters the equation. The surgeon is not bringing in the woman at gunpoint and, besides, that seems a bit of stretch. I imagine most docs would not instantly say yes.

            1. “I imagine most docs would not instantly say yes.”

              Doesn’t that make the point that there’s more to it than force?

        2. There are presently cosmetic surgeons who won’t perform certain procedures on certain patients for ethical reasons. It’s not exactly a new issue in the field. See, for example, this article.

          1. And then their is the Dad surgeon out California way who gave his daughter some tits he wasn’t able to the natural way and then told his teen daughter how sexy she looked with her store bought big titties.?

            Ain’t life a bitch.

      2. The real question, besides child birth, is whether it is ethical for me to take your money to indulge your insanity.

        Putting aside the “insanity” question, you know quite well what everyone here things about forcing other people to pay.

        1. I think he meant is it ethical for a doctor to take a person’s money and do the procedure, not about forcing other people to pay for it.

        2. Sorry, I think I misinterpreted.

          From what I understand, doctors don’t just go around cavalierly doing sex changes and uterine implants on people. They generally make sure that the patient is really committed to it and understands the risks and has extensive psychiatric assessments.
          The question still remains as to whether it really delivers the improvements of life that the patient expects. But as long as they know what they are getting into, I don’t see a problem with a surgeon providing someone with the service they ask for, whether or not a good outcome is assured.

          1. From what I understand, doctors don’t just go around cavalierly doing sex changes and uterine implants on people.

            Sure, but in the past, when training was limited, surgery more expensive and specialized, doctors didn’t just go around and perform cosmetic surgeries with a cavalier attitude.

            However, over time, with efficiency gains and the rest, some doctors do perform that which pays irregardless of past ethical standards.

            PM is correct that these ethical issues have been the subject of discussion for years now, possibly decades.

            But the fact there is a discussion is evidence that many believe there are enough doctors not taking their ethical obligations seriously enough to warrant the discussion to begin with.

            As well as the articles published every so often about the patient who is undergoing their 50th procedure.

            And if you believe this will not happen with birthing, I would say it’s already happening when the 60+ year old had twins.

            SLD – but that doesn’t mean concerns are unwarranted, even assuming we’re technologically far away from this becoming widespread anytime soon (which I do agree with).

  16. What a freak show.

  17. Go nuts. Just don’t try to make me lie about your gender while you’re doing it.

    1. “Go nuts. Just don’t try to make me lie about your gender while you’re doing it.”

      I love Paleos!

      1. Delightful.

        1. It is

          1. Needs more mustache-twirling

      2. You think you get to redefine words just because you want to?

        That makes communirification omplitely unpossible.

  18. You know who else was born without a uterus?

    1. That sniper dude?

    2. Johnny-5?

    3. Helen Keller?

    4. Um, me, actually. I have no uterus.

      1. Ohh My GOD Pro L, I never knew. My heart goes out to you.

        wait

        I, I DONT HAVE ONE EITHER!!!!
        *sobs uncontrollably*

  19. Eh, wake me up when we can have artificial wombs outside of actual people in general.

    No one will be able to stop the Titors once we complete the cloning vats secret project.

    1. Goddamn you for constantly reminding me about how terrible CIV V:Beyond Earth was.

      1. Hey, you know what makes sense in the future? All the Slavs who hate each other working together. And of course America is run by a megacorporation.

        1. did you see that matt damon flick Elysium? Holy shit it was stupid. Why would any (alleged) zero cost magic hearler machine be kept only for the rich? How COULD it even be possible? These movies are so blunt and over the top stupid it makes the brains of my unborn descendents hurt.

          1. Why would any (alleged) zero cost magic hearler machine be kept only for the rich? How COULD it even be possible?

            More relevantly, build a machine to cure any and all disease for whomever is inside it? Unpossible.

            Graft an armored exoskeleton and a networked combat system to your nervous system before you die of radiation poisoning? Sure, give the back alley butcher 20 min. to warm up.

          2. It fails its own universe’s rules completely. If I’m some evil bastard capitalist who only cares about profits and I have a magical healing machine, why the hell am I not selling rounds in it to my workers? I get money for providing them magically healing, and my workers live longer, work harder and don’t randomly die from radiation poisoning. What in universe reason is there for the rich people not to have some coin-operated healing booths on Earth?

            Oh, I see, it’s a shitty analogy for free healthcare. Brilliant scifi there.

  20. Ronald Bailey Asks If It Is Immoral to Enable Men and Transgendered Women to Gestate

    And deny women the 500lb “childbirth” bomb in any debate about human suffering? What do you think?

  21. So are there any moral reasons why men and transgendered women should not be permitted to gestate?

    See, you asked the question in the wrong way. Morality and “should it be permitted” are two different questions. Both Progs and Cons confuse these two and a libertarian should know better. You’re delivering the debate right to them!

    Should it be permitted? Of course. You just asked the opposite of the question’ “Should government force of arms be used against it?” and that violates NAP, so no.

    Is it moral? Probably not from a Biblical POV but you probably don’t care.

    “A” is wrong. “A” aggresses against no one. “A” should not be aggressed against.

    1. See, you asked the question in the wrong way. Morality and “should it be permitted” are two different questions. Both Progs and Cons confuse these two and a libertarian should know better. You’re delivering the debate right to them!

      If I’m not mistaken he just asked what the moral reasons would be to justify using government force to prevent this type of reproduction. It’s not two different questions, it’s one discrete question.

      Is it moral? Probably not from a Biblical POV but you probably don’t care.

      The biblical point of view is exactly as relevant to valid morality as any Norse runes about the moral proscriptions of Odin.

      1. It’s not two different questions, it’s one discrete question.

        I didn’t take it that way, and highly doubt most others would. You are right in saying that it could be taken that way.

        The biblical point of view is exactly as relevant to valid morality as any Norse runes about the moral proscriptions of Odin.

        Hence why I said “but you probably don’t care”. Now I want you to adopt or invent a moral system and answer the question yourself.

        (If you take NAP as a moral system, I’ll say you’re kind of close, but still wrong. NAP is part of a moral system, but not the entirety of it. Leaving the dying person on the street may be legal and a fulfillment of NAP, but it isn’t moral.)

        1. If you take NAP as a moral system, I’ll say you’re kind of close, but still wrong. NAP is part of a moral system, but not the entirety of it.

          You’re so good at debating yourself. But setting that aside, no the NAP isn’t all that’s relevant morally, there’s also the principle of self-ownership.

          Leaving the dying person on the street may be legal and a fulfillment of NAP, but it isn’t moral.

          It’s certainly not something I would want to happen to me or my loved ones. But which moral principle does it violate? Maybe the sick person is a pyschopathic rapist or any other range of mitigating circumstances to justify shutting them out. What about a person being sick, entitles them use morality as a chain around the necks of others to hold them in servitude?

          1. But which moral principle does it violate?

            Do unto others, though you don’t care. You have no obligation to help them, but it is wrong to fail to do so. You aren’t held to be their servant as you may do the wrong thing if you wish (and I won’t use force against you).

            no the NAP isn’t all that’s relevant morally, there’s also the principle of self-ownership.

            Sure, you own yourself. It’s still wrong to let a man fall to his death if you can save him. You know it but you cannot explain why.

  22. “Because pregnancy is not a reasonable expectation”

    Living past 50 was previously “not a reasonable expectation”. But what was once not reasonable, now is, because people worked hard to make it that way.

    Hail Science!

    1. Something that I want but am not getting is a human right… I’m sure of it.

    2. Uh, plenty of people lived past 50 as a ‘reasonable expectation’ historically speaking. You’re one of those people who doesn’t understand that those historical ‘average life expectancy’ numbers are heavily slanted due to child mortality right?

      1. People lived past 50, but “reasonable expectation” is a bit strong. Cassiodorus, living in the 6th century, lived over 100 years, but that’s a rare exception. Chaucer, living in the 14th, died at about 50, and was considered elderly.

        Low average life expectancy partly had to do with child mortality, partly with it being much, much more common for young men to die in combat, and partly with medical science not even really existing – a lot of diseases and illnesses that are no big deal now were lethal 100% of the time prior to the 20th c.

        If you were healthy and lucky you could live as long as anybody now, but no one in medieval times *expected* to live much past 45.

  23. Morally wrong? Maybe. But Illegal? Not as long as these knuckledraggers I see walking around Walmart are allowed to procreate.

    1. “Not as long as these knuckledraggers I see walking around Walmart are allowed to procreate.”

      I feel like quoting Episiarch, and saying, “Your Mom?

      but with really *deep*, multidimensional significance

  24. Redundant title is redundant.

  25. More things I don’t care about.

  26. He’s a MAN, man!

    /Austin powers

  27. I strive to become bisexual, tri-gendered AND quad-specied.

    And government shall pay for it all.

    1. That was the perfect cue for maniacal laughter.

  28. I’m going to say that it is not immoral. It gets me that much closer to turning my immediate family members into axolotl tanks to house my seed.

    1. You can make spice that way, too.

      1. So I keep telling my wife. I can always take an additional concubine to raise our children. Surprisingly, she continues to be resistant to the idea.

        1. Bene Gesserit witches are difficult that way.

        2. I used to tell my wife that she was my own perfect axolotl tank. Then she got on Dune wikia… though I have to wonder, what other members of your immediate family would you utilize like an axolotl tank? I hope you’re Mormon.

          1. According to Sigmund Freud, my mother.

  29. More seriously, this seems no more or less unethical than any other parent who chooses to have a child despite not having the attributes of a good parent. For example, I would consider it unethical for someone to choose beforehand to have a child which they have every intention of neglecting, when they have the option not to — downright evil, in fact. A person who is mentally unfit to take care of a child and reasonably handle the burdens of parenthood should not condemn a child to their guardianship.

    Is a transgendered person in that position? A strong argument can be made; it is not mentally sound to believe oneself to be the opposite sex from which one was born and it is certainly correlated with extremely poor life outcomes and decisions. This argument, however, would seem to relate more to adoption/guardianship and not necessarily the biological or scientific elements in play.

  30. We should deny men the right to gestate because any man who wants to give birth is insane, and insane people shouldn’t be parents if at all avoidable.

    Count your blessings and STFU.

    Super cereal, I’m fine with it as long as the dude pays for it.

    1. “I’m fine with it as long as the dude pays for it.”

      Friday is Ladies Night @ Hit y Run

    2. “Super cereal, I’m fine with it as long as the dude pays for it.”

      Me too. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be how things play out.

      1. also agree with the insanity part, ha

  31. “Disclosure: I am a cisgender male with no current interest in gestating.”

    Disclosure Score = 8 out of 10

    (we would have also allowed “a Hetero-CisPig with No Buns in the Oven”; bonus points for referencing any work assisting with the Koch-bros funded clone-army)

  32. Huh. I wonder how well it would really work, even if the transplanted uterus did “take” in the man. Pregnancy is a weird, swirling vat of hormones that the medical community still doesn’t fully understand. I mean, they straight up tell you that they don’t even know what actually triggers labor to happen. It just sort of … does. So I have to wonder, what are the chances they’d actually get the exact right hormonal signals to a developing fetus at the right times when it all has to be done artificially? How many severely screwed up fetuses would be miscarried before one managed to live?

    Oh well, I suppose they would do animal trials first, no? And hey if it works, have at it dudes. Labor hurts like a freakin’ bitch, you can have it! Ha ha.

  33. Shocking revelation:

    I would really like to gestate a neanderthal, if I can find some scientists to pay me (a reasonable stipend for 18 years) to do it.
    I am really intellectually curious as to how a neanderthal raised in modern society would turn out. I suspect that it would prove that neanderthals weren’t anymore meaningfully different from modern humans than blacks or asians are from Europeans.

    1. Mehhhhh. I’ve read a lot of hubabaloo that their language faculties were weaker, for one thing. I think there really are anatomical differences of note. In the grand scheme of things maybe hardly distinguishable, but on close examination I think there is some substantial enough difference.

      1. Language skills possibly weaker, but their tool set was better, which means they were possibly more intelligent.

        There are anatomical differences between humans too. If you look at facial reconstructions, personally, I don’t think the reconstructed neanderthal looks any wierder than any number of modern humans. There are short, stout people with big-ass noses in lots of places. Humans have a wide variation in appearance.

    2. The scientist in me would love to study that. The moralitst in me is wary of that idea.

      I suppose as long as no one is hurt…

      1. Well, if it’s true that neanderthals were more intelligent than homo sapiens, but maybe had weaker language skills, I don’t see it at being much worse than having autism.

    3. I’m pretty sure DNA analysis has already proven that they were significantly more distinct from homo sapiens than different modern human populations are from one another, which isn’t surprising given that Neanderthals were divergent from homo sapiens for far longer than modern human populations have been from one another.

      1. And yet, they managed to interbreed with humans to the extent that current theory is that they weren’t wiped out at all but “genetically swamped”. i.e. they were absorbed into the larger population.

        There are parts of Italy where the DNA makeup is 2% neanderthal.

  34. In the infamous “Man of Steel/Woman of Kleenex”, Larry Niven pointed out that “There are numerous places in the male body where the foetus could survive as a parasite”, even without new technology.

  35. Don’t care, but I don’t think the government should be paying for it.

    If men or transgendered women think they should have a baby through the use of technology, more power to them, as long as they are the one footing the bill.

    But the problem is, they will insist they have a “right” to it, which means the government should pay for it (at least in countries with socialized medicine).

  36. Yeah, so?

  37. The uterine donor in Switzerland was 61 as warranted at least a mention in my opinion.

  38. anything is moral, once the self-constraint is totally disregarded in the public debates about sex http://waltherpragerandphiloso…..raint.html

  39. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life….
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  40. I can only hope that taxpayers didn’t pay for this philosophical “research”.

  41. Wasn’t it Karen Carpenter that sang: Bless the Beasts and the Transgendered

  42. The human population is still increasing, though not as fast as 30 years ago, and this still threatens disaster. We must work hard to slow and end the increase, not add to it.

  43. as a philosophy grad, i would like to point out that the field of ‘bioethics’ has always been almost entirely full of shit

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.