The Weirdness of Male Pregnancy

When I first heard about male pregnancy I didn’t even think it was true. The first thought I had was of Arnold Schwarzenegger or bizarre, far-fetched predications about how strange the world will be by in, say, 2275. After researching on the internet and reading articles on various websites, I discovered that it’s not only possible, it’s happening right now. I have tried to keep an open mind while researching and reading, but I really think it’s just a bad idea. It’s unnatural, risky, and wasteful of funds that could be spent researching more important medical issues.
My biggest issue with male pregnancy is that, obviously, the baby will have to be delivered via cesarean section. Cesarean section births can be traumatic for both the mother and the child, and disrupt the natural bonding process that occurs during regular delivery. In addition, because a male pregnancy would mean that there is no water to break or natural stages of contractions, the labor would inevitably be scheduled, again causing potential harm and disruption to the fetus. Also, the risk of severe hemorrhaging is a serious threat to a pregnant man. Because he obviously does not have a uterus, a placenta must be implanted in him, and hormones must be taken to ensure that the placenta binds to the wall of the abdomen. When the cesarean section occurs, the placenta must be essentially “peeled off” the tissue it is bound to, but unlike in female pregnancy, the body responds to this as an unnatural and damaging occurrence, rather than a normal part of labor and delivery. Even women are at risk of sever hemorrhaging during labor, and they’ve been having babies since the beginning of time!
I also truly believe that there is a reason only one sex can have children. It may be old-fashioned or too traditional, but I think that there must be certain important qualities in women that make them the “correct” or more appropriate sex for child-bearing. I think women are naturally more maternal, maybe only because I have been raised in a society that attributes these qualities automatically to females, but maybe because women have specific brain chemicals that allow them to bond to their children, especially during pregnancy. I understand that male seahorses can carry and deliver their babies, a fact pointed to frequently by many male pregnancy supporters, but does it really make sense to compare humans to sea life? Pregnancy is a gender-specific existence; if men were meant to have babies, they would have evolved to be able to do so.
My final argument has two parts. First, there are already enough children in the world. Second, the money that has been and undoubtedly will be spent on researching male pregnancy could be spent of far more pressing medical matters. There are millions of children in the world without parents, so why is it necessary to spend money on researching ways to create more of them? Men have equal rights to adopt children as women, and should consider it as a more realistic option compared with that of becoming pregnant themselves. It is frightening to think about just how much money has already been spent on male pregnancy that could have gone to cancer or AIDS research. This just seems like an unnecessary question of science. Just because we can doesn’t always mean we should.

Source: http://www.malepregnancy.com