In theory it would be possible for a man to get pregnant and carry a baby to term; (ectopic pregnancy or some sort of womb transplant). But why? With artificial wombs would be useful for women who can’t bear children to have children without the use of a surrogate. Gay male couples could use a surrogate mother or said artificial womb. The only real market would be MtF transexuals who wish to beer children.
Just imagine a gay couple with an artifical womb getting a partial birth abortion. Ann Coulter’s head would explode.
You don’t the benefit to that?
With taxpayer funded planned parenthood.
I see no benefit to male pregnancy aside from transsexuals.
It would allow a gay couple to have a child without a potentially troublesome third party surrogate mother, assuming we don’t develop actual out-of-body artificial wombs. BTW, one term I’ve often heard for such things is “uterine replicators”, coined by Lois McMaster Bujold.
The purpose of male pregnancy is supposedly for the man to bear a child.
Both artificial wombs and womb transplants are science fiction. And when you finally have a working artificial womb why on earth would you choose to insert it into a human (let alone male) body when you could just as easily, and probably more safely, have it standing on your bookshelf – and simultaneously avoid all the unpleasantries with birth, extra unpleasant for a male one should imagine (though I prefer to keep my imagination entirely away from the subject).
Mmmm… beer children…
Maybe a guy wants to have a kid and his wife doesn’t want to carry one? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through, but if having hubby do the pregnancy thing was an option, I’d at least try to get him to take it.
Bragging rights.
Or if the wife can’t have children? I’d like another, but can’t safely have one. My husband is, for reasons I don’t agree with, opposed to adoption. If he could bear the child, we’d both be happy.
I don’t know where you’re getting this “artificial wombs” thing. It’s far more likely that we’ll figure out how to achieve male pregnancy than support a zygote outside a human body. Men at least theoretically have all the bits and pieces needed - we just need to figure out the wiring.
“Honeyyyyyy! Where in the bookcase did you leave the Baby?”
“Under Science Fiction, I think. Top Shelf.”
“It belongs under ‘Parenting’, right next to “What to Expect when you’re Expecting””.
Because it’s an active area of research, a common sci-fi idea, and it would be quite useful.
No doubt, but it’s decades away. Probably even hundreds of years, if it’s possible at all. The OP made it sound ilke existing technology, which it most assuredly isn’t.
I suppose if a couple wanted to have a baby but the wife had had a hysterectomy, and they didn’t want to involve a third party, this would be an option.
But that begs the question: If the man, presumably without a natural uterus, could be made an appropriate carrier for a fetus, why couldn’t a woman, post-hysterectomy, receive the same treatment?
Without getting all “This isn’t what God intended” about it, which I can’t do anyway because I’m an atheist, I have to say there is something about the idea that is so unnatural I can’t even wrap my mind around it. Weren’t there a couple of movies about it? “Rabbit Test,” I think, and one with Arnold Schwarzengroper. The premise was so creepy I had no desire to see either of them. I already have trouble with surrogates (“Mommy, are you my mommy, or is Grandma?”)
My vote: No good could ever come of this!
I didn’t mean to make it sound like it was already possilbe, but there is research being done on artificial wombs. The first application would likely be providing life support for premature infants (which raises some very interesting questions).
Oh, I’d be surprised if it takes thirty years. At a guess, I’d say between 15 to 20 years.
Well, it depends on why she couldn’t have another pregnancy. If, like me, the problem is the uterus, you’re right. I guess an abdominal pregnancy could be done in a woman as theoretically well as a man. But there’s other medical reasons a woman might not be able to be or stay pregnant, and they might still apply: uncontrolled diabetes, for instance, or a single kidney with poor renal function. Maybe she’s HIV positive, or has frequent herpes outbreaks, and he’s clean.
I’m not saying any of these are likely or widespread reasons, but the OP was asking for any possible purpose. Seems like there are some.
The best, of course being “'cause he wants to!” Why shouldn’t a man nurture a baby inside his body if he wants to? I get to play with power tools 'cause I want to, even though my brother’s physically stronger and can use them better than I can naturally.
When WhyBaby was born prematurely (23 weeks), the nurses and doctors and I talked a lot about research being done in this area. Most of them thought a true artificial womb - from conception to independent life, was decades away. Right now, 22 weeks is the absolute minimum that they have any chance at all of saving outside the womb. (Frankly, I’ve heard 22 weeks, but not seen any case studies or verified reports of it. There are one or two websites with unverified claims of 22 weekers who went home after many surgeries with multiple disabilities.) 23 weeks has a 30% survival rate in the very best NICU’s.
But of course they were too busy saving babies to be doing the really cutting edge research. I hope they’re wrong! Goodness knows they’ve come a long way in the last 20 years.
If it’s not too intrusive, why is your husband opposed to adoption?
He’s not opposed to adoption for everyone, but doesn’t think it’s the right choice for him. He feels a strong need for at least one of us to be biologically related to our children. Like I said, I don’t agree with this, and frankly I don’t grok it, but I respect his choice and I did know about it when I married him. I harbor secret hopes that someday it won’t matter as much, as I’d love to be a foster parent and/or adopt bucketloads of kids of all ages…but it’s a compromise I made to marry a wonderful man.