Baby Daddy

The Daily Mail posted an article today, in which they discussed the idea of transplanting wombs into men.

The first third of the article discusses whether or not taxpayers should pay for such surgeries. Ridiculous! The answer is of course: no. Taxpayers should not pay for the lifestyle choices of others - regardless if that choice has a negative or positive impact on society. Having a womb is not a human right. A womb is a birthright to women, and women only, just as a penis is a birthright to men, and men only. If a delusional male wants to have a womb surgically implanted in his body - fine, but he gets to spend his own money to do it, and no one else's. He must also accept any and all consequences for that decision. End of discussion.

The next third discusses how women have already received womb transplants and have successfully given birth. Fantastic! Amazing! It's always awe inspiring to see how far we've come with medical science and how much adversity humanity can overcome. Simply amazing.

But, this point is used to confound the issue. They point to these successes and ask the question: Why not men? Probably because men aren't genetically made to give birth to children! Men don't have a birth canal. Will men give birth through their urethra? Of course not! The only way for men "to give birth" to children would be through C-Section.

C-sections are performed by surgically cutting open the woman, temporarily removing her organs, and then surgically opening the womb to remove the child. Then everything has to be put back into place and sewn shut. This requires months of recovery time. As the primary providers in most relationships, how exactly will the men bring home the bacon? Not to mention all of the potential health risks, although, those are admittedly low.

What about the placenta? We know how it functions in women, but do we know how it function in men? Can we guarantee that it will function the same way? What about lactation? We know that men on estrogen can develop breasts, and these can lactate, but will their lactation be triggered in the same way as women are upon child birth? What complications will be presented by a pregnant man taking an excess of estrogen to make themselves "women"? What about the differences in male and female pelvic bones? Female pelvises are optimized for child bearing, men's aren't. What complications will that present?

I'm just some dude on the internet, but I seem to be more capable of asking more pertinent questions then these writers do!

The last bit pays a lip to the concerns people may have about all of this, but instead of answering any of those possible questions, or even writing one concrete question that needs to be asked, they move the discussion back to taxes. Cowards, and liars by omission.

Throughout this article, they mention a trans-man who is pregnant, pointing to "his" "success". They are so caught up with the idea of a "man" being pregnant that they completely omit the fact "he" must still be a woman, because "he" must obviously still have a functional uterus, vagina, breasts, and the supporting muscular and skeletal anatomy to have a child! Again, lies by omission.

I don't care what this person wants to call itself, but I'm going to call it a woman - because if it can get pregnant and give birth like a woman, it must be a woman.

These writers, these publishers, and these medical professionals are so caught up in this idea that they never stop to ask one very important question: Just because they can, does that mean they should?