Ship of Fools: If men could get pregnant...

Thread: If men could get pregnant... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028616

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on 29 November, 2011 17:25 :

If men could get pregnant...

Saw this on reddit, (a social news website) and it made me wonder just how would society view abortion if men had always been able to get pregnant.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on 29 November, 2011 17:47 :

If men could get pregnant, they would be equipped with the sort of mind set which could cope with it. The implication of the plate is either that they would regard pregnancy like "man flu" and go all wimpy and find it unendurable, or that they would then recognise the problems arising and be much more reasonable about abortion as a solution of last resort. I suspect the first.

And if the world had then ended up with a virginal male priesthood anyway, they would be just as set on making the difference between them and the child-bearers as great as possible by emphasing the need for those not dedicated to the priestly state to bear as many as possible. It would make an interesting SF story - possibly has. What would be the function of women?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on 29 November, 2011 19:23 :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What would be the function of women?

An excellent question.

Maybe in this imaginary world men and women would not have functions. They would be people. What a wonderful thought.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on 29 November, 2011 21:37 :

I don't think this sticker makes much sense. If men could be pregnant then they would no longer be "men" in a physical sense. If the sticker's scenario is about the minds of current men being existing in female bodies, then it's declaring, though in a twisted manner, a deeply conservative message - that male and female minds are intrinsically different.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on 30 November, 2011 07:24 :

I think it's taken from Gloria Steinem's statement, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacred right/rite". (Heard it rather than read it, so not sure which she meant; may have been a pun.)

I think it's based on the premise that it's (mostly) men making rules about what women can or can't do with their bodies (e.g. abortion)--but if men had to deal with pregnancy in their own bodies, they just might have a different opinion.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on 30 November, 2011 07:39 :

I agree with Bran Stark, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The entire point is that people who can't be pregnant are making rules about pregnancy. If they could get pregnant, they would no longer be in the category of 'people who can't be pregnant'.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on 30 November, 2011 09:39 :

I'd love it.

True equality would reign at last.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on 30 November, 2011 11:02 :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think it's based on the premise that it's (mostly) men making rules about what women can or can't do with their bodies (e.g. abortion)--but if men had to deal with pregnancy in their own bodies, they just might have a different opinion.

I think it's a flawed premise. If we are talking about concern for other people, I would imagine that almost all men count at least some women as people that they care about. If I, for example, am not moved by my sister's (hypothetical) pregnancy scare, my co-worker's similar dilemma is not going to affect me more closely just because he is male.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about self-interest, then yes, I suppose that if I thought I was personally at risk of having an unwanted pregnancy, I'd be more likely to be pro-choice. It is hardly surprising that if I have a strong vested interest in doing something, I'm likely to pay more attention to the reasons why it should be allowed. But it would not follow that just because my sex could get pregnant, I would personally think that I was at risk. I might be celibate, I might be infertile, I might be confident in my own contraceptive choices, I might be happy with the idea of pregnancy. If any of those applied, I have no conscious personal interest in allowing abortion, and the pro-choice argument must therefore rely on my empathy for other people to make its case, in which case the fact that the ‘other people' share my sex is only one (and a weak one) of the many social, moral, and personal factors which make me empathise (or not) with those others.

In other words, if I cared only about the problems of men, and not of women, very likely I wouldn't be someone who cared about other people much at all. The underlying premise to the argument seems to be that this is true of men in general - that we don't care about other people very much, and couldn't be expected to muster any kind of sympathy for a person who does not wish to be pregnant unless someone could force the idea into our thick skulls that something similar might happen to us. Basically, it's sexist bollocks. It's part of the problem that makes empathy between the sexes harder.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on 30 November, 2011 14:29 :

I think it's unhelpful. I'm a pretty pro-choice individual, but I don't think you get anywhere with the "you just want to control women's bodies" line.* Even though I don't agree with the pro-life crowd, I do understand that there is more to their argument than that. And of the people I know, women tend to be the firmly pro-life ones, whereas a great many of the men I know just don't get what the big issue is and why you wouldn't automatically choose to terminate any and every unplanned pregnancy. The sexism straw man isn't doing the pro-choice crowd any favours, and it's not fair to people who've given this issue some serious thought and come out against abortion.

*The equal and opposite version is "you just want people to have whatever depraved, commitment-free sex they want in the knowledge that they can always murder their babies."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 30 November, 2011 15:31 :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think it's unhelpful. I'm a pretty pro-choice individual, but I don't think you get anywhere with the "you just want to control women's bodies" line. Even though I don't agree with the pro-life crowd, I do understand that there is more to their argument than that.

Given how common it is for abortion opponents to carve out exceptions for rape and incest I don't think this argument is completely invalid. I'm not sure I can see any way to make those exceptions other than by regarding unwanted pregnancies as the just and deserved punishment for women who voluntarily have unauthorized sex.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on 30 November, 2011 15:32 :

If men could get pregnant, I think they'd have the baby (by caesarian) and then find a woman to look after it until the age of 18.

Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on 30 November, 2011 16:03 :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If men could get pregnant, I think they'd have the baby (by caesarian) and then find a woman to look after it until the age of 18.

Given the nature of masculine anatomy I would think a ceasarian would be a necessity. And though some men may prefer to be hands off when raising their child (as indeed do some women), the number of men who elect to be the stay at home parent implies that this is far from universal.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on 30 November, 2011 16:10 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given how common it is for abortion opponents to carve out exceptions for rape and incest I don't think this argument is completely invalid. I'm not sure I can see any way to make those exceptions other than by regarding unwanted pregnancies as the just and deserved punishment for women who voluntarily have unauthorized sex.

It feels very weird to be arguing for the pro-life side, but I have to say that if you genuinely believe that the life of every zygote is sacred (which I don't) and should be protected if at all possible then you can't win. If you say no exceptions for rape and incest people call you a monster for insisting that victims bear their rapist's child. If you say that there can be exceptions then people say that you just want to control women's bodies and punish them for having sex. That may be the case with some pro-lifers but I'm pretty sure that in the vast majority of cases, it really is about the life of the foetus.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 30 November, 2011 18:33 :

Except that if someone is making an exception for rape and incest, it's only about the life of some fœtuses. Only extending your concern to fœtuses with the proper pedigree indicates an agenda that goes beyond "the life of the fœtus".

Posted by Fradgan (# 16455) on 30 November, 2011 22:49 :

Here's a more pertinent question... "How would the Flying Wallendas have fared if they all had been born conjoined?"

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on 01 December, 2011 02:11 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that if someone is making an exception for rape and incest, it's only about the life of some fœtuses. Only extending your concern to fœtuses with the proper pedigree indicates an agenda that goes beyond "the life of the fœtus".

'Agenda' is a loaded word.

I think you're right in that it demonstrates that what's expressed as a firm, inviolable rule isn't.

To be honest I think the whole debate would run a lot better if people on BOTH sides portrayed it as a balancing of competing interests. The differences in position often come down to a different opinion as to where the balance lies, most often between the physical well-being of a foetus and the psychological well-being of a woman (in very broad terms).

For what it's worth I am somewhat 'pro-life' (horrible term), in that I would definitely prefer that abortions are only performed for good reason, and I'm not especially convinced that the correct balance is struck these days as to what is regarded as a good reason.

For me regarding rape and incest as a good reason has nothing to do with the 'pedigree' of the foetus, and everything to do with the clear potential for a devastating psychological impact on the mother.

I am less convinced about the psychological impact on mothers/mothers-to-be when a pregnancy is the result of loving, consensual sex. I'm prepared to be persuaded, though.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on 01 December, 2011 02:18 :

If men could get pregnant...

...they'd be women.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on 01 December, 2011 03:59 :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If men could get pregnant...

...they'd be women.

That was kinda my thought. The presupposition of the thought experiment -- that men could get pregnant and remain men and not women -- is nonsense.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on 01 December, 2011 04:57 :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If men could get pregnant...

...they'd be women.
That was kinda my thought. The presupposition of the thought experiment -- that men could get pregnant and remain men and not women -- is nonsense.

Is that reasoning reversible? Are women who can't get pregnant really men?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on 01 December, 2011 05:00 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If men could get pregnant...

...they'd be women.
That was kinda my thought. The presupposition of the thought experiment -- that men could get pregnant and remain men and not women -- is nonsense.
Is that reasoning reversible? Are women who can't get pregnant really men?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought they meant all men, men as a class or group, not just some men.

But you knew that, I think.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on 01 December, 2011 05:01 :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If men could get pregnant...

...they'd be women.
That was kinda my thought. The presupposition of the thought experiment -- that men could get pregnant and remain men and not women -- is nonsense.
Is that reasoning reversible? Are women who can't get pregnant really men?

Only if they can get other women pregnant. [Snigger]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on 01 December, 2011 09:26 :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If, on the other hand, we are talking about self-interest, then yes, I suppose that if I thought I was personally at risk of having an unwanted pregnancy, I'd be more likely to be pro-choice.

Actually, surely in most cultures in most of history, it's been in men's interests for women to at least have access to abortions?

Depending on time and culture, abortion could mean no alimony, no extra mouth to feed, no shotgun wedding, no being shot by angry relatives for "defiling my sister" ...

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on 03 December, 2011 00:19 :

If you scroll down to the bottom two charts, you'll see that there's no significant gender difference (at least among Americans) as who identifies as pro-life vs. pro-choice. So, the answer to the thought experiment would presumably be: it would make no difference.

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on 04 December, 2011 09:21 :

In a brilliant SF book called 'woman on the edge of time' link a future Utopia is explored where neither men nor women become pregnant but couples commit to growing a baby and one or the other of them take the necessary hormones so they can breastfeed.
The premise is that in order to gain true equality, women had to chose to give up their one huge power - creation - so that artificial powers (wealth, status etc) weren't being a compensation. Sorry, been a while since I read it.

All children were wanted, because it was always a conscious decision.

And to those men who say, 'if men could get pregnant they wouldn't be men', total, total bollocks. There is no function of 'man' or 'woman'... it makes me angry because so many women suffer - one way or another - from this stupid idea that pregancy is the ultimate function/reason/task/right of women. If men could get pregant some would be joyously glad and some would be horrified and some would just get on with it and some would just get rid of it.

People in power make decisions, and oddly, people who get pregnant seem to have less corporate power that people who don't. partly because their career path got scrambled and partly because their brain got scrambled and they stopped caring about bigger issues while they looked inward. And partly because of long historic patterns and partly because of cultural conditioning and partly becuase of physical and economic necessity.

But part of a man's desire to control reproduction is jelousy, and part is fear, and part is love [somehow, must be, mustn't it?? however misaligned?] and part is unknowable. Every man had a mother.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on 04 December, 2011 16:59 :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
And to those men who say, 'if men could get pregnant they wouldn't be men', total, total bollocks. There is no function of 'man' or 'woman'... it makes me angry because so many women suffer - one way or another - from this stupid idea that pregancy is the ultimate function/reason/task/right of women.

Well you're welcome to say that the differences between the sexes are trivial and should not result in unequal treatment. But if reproduction isn't at the heart of these differences, then I'd love to know what is.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on 04 December, 2011 17:10 :

quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
In a brilliant SF book called 'woman on the edge of time' link

Marge Piercy. Truly brilliant. Stunning. Depressing as well. A sort of balance between anger and hope. Anyone who hasn't read it should do so at once! Today would be better than tomorrow.

And then they might do well to read The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. Or pretty much any other of her books.

quote:

And to those men who say, 'if men could get pregnant they wouldn't be men', total, total bollocks.

An unfortunate choice of word!

But how can you say that anyway? What is the difference between women and men - between females and males of any species - other than reproduction and various developments consequent on that?

People who can get pregnant are women. People (or other animals) who can get pregnant are female. That's what we mean by "female". Its pretty much the definition of the word.

Its not as if there are somehow preexisting sex-typed souls floating about the noosphere waiting to become embodied. Our minds and personalities and characters and behaviour are pretty much formed by (or in reaction to) our circumstances.

Obviously if there was some operation or magic potion that would turn an adult man into a woman capable of getting pregnant that would be different. But if the human species was somehow changed so that all of us could potentially bear children and not just half of us then either all those people would be women or we'd all be hermaphrodites and there would be no distinction between separate sexes.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Actually, surely in most cultures in most of history, it's been in men's interests for women to at least have access to abortions?

I believe that more couples break up because the man wants children and the woman doesn't than the other way round.

[ 04. December 2011, 16:11: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on 05 December, 2011 00:09 :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
People who can get pregnant are women. People (or other animals) who can get pregnant are female. That's what we mean by "female". Its pretty much the definition of the word.

Except in the case of sea-horses (and some other species of animals which I can't think of off the top of my head).
And the number of species that don't get pregnant at all is vastly larger than the number of species that do.

In humans, the female gamete contains the mitochondria and cytoplasm and stuff that goes on to become the equivalent stuff in all the cells of the child, while the male gamete just contains some nuclear DNA and a delivery system. I assume that this is pretty much the case in all species where we identify males and females.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on 05 December, 2011 04:33 :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

And the number of species that don't get pregnant at all is vastly larger than the number of species that do.

Well for those ones we'll use a different definition then. Biology is about contingent events, not innate essentials. The widest definition of "male" is something like the mating type that produces smaller gametes in a non-isogamous species.

In other words:

quote:

In humans, the female gamete contains the mitochondria and cytoplasm and stuff that goes on to become the equivalent stuff in all the cells of the child, while the male gamete just contains some nuclear DNA and a delivery system. I assume that this is pretty much the case in all species where we identify males and females.

but so? What's that got to do with the point that our personalities are developed from and constrained by our material circumstances?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on 05 December, 2011 11:41 :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What's that got to do with the point that our personalities are developed from and constrained by our material circumstances?

Nothing. I'm being pedantic.

I would agree that it would be hard to recognise as human a society in which it wasn't true that one gender got pregnant and the other didn't. Except that right-wing-liberal economics and political philosophy do describe a society in which pregnancy and child-rearing are aberrant special cases, at their most prominent.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0