Male becomes pregnant?

[Gregory Matthews]

The news today (March 26, 2008) is reporting that a man in Oregon is five months pregnant. He is legally married to a woman. They have been in treatment for some time and according to the news, he is now five months pregnant.

NOTE: This man was formally a woman and he retained his female internal organs.

[Neil D]

Ooooh boy.....the things people do to thier bodies....

[Woody]

Fox reported this to likely be a Hoax.

[D. Allan]

Males miss out on a lot not being able to give birth and nurse a child. Ever think about that?

[Bravus]

'Male' is a relative term in this case.

[John317]

Males miss out on a lot not being able to give birth and nurse a child. Ever think about that?

Yep.

[D. Allan]

Yep

Glad I'm not the only one.

[Amelia]

Actually there is a device for women who don't have enough milk or have adopted to simulate nursing. I don't see why it can't be use by men too.

[David Koot]

Males miss out on a lot not being able to give birth and nurse a child. Ever think about that?

Speak for yourself, D'Allan. Personally, I am very pleased to be a male. Women miss out on a lot by not being males. Life is so much easier, and so much more structured and logical--an ordered and orderly existence, with great things to do and accomplish.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Speak for yourself, D'Allan. Personally, I am very pleased to be a male.

Me too. Although there have been times - I don't wish to be classed with creatures of the macho type, for instance.

Quote:

Women miss out on a lot by not being males.

I not so sure about that! Not sure how this applies but it may be a Tristan Tarza quote that goes, " A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle ." They don't really need us - not like we need them.

As for the main jist of my original post - you don't seem to understand.

[puddles]

Here is what ABC news was reporting on this today:

Transgender Man's Baby May Have Health Problems

I first thought it was a joke but now perhaps not.

[Amelia]

It's still not a man having a child.

[John317]

What you say is true, he does not have an actual male body. His muscles and internal body structure are different so he can bear a child. No matter how many female hormones I might take, even though I might look outwardly like a woman, my body would never be able to carry a developing fetus until birth without rupturing the muscles in the midsection of the body. Also, a man's hip bones are not made to carry a baby, so no matter which way you look at it, it will probably be a long time yet before anyone who has been changed to a woman can give birth to a baby.

I could be wrong about some of this information because it's been a while since I spent a lot of time thinking about it; I am not a doctor, and lots has changed scientifically in the last 3 years.

[John317]

Fox reported this to likely be a Hoax.

Wonder if they realize they're wrong yet. I'm sure they must.

[D. Allan]

Today with all the advances in reproductive science is it possible for two ladies to combine their dna and make a child with out any male dna at all? They can clone, so this must be possible too.

[Amelia]

I think DNA can be combined but there still needs to be fertilization. And that can only come from a male.

[D. Allan]

How about cloning? Is fertilization needed there ?

[D. Allan]

Ok, I see there is a big difference between cloning and combining two different dna strands.

dAb

[D. Allan]

Ok, check it out. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/31/scisperm131.xml

lesbians will reproduce one of these days.

[Amelia]

Curious, but wouldn't the sperm created from a female used to fertilize the egg of her partner, create only females?

I think God in His wisdom made it such that something from both the man and the woman could spark a new original life.

[olger]

This thread is gay

[Tom Wetmore]

In what sense of the word do you mean?

If you mean in the traditional sense of happy and joyful, I haven't noticed that tone as a predominant emotion conveyed by enough posters to have that sense of the word. I might detect amazement, puzzlement, shock, skepticism, but not gaiety.

On the other hand, if you are using it to suggest this thread as exhibiting same gender sexual preference, I am not too sure that forum threads have an identifiable gender nor sexual urges that would give rise to a same gender sexual preference. Indeed as inanimate and intangible electronic signals I think homosexuality for a forum thread is impossible. And I would hate to think that you are making a personal reference to any or all of the participants.

If you are characterizing the substance of the topic, it would seem that you are simply mistaken and misinformed since the topic under discussion is more correctly trans-gender confusion. It has little or nothing to do with same gender sexual preference.

But if your only intended meaning is a disparaging juvenile expletive, we thank you for your meaningful and insightful contribution to the subject at hand. I must assume you know what you are talking about.

Tom

[Woody]

Tom ... So good to see you. Just sorry it had to be to comment on this type of post. Good job though.

[Neil D]

In what sense of the word do you mean?

If you are characterizing the substance of the topic, it would seem that you are simply mistaken and misinformed since the topic under discussion is more correctly trans-gender confusion. It has little or nothing to do with same gender sexual preference.

But if your only intended meaning is a disparaging juvenile expletive, we thank you for your meaningful and insightful contribution to the subject at hand. I must assume you know what you are talking about.

Remind me never to get on your bad side, as you do this sooooooo welll...

[olger]

Thanks Tom. I knew I could count on your syncretic apologetic of all things deviant.