Testosterone is dangerous

The vast majority of Americans and all members of Congress believe that reproductive cloning poses a grave threat to humanity and must be banned immediately. Male pregnancy is another newly-feasible, alternative reproductive practice that has yet to be subjected to the same media exposure. Surprisingly, current scientific knowledge suggests that it is likely to be far easier to accomplish than cloning. Furthermore, personal and anecdotal evidence lead me to believe that the market for male pregnancy could be far larger than the market for cloning. (Since I first broached this subject, 15 years ago in a public hearing, I have received dozens of sincere letters from men who want to bear their own children for a variety of reasons). For these reasons, I will argue here that it is critical for the U.S. Congress to put aside its cloning deliberations to focus all efforts on a law against male pregnancy.

With current technology, male pregnancy poses a serious risk of bodily harm, and even death, to the gestating man. It is true that with further research, the risk posed by male pregnancy to both parent and child could be reduced to the risk currently associated with female pregnancy. But even at this future point, male pregnancy will still pose a grave threat to humanity.

It is a little known fact that female pregnancy causes more harm and suffering than war. Every year, it produces millions of severely deformed fetuses and babies (four percent of all live births). Every year, it is directly involved in the horrible death of tens of thousands of women. And even when children created through female pregnancy appear physically normal, millions are destined by birthright to suffer excruciating psychological pain caused by severe clinical depression, schizophrenia, and other forms of mental illness.

Based on these facts, it would seem that the best interests of humanity might be served by a ban on all pregnancies, both male and female. But there is one reason why we can't ban female pregnancy, and one reason why we shouldn't ban it. We can't ban it because it is far too easy to initiate away from prying eyes. Thus, female pregnancy is impossible to police. And even if we could police it effectively, it would be wrong to ban it because the high rate of pregnancy-induced suffering is a natural, and unique, characteristic of our species. No other animal species has such a high natural rate of maternal death during childbirth. No other species has such a high rate of inborn mental illness. We must conclude that human suffering induced by female pregnancy is a Law of Nature, and it would be immoral to go against a Law of Nature.

In contrast, none of the objections to banning female pregnancy apply to male pregnancy. It was never Nature's intention for men to suffer from pregnancy, and so we have a responsibility to protect men that doesn't exist for women in this regard. Furthermore, male pregnancy cannot be initiated in the privacy of a bedroom; it requires fertility specialists and clinics which could be subjected to efficient policing.

There is another reason for banning male pregnancy that is not dependent on moral reasoning. It turns out that men, and men alone, are afflicted with a medical condition known as testosterone poisoning. Testosterone poisoning causes men to engage in stupid and dangerous activities. That's why 94 percent of all prison inmates are men. And that's why we need tough laws against male pregnancy as a deterrent to protect men from their own self-destructive behavior.

The existence of even one male birthmother would make a mockery of the English language. It would degrade the meaning of motherhood. It would challenge the dignity of pregnant women all over the world. Of course, there's no reason why we need limit ourselves to preventing male pregnancy when we can make a law that prevents men from acting like women in any and all ways. I understand that such a law would force certain members of the Princeton Triangle Club to become fugitives after each performance, but as patriotic Americans and Princetonians, we must be willing to relinquish our personal freedom and happiness for the sober good of humanity. Lee Silver is a professor of molecular biology and public affairs. He can be reached at lsilver@princeton.edu.