Well actually the following story proves a man could have a baby. . Until Lia Tharby finally gave birth, doctors did not know what was going on inside her body. If they had, they would have advised terminating her pregnancy. But test after test failed to show that the fetus was growing outside her uterus, a condition so rare only four similar births have been documented worldwide. The situation is extremely risky, endangering the lives of both mother and baby because of the great potential for complications. On April 30, Ms. Tharby gave birth to her daughter, Emylea, at 33 weeks. It was only during the vertical caesarean section that doctors discovered the umbilical cord was attached to the outside of the uterus. Emylea had grown in her mother's abdominal cavity, her skull flattened slightly from butting Ms. Tharby's liver. The baby's survival, while being described as miraculous, also lends credibility to a theory almost universally relegated to the realm of science fiction: that any human, woman or man, can give birth.
2006-10-10 10:27:58 · 19 answers · asked by kairi fanboy 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Pregnancy
Thats a load of crap there's no proven studies. Get over it.
2006-10-10 10:29:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. Men do not have ovaries to produce eggs.
2. A man could not possibly even consider enduring the pain of carring around a baby for 40 weeks then birthing it.
3. Where would it come out? lol
2006-10-10 17:49:33 · answer #2 · answered by Jane Doe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would hardly be natural, though. I mean, you'd have to insert a fertilized egg somewhere within a man's body and pray that the umbilical cord would attach somewhere. Then you'd have to make sure the guy and the baby stayed alive and healthy, then you'd have to perform major surgery to remove the baby after nine months. I think it'd just be easier to use a woman.
2006-10-10 17:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by random6x7 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no ,no, that would never have happened if that person was not a woman.
The baby was still being fed through the umbilical cord, a man's body could not do that, a man's body could not even stretch to the capacity of holding a baby, the man would just blow up.
there is alot more to having a baby than just carrying it around, alot has to do with hormones and organs that men just don't have.
2006-10-10 17:30:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes,I've seen facts on the discovery health channel that men can get pregnant,But they cannot give birth to babies due to the system that women have men don't have.And men don't have cervical parts,breast to produce milk,or the part of the reproductive system where the umbilical cord attaches to the baby to get foods and liquids.
2006-10-10 17:33:40 · answer #5 · answered by Sister Queen Mama 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You still need an egg and a sperm to begin the pregnancy, regardless of where it grows. You can have a pregnancy in a place other than a uterus (ectopic pregnancy). Men still cannot produce eggs.
2006-10-10 17:36:56 · answer #6 · answered by emmadropit 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
only if the man had a uterus for the placenta to attach on to filter for the baby...then maybe .......but did you know that men can breast feed they have all the same stuff we do they just have to kick in the hormones!
2006-10-10 17:55:37 · answer #7 · answered by crissymm5 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
she would still have to have come from an egg, men don't have eggs. and the horomones needed during pregnancy would be hard to produce in a male. however if one such man did get pregnant i doubt he would be able to handle the pain of labor and would most certainly die of the pain.
2006-10-10 17:32:42 · answer #8 · answered by littleluvkitty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rent the movie Junior, pal.
2006-10-10 21:11:11 · answer #9 · answered by Rose C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that you are a great story teller! You should write a book!
2006-10-10 17:50:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋