My father always says that when it came time for him and my mother to have kids, it was like bam, bam, bam. Pregnancy. Delivery. Three kids. Three years. And that was all there was to it.

It doesn’t seem like so long ago that pregnancy was that simple. Men and women were copulating. Embryos were being inseminated. And, nine months later, wailing children were born unto this world. Bam. Bam. Bam.

Of course, there were always those that took an over-active interest in the wonders of the womb. In Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Mussolini and Hitler launched pro-natal policies — pregnancy stimulus packages that glorified the family and encouraged the production of pure-blooded babes. On the other hand, Communist China began a cutback, introducing its One Child Policy in the 1970s to curb population explosion.

Regulating pregnancy. That seems like some sort of relic of authoritarian times to me.

But should it be?

Bam, bam, bam, no more.

The problem stems from the simple fact that a once-natural process — pregnancy — is now … anything but.

Pregnancy is no longer between a man and woman. Instead, it’s between a man and a woman and their fertility specialist, drug company, state lobbyists, genetic counselor, psychiatrists, senators and fellow taxpayers.

And it’s anything but Copulate-Inseminate-Deliver.

Now that we control so many steps of the pregnancy process, child-bearing has become a bona-fide, for-profit business.

Cha-ching.

Welcome to the embryo exchange.

Some parts of pregnancy are already well-regulated. This week, for example, President Obama signed a bill to encourage lower prices for contraception. And just last week, U.S. judges lowered the age of eligibility for Plan B — a.k.a. “the morning-after pill” —from 18 to 17.

But the focus on pregnancy-termination is old news.

What’s new is the shift in attention towards willing mothers and their nine-month gestation periods.

It’s here that our absolute control has only recently become more complete. We have fertility treatments to help us get pregnant. Genetic screening and pre-natal care during pregnancy. And then, when the moment is right (on a day scheduled for our convenience), we can embrace holy deliverance not with spread legs and labor pains, but with epidurals and a single slice across the mid section.

But as more services become available, the question of regulating them becomes more pressing.

Let’s imagine regulations on getting pregnant.

It’s hard to even conceive of such a thing. Because, on a fundamental level, we see a woman’s right to motherhood as just that: a natural right.

But what about when fertility treatment is involved?

Recall the story of the Octuplets, born to an American mother in January. The case raised a number of ethical concerns about fertility treatments. Did that woman have a right to so many children? Was the risk too high? Was her doctor irresponsible?

And given that the mother, Nadya Suleman, was divorced, jobless, living with her parents, collecting food stamps, AND already the mother of six children ... did she even have a right to be a mother again?

Meanwhile, couples trying to adopt are finding the process more strenuous than ever. They’re subject to “home studies” and psychiatric exams. They need reference letters and parenting classes.

But the Octomom did not adopt; instead, she walked into a fertility clinic. The same situation applies here: Someone wants to get pregnant, but biologically cannot. And the same concern dominates: would she be a suitable parent?

But we would hardly subject someone who requests In-Vitro Fertilization — someone who simply is having trouble getting preggers on her own — to background checks, psychiatric examinations or parenting classes. Right?

I think we can agree that any John and Jane’s decision to become parents should be protected. But we could also explore a number of permutations to this situation that might just push us into grayer area.

What would happen, for example, if Jane was 67 and looking to get pregnant well after menopause? That was the case a few years ago, when a 67-year old woman gave birth to twins after receiving fertility treatment in L.A.

And what if we knew that John was arrested a week ago for driving under the influence? What if Jane is racist and homophobic? What if John has cancer? What if their apartment isn’t up to fire code? What if John and Jane are just plain negligent assholes?

What then?

Speak up, taxpayer. You may be footing the bill for the resulting troubles.

The waters are again muddied once a pregnancy has taken place. Copulation. Insemination … but Delivery no longer comes next.

Now, with costly treatments, couples can hand-pick characteristics of their would-be tot; gender, for example, can already be pre-determined. Experts predict it won’t be long before other fetus features will be ours to decide.

Picture this: We’re a few years down the road, when many of these scientific dreams have become realities. I get hitched and decide to have an offspring.

Now imagine that my husband and I decide we really want a wee Katie Junior — a rosy-faced girl to call our own. Would it be so terrible if we paid the extra dollars to make sure it happened?

I guess not.

OK. Now let’s imagine that my hubby has blue eyes. I have green. What if we come to the conclusion that our pretty pumpkin would be a whole lot of adorable if she had eyes like her Daddy’s?

Now our goal has changed; we’re making decisions meant to boost the aesthetic appeal of our child. It seems harmless enough. So, let’s bring on the blue!

OK. Now let’s posit the notion that my husband is African American; I am Caucasian. What if I wanted little K. Jr. to inherit my skin color genes so that she will be white instead of black.

Umm …

Things just got messy.

Where would we draw the line? Why is selecting gender more acceptable than skin color? It’s a more political decision, based on the political climate of our time. Yet is it a less ethical one?

Let’s not forget that there currently are not national regulations on gender selection. If fertility science keeps advancing footloose and fancy free, we might witness real-life couples making decisions like my hypothetical one just did.

The idea of manipulating a child’s appearance just feels kind of icky. But I’m not sure that my inclination to ickyness is warranted — or that anyone else’s omnipotent sense of icky should guide national politics.

Somehow, someone is going to have to streamline the pregnancy process — and soon. The Yes We Can administration will have decide just how much we can, in fact, do when it comes to interrupting the Copulation-Insemination-Delivery chain.

At the center of this all, the “woman’s right to choose” is expanded from the dichotomous “Can she abort? / Can she not abort?” framework. It comes to mean much more.

A whole lot of weight is resting on the fetus today.

Amidst scientific boom, economic chaos, religious antagonism and ethical ambiguity, the pregnant body reveals itself as a kind of juncture of, and battleground for, the many concerns we have about our society’s rapid growth.

“Have fewer kids, live better lives,” Communist China’s slogan goes.

“Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,” Mussolini said.

“The personal is political,” European women replied.

“I’m not being selfish,” the Octuplets’ mother protested.

“Bam. Bam. Bam,” says my Dad.